Adobe Creative Suite 6 and Creative Cloud

[David Milisock]

Download the trial and test it
How you doing Lukas?

I've been reading this thread with a tongue in cheek approach and noticed only one posst that was on point and it mentioned cost and a declining industry. DEAD ON!

We are printing 500 business cards or up 85' with a crane and boom to build a 25' sign and producing another 10 or so jobs from grand format to laser print on the same day.

Adobe is the way they are because Adobe/MAC users just don't get it, I don't know if cloud is a result of the Adobe user have their heads in the cloud or up their butts. I have Adobe because unfortunately for our industry those in the design industry are using it and STILL 25 years later we get the same crap files from designers, and we charge them a premium to handle their Adobe files. We NEVER use Adobe for any in shop creation and dumped the MAC several years ago, if they must use a MAC then send me a proper PDF file.

I built a 64 bit Windows 7 PRO work station with an SSD (solid state drive) 16 gigs of RAM and a 1 gig video card for under $2,000. Our sales are up and better than that our profit margins are way up. No thanks to Adobe or Apple. Now running 8 systems and discarding low profit clients.

 

[Al Ferrari]

David,

Where can the rest of us get a work station like yours?

Would you consider building them for resale?

Al

 

[David Milisock]

I could check on the cost for resale. We just built it ourself. What kind of warranty would you want?

 

[pmhapp]

I'm not sure I understand David. Adobe CS is obviously software that runs on both Mac and PC platforms. What does building your own PC have to do with using Adobe software? What software do you use in-house? What do you do with 16 gigs of RAM? (Since the thread is on Adobe CS, we won't get into what other issues you will run into with your $2k PC that I won't with my $2K Mac.)

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Just back from Drupa… interersting to see (or not see) anything about CreativeCloud or CS… didn't even see an Adobe add anywhere… it seems the sector is no longer of interest? …or are they under the impression that they are not needing to defend/maintain their position?

 

[David Milisock]

It's the mind set that's the problem, I read the Adobe posts because I'm unfortunately still stuck with a very small minority of my work that comes from that area so I need to deal with the Adobe problems.

I've been doing this for 37 years and the industry has continued to get worse, inflation adjusted, lower pay, lower profit margins, fewer print providers, digital work flows that do not refelct the reality of the physical process. The worst of this is a graphic educational system that stifles free thinking, adapting, overcoming and succeeding are no longer concepts that are concievable let alone taught.

About 30% of my graphic work is traditional print, the rest is wide or grand format and signage. I won't argue that if a significant aspet of your work is long documents, documents that are 32 pages or more then InDesign is a reasonable approach. I will argue the point that this is about the only area where Adobe software has any dedicated use. I rarely use Photoshop anymore even though I have the 64 bit version.

If signage, short document printing, wide and grand format work are a main stay of your work then there are several much more cost effective and profitable processes available to the user, FlexiSign, CorelDRAW, Gerber to mention a few. Our work flow is PDF for the smaller work within the square inch limit of PDF, EPS and TIF for larger work our operating system are 64 bit.

The ability to simultaneously and properly display at high resolution and work in multiple color models thusly simultaneously outputting from RGB, spot color, grayscale and CMYK to the media profile from a software that's fully ICC and postscript compliant for 1/3 the cost of CS is just one example of the superiority available today on the PC. No they don't make this software for the MAC OS and yes this is just one example of that superiority, don't get me going on fixing files from designers for grand format work with transparency in it.

What do I do with 16 gig of RAM? Use it, it's cheap, really why put in less, it only cost a couple hundred bucks.

Now Adobe has another way to screw the uninformed! Go figure.

Don't get me going on MAC verses PC my one company builds and services computers and networks, we have MAC, UNIX, MS and Cisco certified professionals. So we use Windows 7 -64 bit and 32 bit for the older RIPS.

 

[David Milisock]

>or are they under the impression that they are not needing to defend/maintain their position?

Do they figure that the graphic user is stuck with their product and that the user is not adapatable enough to change?

That's an obvious conclusion.

 

[Possumgal]

I've seen discussions relating to the Cloud from people working in companies doing packaging for security-sensitive industries like pharma that prohibit their workstations from being connected to the internet. Ever. Period. How do they get their subscriptions verified if Adobe eventually abandons the packaged product?

 

[David Milisock]

Good thought many of my systems that I manage are blocked from internet access. The very concept that design work stations would have access to the internet is a bit insecure to me. worse off is an uncontrolled acces to the Adobe site.

 

[WI-Flexo]

David
You are making my head spin with your very weak argument. Are you suggesting that we start using sign software in print shops and prep houses?! Are you saying that FlexiSign, Gerber, or Corel have better applications than Adobe? Believe me I do have my own beefs with Adobe but I also spent many years in the sign industry and any argument that any of those software programs can compete with any Adobe program is completely ridiculous. Please explain... and feel free to PM if you would prefer as to not derail the thread.

 

[chevalier]

I've seen discussions relating to the Cloud from people working in companies doing packaging for security-sensitive industries like pharma that prohibit their workstations from being connected to the internet. Ever. Period. How do they get their subscriptions verified if Adobe eventually abandons the packaged product?

These control freaks hire a person to come sit over your shoulder and watch your every move. I've seen it done before - every single press sheet cataloged and hauled away in a Brinks truck.

 

[David Milisock]

It depends on what you're doing, for long documents one either uses something like FrameMaker, Indesign or Quark and if your work requires a good deal of this work then this is about it. For almost all sign work Adobe and Quark are very poor choices for a multitude of reasons. For short documents, large and grand format work and signs CorelDRAW works just fine and is a good general purpose application. If you do the creation and output and digital output is all you do MS Publisher can work.

There are 3 governing technologies in which any properly functions graphics application must comply, ICC, postscript and the GDI. How well an application is suited for any specific task depends on how well the application complies with these technologies.

For example Illustrator is good at illustration but provides non-ICC compliant vector to image conversions and multipage work is a joke. InDesign links images well but is very poor at displaying multiple color models and handling transparency in a cost effective manner with large format graphics. CorelDRAW handles ICC compliance, transparency, very large scale page sizes and short documents well but is very poor at large page count document, a great general graphic application. The list can go on but few learn it as the educational process is Adobe centered.

I'm suggesting that you use what works best for your work flow, I rarely use Adobe products for creation because they are poorly suited for the work we create. I only use Adobe for files brought to me that were created in Adobe, for most general file creation and signs I use CorelDRAW X6.

 

[leonardr]

There are 3 governing technologies in which any properly functions graphics application must comply, ICC, postscript and the GDI.

I would say that your list is quite suspect, because the use of ICC color (which is an excellent thing) is NOT SUPPORTED by either of the two other technologies that you list. Neither Postscript nor ICC are color managed graphics models. You can fake it in Postscript with other color management, but GDI is pure sRGB (period!).

Secondly, both Postscript and GDI are VERY OLD SCHOOL imaging models and aren't used today on any modern devices. Desktops are either PDF (or equivalent) or WPF (or GDI+), print spooling is PDF or XPS, and printers themselves are PDF (or variant), XPS or just raste.

For example Illustrator is good at illustration but provides non-ICC compliant vector to image conversions and multipage work is a joke.

ALL color management in Adobe applications is done using ICC. What gives you any indication that it is not?

InDesign links images well but is very poor at displaying multiple color models and handling transparency in a cost effective manner with large format graphics.

I have to challenge both of those things! InDesign supports multiple color models better than any other application out there by allowing you to include ANY of the 11 different colorspaces supported by PDF on a single page. What more do you want?

It also supports the entire PDF transparency model and maintains that as part of PDF creation, so that it can then be sent on to a native PDF printing device - as you would expect. And if you're still working old-school Postscript, the flattener is more advanced than alternatives. So again, what are you looking for?!?

 

[Hopkins Printing]

InDesign links images well but is very poor at displaying multiple color models and handling transparency in a cost effective manner with large format graphics.

David, you have peaked my curiosity. You say that InDesign is poor at handling transparency in a cost effective manner for large format graphics. I would love to hear your explanation to this. How should transparency be handled so that it is cost effective for (any type of print service)? How do you define cost effective here?

On a side note (catching up on this whole thread), as others have said, while I have my own beefs with Adobe (and Apple) I find that Adobe applications can handle everything I throw at them. Their files process beautifully in my PDF workflow...to say nothing of how well their applications make PDF files in a multitude of ways (whether I want transparency flattened or kept live for example). Color is managed (via ICC color) quite well resulting in press sheets that match my proofs (if their needed) every time! What more could I ask for?!

Granted most of the work I do is commercial print work, however we also provide wide format (which InDesign and Illustrator create files for with no issue). The rip that came with our wide format printer is postscript-based (which I was bummed about) but within 6 months, the manufacturer is replacing it with Adobe's PDF interpreter.

As for being all PC-based, if that's what works for you, great! I have Intel Mac's that cost about the same as what you paid for your PC's. They are 64-bit compliant, have 10 gigs of memory that support Mac OS AND a full Windows environment so my operators get the best of both worlds on one computer (including all the various prepress applications that we use).

 

[David Milisock]

>Neither Postscript nor ICC are color managed graphics models

I said if you read correctly that these technologies govern the subtibility of use of a graphic application. The more complete the applications supports these technologies the better it's suited for a wider range of use. Postscript level 3 by definition supports ICC color management. The GDI is sRGB but modern drivers allow interface in the print stream for the use of media profiles. ICC is a governing technology/operational parameter.

>both Postscript and GDI are VERY OLD SCHOOL imaging models and aren't used today on any modern devices

PDF is a subset of postscript, the GDI as the first handler governs how the applications handles all non-postscript printing.

>ALL color management in Adobe applications is done using ICC. What gives you any indication that it is not?

First the Adobe default of relative colorimetric rendering with black point compensation (last time I checked) is not ICC compliant. Illustrator does not convert properly when convertiong to raster, when converting to raster AI converts R0 G0 B0 to C0 M0 Y0 K100. This is non-ICC compliant and works for laser engraving, CorelDRAW offers this feature for laser engravers with the preserve pure black setting in their color management but Illustrator just does it by default.At least in CS5 I haven't upgraded yet.

>I have to challenge both of those things! InDesign supports multiple color models better than any other application out there by allowing you to include ANY of the 11 different colorspaces supported by PDF on a single page. What more do you want?

Challenge all you want but you'd still be wrong. For one, InDesign does not display spot color using the current Pantone specification of LAB. InDesign lacks a high resolution color managed RGB display for linked images, if you check it's sRGB. These are just a couple examples, now I'll tell you what I have and what Adobe lacks.

I have an application that displays in an infinitely variably controlled by document resolution, ICC controlled RGB, CMYK, Grayscale and LAB designated spot color dsiplay and print. I have a work space up to 150' square, multi-page layout that's great for short documents. The ability to within the application easily flatten overlapping transparency without ripping a PDF into photoshop and ruining small text. All of this for a new license of $500 or less. That's what I have with CorelDRAW and with the many varied RIPs out there it's what we need from Adobe.

 

[David Milisock]

First a little background, after 28 years of just print and watching profit margins go to the dogs I diversified into damn near anything but now about 70% signage so my work has become varied to say the least. My conclusion is that Adobe does not cut it and 99% of Adobe users don't understand how to use their applications.

>David, you have peaked my curiosity. You say that InDesign is poor at handling transparency in a cost effective manner for large format graphics. I would love to hear your explanation to this. How should transparency be handled so that it is cost effective for (any type of print service)? How do you define cost effective here?

Great question. Transparency as everyone knows or should know only exists in a postscript environment (which PDF is) as a bitmap. When working in an environment that requires the use of multiple devices (RIPS) you'll see varied responces to overlapping transparency, many times it's a bad thing.

The solution in many shops is to rip open the PDF into Photoshop and live with the results. If it's in house color shifts can be managed but if the file comes from outside this can be problematic. The other issue is small text and objects can be awful especially for trade show displays where the client can get within 1 or 2 feet.

We have seen this regularly with InDesign files and the only quality solution is a multi-hour rebuild with Photoshop, Illustrator and InDseign. Many times unbillable!!! . Now quality is the key word and something that comes into the picture far less than it should.

An application that gets it for large document sizes allows within the application two things, infinitely variable document resolution controls, this controls many processes. RIP times, files sizes are the big time savers and proper rasterization of special effects is an added bonus. Secondy the ability within the application to flatten transparency within a couple minutes. I have this for many graphic needs with CorelDRAW for 1/3 the price of the Adobe CS.There are other more specialized sign applications but I stuck with mentioning just this one as it is more general in nature.

>What more could I ask for?!

Another good question, REDUCED software costs and increased profits! A return to good business for graphic providers not just for Adobe.

>As for being all PC-based, if that's what works for you, great! I have Intel Mac's that cost about the same as what you paid for your PC's.
They are 64-bit compliant, have 10 gigs of memory that support Mac OS AND a full Windows environment so my operators get the best of both worlds on one computer (including all the various prepress applications that we use).

For people who do not build their systems what you say about cost is close but no matter how you cut it the total cost of MAC ownership is higher. I have severl users who run Windows on the Intel MACs.

Now for my final thought, since the digital revolution the graphic industry has stuck with the MAC and shortly thereafter the Adobe processes. Making the graphic industry non-compatible with industry. and most of the world Within a few years of this so called revolution we have seen fewer shops, fewer graphic professionals, much lower pay scales and much lower profit margins.

Why with such (an over 25 year) record of such performance would we continue to do things the same way and expect a different result?

 

[Hopkins Printing]

David, if my company were 70% wide format work, then our software/hardware costs would likely be lower as in your case. However, given that our primary business is commercial print, we must buy what our customers use (Adobe apps account for 98% of our work (the other 2% being QuarkXPress and other apps)).

Transparency. While I can't speak for everyone, we just aren't experiencing the problems you describe nor do we have to use the workarounds that you mentioned. We leave transparency live both in our native files and resulting PDF files. Our PDF workflow chews through those PDF files and gives us accurate output in return. In the case of a wide-format job, we still produce a PDF but with transparency flattened.

You indeed have a great advantage in that you have employees who can build systems for you so it makes sense that you want an all-PC department. For us, we really don't make money on the computers we use so we compensate by buying what has a good reputation for being a solid product...Mac ;-)

Reduced software costs and increased profits? Yes. We all want this and because of our printing process now following G7 methodology, our make ready costs are as low as they've ever been. And because of G7, color proofs are optional ;-) What's more is that we employ GCR to reduce ink costs and drying times, stabilize color on press making it easier to achieve color (part of reduced make ready). So what we lose in software costs, we amply make up for after the job leaves prepress ;-)

Ultimately, everything I've just said above is more or less meaningless as we are in two different areas of the industry. You use what works for you and the same goes for me and because of this, we are able to produce great things for our industry ;-)

 

[David Milisock]

>I've just said above is more or less meaningly as we are in two different areas of the industry.

Herein lies the issue, we are not in a different industry we just think differently. With computers, graphics is graphics all controlled by the compliance with ICC, GDI and postscript. Fifteen years ago I my company was like yours at the mercy of the Apple/Adobe world. I saw the issues and changed now even my print graphics are greatly more profitable.

The problem relates to why the Cloud was concieved and the focus of this thread, to demonstrate it I'll reprint part of your previous post.

>The rip that came with our wide format printer is postscript-based (which I was bummed about) but within 6 months, the manufacturer is replacing it with Adobe's PDF interpreter.

Why would this be allowed? If they were selling the device it should be ready to go as needed. This is like well honey in 6 months I'll stop coming home drunk and beating you. It's this attitude of allowing Apple, Adobe, Quark and other venders to take advantage of us that has led to Cloud, in my opinion another way to take advantage of us. You're the customer, you derserve to get what you pay for now, not have any strings attached to it.

Roland ships ICC controlled, PDF capable RIPs with their printers for free when you buy a printer, they allow the creation of media profiles and have full support. I have Onyx PosterShop but except for handling multiple devices I can't see why it was $7,000 more than VersaWorks. Certainly Apogee, Meta, Rampage and Harliquin to mention a few all handle transparency differently but justifying the cost difference between them is the key.

 

[WI-Flexo]

WOW! Maybe I should get back into the sign industry and go back to all PC workflow because it sounds like in your world all your hardware and software are absolutely perfect out of the box and never get updates or upgrades. Must be wonderful to be you and have it all figured out. I guess 99% of us in this industry just are not as smart as you. I wonder why no prepress software providers (Esko, Kodak) offer plugins or tools for CorelDraw? They must have their heads in the sand like everyone else but you.

 

[chevalier]

Gotta say most of this banter seems pretty silly. Use the tools that work best for you and your customers.

I didn't know CorelDraw was still around. I found it informative that it is still out there. Score one for competition incentive (albeit minor) for Adobe to improve Illustrator. I haven't seen CorelDraw or a CorelDraw file for nearly a decade.