Any advantage to a .PS workflow?

[John Clifford]

Hi James,

Doing this using PostScript is old school, tried and true of course, but honestly, using a 'platform dependent" and "no longer supported" programing language from Adobe - PostScript - makes no sense to me - PDF and JDF are the method that modern developers use to create robust solutions.

PostScript may still be popular and even be used successfully by many people, but it is dead man walking to me, and would never ever propose - for ANY reason - PostScript in a workflow of any sort for any solution.

But, hey, that just me I guess.

Hi Michael, long time no see. You're right on with this but there will be those who will point out that there are still letterpress machines and hand-set type out there and they're still making money. I've been ;running into this idea of not wanting to update for most of my 40+ years in this industry. At least THAT never changes.

 

[David Ingram]

OK some people missing the point of the question.. The question WAS, why do some shops STICK with a .ps workflow? The #1 reason... Cost, you've got an artroom full of Macs and PCs and An imagesetter or platesetter. Your operators know how to calibrate the equipment and you don't waste alot or image alot of bad product. Buying a Integrated workflow system could be 250,000 plus a huge investment in technicians, ripping out walls, downtime, new problems, have to train new people, new media, chemistry, calibration, etc. You cant phase implement this. new imaging. your artroom will be down. Your production will stop and new hardware can take a long tome to install. It is a huge new investment that takes time to implement and dial in. It might require different wiring, electricians, construction, cleanrooms etc.

 

[Jayhawkmike]

For me, .ps workflow means the document is printed to a Postcript file and that is what my RIP uses to create proofs, plates, etc. We all did this for years.

PDF workflow, as we now have, means that the document coming from the desktop application is a PDF file, and that is the intermediate, working file in my system.

PDF workflow does NOT mean I only accept PDF documents into my printing company. Yes, that is an entirely different conversation! 100 ways to make a PDF and 99 of those are not for our printing company. Yes, we can do your edits with Neo and Pitstop, but this can also be a challenge. I tell all my customers who want to supply us PDF files; If you want your printer to be part of the creative process in your project, as in doing lots of color correction, product matching, massive text edits, then by all means, give us your files with links, fonts, etc.!

We encourage and train those who want to supply us PDF files and give them the profiles/job options I require for making them. Currently, 50% or more of our documents arrive as native InDesign, Quark, Illustrator, etc., files.

We take those documents and create PDF files to trap, impose, proof, RIP, etc.

Some of the advantages to PDF workflow over .ps workflow is the increased ability to handle transparency, file sizes much smaller, tracking of where the file is in the workflow, things of that nature. If we had our old .ps workflow, we would have the clumsy CT-LW, we would have to flatten all documents, and because of our customer's designs, this would put us at a disadvantage.

 

[Laurens]

OK some people missing the point of the question.. The question WAS, why do some shops STICK with a .ps workflow?

I reread the original post and think the real question was 'native files or PDF'. The fact that some printers prefer to receive native InDesign or QuarkXPress files does not automatically mean that they will still print PostScript.

There are some advantages to getting native files but in the end, who would ever ask for such files if designers and agencies were capable of consistently delivering good quality print-ready PDF files?

 

[David Ingram]

"Why does this component printer NOT switchover" Hmm... well, I tried to outline the barriers to a switchover (mostly expense, downtime, and retraining) But, this is from someone who has imaged over 70,000+ jobs thru Postscript lvl 1,2,3 (harlequin and adobe) Running pure tiffs, completely uncompressed, with NO jpeg, no encoding, no compression whatsoever can result in a better image on film, or plate. It depends on the frequency and the screening technology used. the rule of thumb is 300 dpi, but at 175+ LPI, subsampling to that 300dpi is not always desired, and if you want that ultimate crispness, (Anyone remember drum scanning transparencies?) Full Tiff no compression is the way to go. Yes it takes longer to RIP! I know i will have 50 ppl screaming at me it dosent make 1 bit of difference over press quality PDF, But I've seen the difference. In the dot, that extra resolution makes.

 

[Tech]

If you want your printer to be part of the creative process in your project, as in doing lots of color correction, product matching, massive text edits, then by all means, give us your files with links, fonts, etc.!

This is what our dept relies on from our printers and hence the reluctance on sending out PDF files or adapting it fully. There are merits in that reasoning, sometimes, designers want to mimic what was previous printed in some of the samples our vendors uses to showcase their capability.

But it's a 2-way street, pricing is vastly different and often cheaper when vendors quote us for PDF files vs. live files.

 

[Tech]

"Why does this component printer NOT switchover" Hmm... well, I tried to outline the barriers to a switchover (mostly expense, downtime, and retraining) But, this is from someone who has imaged over 70,000+ jobs thru Postscript lvl 1,2,3 (harlequin and adobe) Running pure tiffs, completely uncompressed, with NO jpeg, no encoding, no compression whatsoever can result in a better image on film, or plate. It depends on the frequency and the screening technology used. the rule of thumb is 300 dpi, but at 175+ LPI, subsampling to that 300dpi is not always desired, and if you want that ultimate crispness, (Anyone remember drum scanning transparencies?) Full Tiff no compression is the way to go. Yes it takes longer to RIP! I know i will have 50 ppl screaming at me it dosent make 1 bit of difference over press quality PDF, But I've seen the difference. In the dot, that extra resolution makes.

We had an UK designer questioning why our PDF setting doesn't use any compression. My answer is exactly the same as yours.

One thing that bothers me with any PDF/X presets, is the default downsampling. If you pickup any consumer magazine, you can tell how poor the qualities are for most ads... and most, if not all, magazines require that they receive nothing but PDF/X files without knowing they are accepting poor visual quality ads.

 

[toronar]

Running pure tiffs, completely uncompressed, with NO jpeg, no encoding, no compression whatsoever can result in a better image on film, or plate. It depends on the frequency and the screening technology used. the rule of thumb is 300 dpi, but at 175+ LPI, subsampling to that 300dpi is not always desired, and if you want that ultimate crispness, (Anyone remember drum scanning transparencies?) Full Tiff no compression is the way to go. Yes it takes longer to RIP! I know i will have 50 ppl screaming at me it dosent make 1 bit of difference over press quality PDF, But I've seen the difference. In the dot, that extra resolution makes.

I beg to differ on the compression part: there is no difference in quality if you use lossless compression on the data, just smaller files to handle. I can't imagine how the image on film/plate can be better if you don't use lossless compression at all. Because most certainly your RIP makes use of lossless compression, otherwise the imaging data is going to be a huge problem.
A single plate with a format of 1030 mm x 790 mm (40,5 " x 31,1 ") will come down to 970 MByte uncompressed at 2540 dpi. (40,5*2540*31,1*2540/8/1024/1024/1024)

Downsampling can be a problem depending on the image; but lossless compression never is nor will be, hence why it is called "lossless".

 

[Gregg]

I reread the original post and think the real question was 'native files or PDF'. The fact that some printers prefer to receive native InDesign or QuarkXPress files does not automatically mean that they will still print PostScript.

Wow, this post has really blown-up, glad to see it! Good info being communicated.

And my original post was inquiring about a .ps workflow, in which there is no PDF created.

I'm by no means knocking, or calling any vendor out-dated, just curious as to why some change and others don't. I think the post that described all that's involved in switching over to a new workflow was very informative.

We currently supply files in various formats, everything in Asia is still native files, mainly because we are using FPO art until it goes to the repro-house (for most of the titles). If we move printing to Mexico or Europe, I'll supply PDF's, since I will have all hi-rez files at that point. Our main domestic component printer still requests native files, 1-color interior work is PDF, and all of our marketing materials are PDF/x. So we cover it all, more ore less.

 

[David Ingram]

Clarification: The reason an imaging department MAY ask for these files may have nothing to do with the workflow, and everything to do with A) the work being done is higher quality than 150 LPI, OR, B) the customer/ agency in question frequently does have last minute text edits, etc. "Press Quality" and PDF/X are fine for just about 95% of the printing needs in the industry. However on the high end, a high LPI or stochastic/FM screening piece could definitely benefit from being higher resolution than the standard 300 dpi for images. With a PDF, you're locked into the setting the PDF was made. With a native file, you can insure the data to rip is not downsampled in anyway before it is ripped. Dosen't make a huge diff in 95% of the cases, but on that high end stuff, with professional photography, where the client has spent big money on getting a really crisp image, the last thing you want to do is destroy resolution by choosing a PDf preset that will compromise the quality.

 

[Gregg]

I just got back proofs on a title in which we used FM screening. Looks absolutely amazing! Such intense detail. Only drawback is the flaws, in the photographs, are more noticeable, too.

Still, it looks great.

 

[John Clifford]

David,

You mean to tell me that your designers are providing image files that are scanned originally higher than 300dpi? Or that they were digital files that were higher than 300dpi?

I'm finding it hard to believe because every designer that I've dealt with thinks that 300dpi is "press quality" and that's what they work with. I've even tried to educate some of our imaging teachers (both Photoshop teachers and digital photography teachers) the dpi = 2 x lpi rule (not accurate but close) and why they were taught to make scans at 300 dpi. I know my students have NO idea why they use 300dpi, butthat's what they were taught.

If higher res is required, you can certainly set the PDF to not downsample, or to downsample to 400 or 500 or 600 dpi if that's what you want. You'll need to teach them to turn off the jpeg compression anyway as it's turned on by default for InDesign's PDF/x or press quality settings.