Quark 7.5 PDF export makes photo's spot black

[Fatboysmart]

I recently updated my Xpress from 7.2 to 7.5. Ever since then, when I make a PDF with the export function, all greyscale photo's print much darker. When I checked the PDF with 'Box of Tricks', I noticed that all black & white photo's are now set as 'spot black', where it used to be 'greyscale'. If I convert the PDF with Box of Tricks back to greyscale, they print fine again, but this shouldn't be necessary to do.

I can't for the life of me find a way to correct it. I have tried different export settings, but they all do the same thing. Even tried to export as .EPS and then distill manually, but no luck there either. So I am thinking it's a 'preference' problem or something. Can someone help me resolve this?

P.S.

I posted this problem on the Quark forums last week, but didn't get any reply.

 

[cjwworld]

Try outputting to .ps file then distill.

 

[claude72]

I have tried different export settings, but they all do the same thing. Even tried to export as .EPS and then distill manually, but no luck there either.

Exporting PostScript from XPress is not the best solution... neither in .PS (in the XPress system, that's the first step of "exporting in PDF"), nor in EPS (AKA "Save page as EPS")...

... generally, it's a better and more reliable way to generate a PostScript file using the Mac OS X printing engine on a virtual printer and then distill manually.

 

[Fatboysmart]

Thanks for the tip. I have tried exporting to PS from Xpress but that didn't resolve anything.
I will try exporting using the OS/X print engine tomorrow when I'm at work again.

Something must have changed between 7.2 and 7.5.

Even if I make a PDF from an 'older' file (made in 7.2) I get this problem, while the PDF I made a few months ago is fine. This without changing any settings of course.

Can anyone double check if it's just me or a general Xpress 'bug'?

 

[cjwworld]

... generally, it's a better and more reliable way to generate a PostScript file using the Mac OS X printing engine on a virtual printer and then distill manually.

hummn, don't think so. You will have fonts issues. But maybe they had changed things in 10.5

 

[claude72]

hummn, don't think so. You will have fonts issues. But maybe they had changed things in 10.5

I have much less problems with PDF distilled from PostScript files made with OS X print engine (AKA OS X PostScript driver) on a virtual printer than with exported PDF from XPress (or from InDesign)... and every times I had a problem with an exported PDF, the problem did disappear when I re-do the PDF using Adobe's Distiller with a .PS file generated by OS X PostScript driver.

When exporting a PDF from XPress, the PostScript intermediate file is generated by Xpress (and transformed in PDF by the Jaws software): whatever the output method you use, .PS file for PDF or EPS files with the "Save page as EPS" command, XPress always generates poor PostScript files... (almost all XPress's users have experienced problems trying to use EPS files exported with the "Save page as EPS" command, either opening them with Illustrator, or importing them in another layout!)...

... so using poor EPS or .PS files exported from XPress, even if distilled by a good Adobe Distiller can only generate poor PDF, and in most cases strange problems occuring with PDF made using an exportation from XPress disappear when generating a good .PS file on a virtual printer (or using Adobe's PDF printer: it's the same process).

Because creating the PostScript file on a virtual printer (using the Acrobat PPD is a good choice) allows you to generate the PostScript file with the PostScript driver of OS X, and avoid XPress (and it's poor PostScript) involved in the PostScript generation.
The only known issue of this method is that there is no crop/trim box in the PDF... the workaround is to set a PDF page size having a constant and known relationship with the document page size: for example 1 inch more (1/2 inch around) or 2 cm more (1 cm around: PDF page is 23 x 31.7 cm for an A4 document)... or to buy a plug-in that adds the trim and crop boxes in the .PS file.

Something must have changed between 7.2 and 7.5.

Yes... Quark always try to improve his PDFexport in each update...
(I remember a bug that occured in the 7.2/7.3x exported PDF and that disappeared in the 7.5 update...)

But in all softwares updates fix many bugs and bring some new!

 

[cjwworld]

after thinking this thru more, we print using OSX. Its the PDF button on the print dialog window then we use adobe distiller to go to PDF..

Sorry, you guys are right..

 

[toronar]

When exporting a PDF from XPress, the PostScript intermediate file is generated by Xpress (and transformed in PDF by the Jaws software): whatever the output method you use, .PS file for PDF or EPS files with the "Save page as EPS" command, XPress always generates poor PostScript files... (almost all XPress's users have experienced problems trying to use EPS files exported with the "Save page as EPS" command, either opening them with Illustrator, or importing them in another layout!)...

... so using poor EPS or .PS files exported from XPress, even if distilled by a good Adobe Distiller can only generate poor PDF, and in most cases strange problems occuring with PDF made using an exportation from XPress disappear when generating a good .PS file on a virtual printer (or using Adobe's PDF printer: it's the same process).

Because creating the PostScript file on a virtual printer (using the Acrobat PPD is a good choice) allows you to generate the PostScript file with the PostScript driver of OS X, and avoid XPress (and it's poor PostScript) involved in the PostScript generation.

You are wrong in that regard. I don't like QuarkXPress at all (I had waaaay too many problems with designer's files here at my prepress department), but I feel I have to clarify a few things:

QuarkXPress will generate it's own postscript code even if you print to a virtual printer. It will always do that, by the way. And the postscript from QuarkXPress is not poor in that way; there are just certain features of postscript that Quark does not utilize at all (smooth shades come to mind).
Export to PDF or PS is the preferred and most reliable method to get a good postscript/PDF out of QuarkXPress. If you have trouble with the Jaws Engine, try deleting Jaws' font cache.

If you don't believe me, compare the generated postscript from the export to the one from the virtual printer; besides a lot of header stuff they are identical. QuarkXPress just passes it's own postscript to OS X's print driver and that driver just adds some headers, nothing more.

In the future, export to PDF will be the only viable way to go because of live transparency and other features that just cannot be transported across postscript well (color management) or at all (transparency, layers).

And as you said, you get defined trim-/bleed-boxes in the PDF/PS.

 

[claude72]

You are wrong in that regard.

I'm ready to believe you... but you will have first to explain why:

- problems using exported EPS ("Save as EPS") file disappear using a PS file crated on a virtual printer,

- problems in PDF created by distilling EPS or PS exported files (with Adobe's Distiller) also disappear with distilling a PS file created on a virtual printer...

... so, why Exported PS and "virtually printed" PS give different results even when they are distilled with the same Distiller and the same settings???

Sorry, but I never examined the files to compare the code inside, but I often compare the results, and the results are different: this shows obviously that somethings are different in the two files, and that the way used to generate the PS file makes the difference.

Export to PDF or PS is the preferred and most reliable method to get a good postscript/PDF out of QuarkXPress. If you have trouble with the Jaws Engine, try deleting Jaws' font cache.

Sorry, no: again, all the problems I experienced with exported PDF disappeared when distilling a "virtually printed PDF"...

... perhaps it is only a simple fonts cache problem, perhaps someting else, I don't know, but I see that there is a problem!!!

And I find your affirmation very funny: you affirm that the exporting method is the best and most reliable method, but you add that it has troubles... but the troubles can easily be fixed...

... sorry again, but if the method has (known) troubles with the Jaws engine fonts cache or somethings else, it is not a reliable method, even if the troubles can easily be fixed!!! a reliable method has no trouble!!!

It will perhaps become a reliable method when the fonts cache issue will be fixed, but for the moment it's a method less reliable than distilling!!!

(and Adobe's Distiller has no font cache to be cleared... lol)