'to PDF or not to PDF, that is the question' ...

I have been at the front end of prepress for many years.
I am dismayed to see threads here from people still trying to submit files that are incorrectly setup or using inappropriate applications.
I guess where there is an 'open loop' in the production process these problems will still occur.
For many years I have struggled to get some clients to submit PDF/X-1a:2001 files that are 'ready to go':
http://www.imagesetting.com/prepress.html#PDFFiles
Often we still experience problems with those files, transparency being a big issue.

Despite the efficiency of working with PDF's (ie compact files - easier to transmit) we are almost going backwards - now requesting on some complex jobs - clients not to submit PDF's, but submit native application files - and us here doing the PDF creation - dealing with any transparency issues ourselves.
Is this the experience of any others ??
As always in an industry with different standards and forms of interpretation of files (ie RIPs) we will all get differing results - am interested to hear others opinions.

 

Why not simply supply distiller job options to your customers? This way at least you know that their pdf's will have been created to your standard. It may not catch all of the problem pdf's, but it's a free solution that'll surely help some.

 

got to agree with imagesetting here, the trouble is that microsoft are now incorporating pdfs in publisher. Which i suppose is evolution, unfortunatly this means the general people using it can easily publish to pdf, without knowing whats what. ie i had a full colour job sent to me in rgb, i had to separate it and when printed well you know how they look. That was a while ago but now i prefer to have the original document whatever programme it is done in and work it for myself.

 

Thanks for your replies.

Sending clients your distiller settings is fine if its a regular client, and if you can trust them to actually select them in Distiller.
But that will not resolve every issue if the file is setup poorly in the first place.
Even if they are using your settings, distiller may still not flatten correctly (at least in our experience - correct me if otherwise, I have the feeling Distiller or Acrobats flattening features dont always know how to handle whats requested of them).

This flattening issue would certainly be acerbated if using non Adobe Apps. such as Publisher or Coreldraw. We have experienced very random results using Distiller and Acrobat to flatten unflattened transparency from these Apps. (saying that we haven't output anything from those 'hack' tools for quite a while).

Bringing me back to my original question - where we cant trusty the source should you simply request the native application files. Is that your experiences, interested to know opinions.

http://www.imagesetting.com

 

I hear you, one solution is to have a luncheon with the repeat clients and teach them why, and how it will save them $, and get a better product. Send them home with an info brochure to help them remember. Unfortually some just don't care, and we make them pay, so take the front end out for lunch to calm them down.

 

Stupidity surcharges...it's the only way to make them understand.

I'm pretty well over clients not supplying the right file formats, (not the right colours, built in word, no bleed) then explaining to them what is required to achieve the best quality, giving them brochures on how to supply files, drawing them pictures, making templates and pre-sets going around to their office and showing them physically...only to have my efforts blatantly ignored.
then they ask my why their print doesn't appear the way it did in their outrageous designer fantasies.


worst offense is supplying an RGB file with 72 dpi for printing. *feels angry just thinking about it*

 

Yes, an Idiot Levy.

We tried to institute a dual band service:

1) for those who set up files correctly, and
2) those who didn't

Charges and output time varied according to which service they picked, after all we believed some people would be willing to pay for service 2 - a service where we would check everything and ensure quality of output ... no takers though, and we just ended up being duped. Then PDF's came along, just to add another layer enabling such people to hide their inability to learn.
Having tight preflight is great - but you still have to do the work the client should have done in the first place, if the files are duff.
In the early days it was common place for many clients to not setup files correctly, and we often nursed jobs through (not aided by ropey Mac platforms and RIPs) - it was simply no good to flag up a job and tell them to put it right - the job would have just walked - which we hated, so we'd get stuck in - holding up other jobs and costing us labour, often more than the job might be worth. Worst is, these types of clients never seemed to appreciate that
http://www.imagesetting.com

 

I just thought I would add because it is a big point for me...

is it's quite a common feeling amongst the pre-press crowd that their work is under-valued. A big contribution to this is the constant correcting of files for free. Most of us paid for and attended at least two years of formal training to do what we do.

Do you get a brick layer to lay one brick at a time, and then because he never spent more then five minutes at a time, tell him it should be free and refuse to pay for it?
Do you go into McDonalds, demand a cheese burger, one ingredient at the time, drop half of it on the floor then refuse to pay for it?

Do you go into the Supermarket, tell the cashier that they need your whole shopping list to the counter in ten minutes or your going to shop somewhere else, neglecting to realize that you didn't give them a shopping list, you gave them the lyrics to "Achy Breaky Heart". It's upto the cashier to read your mind and to know what you wanted from the supermarket.

no

...so why do they do it to us?!!!!

 

They do it because they dont understand the process.

They cobble together a file, deceiving themselves it will print at the service providers ("look it printed on my desktop printer OK"), but knowingly submit it detaching themselves from the hell they have created.
Deep down they have a feeling somethings not right when they receive the phone call from us, but once committed they are too proud to admit, a brief explanation of the process leaves them confused and often angry, knowing the job will cost more and most likely be late. No one wants to be called incompetent.

Sadly I think greed plays a role, we as an industry allow these people to court us with their promise of work, and we are fearful of making the process too complicated for the client.
We both make assumptions that technology will smooth the path of production, sadly that falls apart when someone comes in under the radar with duff files.
Maybe as a business - people need to aim to deal solely with clients who have the necessary skills to set up files correctly, we always have, and files coming from unknown sources be dealt with as if they will turn out to be files from hell, and cost accordingly.

Are you offering a service or a product, if your taking work in off the street you should expect to have to 'Triage' the files.

http://www.imagesetting.com

 

I read the posts in this thread and have come to the conclusion that we should have strangled desktop publishing at birth.

I've lost count of how many cr*ppy Word/Publisher/Corel/Powerpoint (yes Powerpoint!)/Excel/Xara files we have taken and sorted for free over the years.

And yes, we would all love to charge for it, but as previously pointed out, we're all too aware that Joe Bloggs Printshop down the street will do it for free and take the work.

Worst file ever? Someone start a poll please.

Anyway, now we've all cried in our beers ...take a look at this and see if any of it rings a bell...

Click me