Jump to content
davedesigner

Press ready "Output Printers Marks" PDF output formatting a mess

Recommended Posts

There's a big problem with outputting press ready PDF's for the unwary using Publisher.  The PDF margins are not even with the setting "Output Printers Marks". As a result knocking the whole PDF out of kilter top and bottom.

Meaning if you unwittingly output your artwork with "Output Printers Marks" and submit the job to an automated print service assuming "you're good to go" you may get an expensive mistake!!!

The attached images illustrate the problem from a typical online print service the has a checker. The fix is only  use "include crop marks" to produce an even margins around the PDF.  QuarkXpress for example can include all marks and still maintain and even margin around.

Screenshot 2019-08-06 at 11.33.52.png

Screenshot 2019-08-06 at 11.33.25.png

Screenshot 2019-08-06 at 12.06.05.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not reproduce it in my attached test  v408 print marks.pdf
(blue: object in page size / red: object in bleed area)

I might not get the point in your warning. I'd assume if sending a PDF with marks but the service doesn't want them then it can be expensive anyway, regardless of your margin issue, right?

Could you explain a little more what might happen caused by the issue you experience? In my opinion it looks related only to parts which will become cut.


macOS 10.14.6, Macbook Pro Retina 15" + Eizo 24"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you output crop mark and page information only on a smaller page say 50x50mm you'll notice the PDF margins higher at the top as an example. 

I'm sure the aPub PDF maybe technically correct with it's Cropbox, Artbox, Trimbox, Bleedbox.  These do look good in Acrobat Pro..  

However the service I was sending to suggests there was a problem (see earlier images) is disconnecting.  And maybe it's no coincidence other mainstream apps all output a PDF with even margins on their default settings?

Screenshot 2019-08-06 at 13.24.48.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say you worry too much about that margin. There is no kind of standard at all for those margin dimensions and no standard for any size or position of these marking items. The margins even can vary for one identical document, depending on the items activated (f. color samples bar).

Therefore an automatic print workflow may not want to get files with markings at all but page size + bleed only.

1 hour ago, davedesigner said:

I'm sure the aPub PDF maybe technically correct with it's Cropbox, Artbox, Trimbox, Bleedbox.  

Only that is what matters. And, of course, to be aware whether the printer software is respecting those marks at all – and is not simply reading the total dimensions of PDF pages. Because THEN it might become 'expensive', for instance if the software places its own marks on the delivered page, for instance to place it together imposed on a larger print sheet ...


macOS 10.14.6, Macbook Pro Retina 15" + Eizo 24"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thomaso said:

Because THEN it might become 'expensive', for instance if the software places its own marks on the delivered page,

This point I'm making is if the Bleedbox/Trimbox was set centrally with the Artbox as a default there's no risk (perceived on not) when adding full printers marks even when these marks are discarded by the workflow.  

 

I'm not going to test (the example below) on a live job and print just to find out there's a problem.

 

 

Screenshot 2019-08-06 at 11.33.25.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, in heaven, I‘d understood, what you mean! And believe me, I sent thousands of print files to the printer in my „career“!

Your last screenshot shows a different „issue“ as the previous one did, doesn‘t it?

Simply give us your sample file and we‘ll see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

Your last screenshot shows a different „issue“ as the previous one did, doesn‘t it?

It's very simple. If you output "any" PDF from AP with "full printers marks" ticked, the artwork is not vertically centred to the PDF as a whole. 

On the face of it it's all technically fine, but when I was uploading an aPub PDF to an online print supplier today that has a "visual PDF checker" you can plainly see it perceives a problem (below)...

2081977020_Screenshot2019-08-06at11_33_52.png.92342a24c6eefecf5192453d6f3dfa67.png

 That being the artwork is not inside the cropmarks (above). Enough so to stop the job to work out what is going on.

58 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

I sent thousands of print files to the printer in my „career“!

Then you've probably noticed that the usual PDF output from say QuarkXpress has the page (or Trimbox) that is perfectly centred both vertically and horizontally with in the PDF total outside boundary (or Artbox).

Quark developers must have a reason for perfectly a centred Artbox/Trimbox... Why have Affinity decided to have a default non-centred PDF?  When this has caused a potential worry when theres no need to be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any online print service that has an automated pdf checker that uses a pdf's page boxes doesn't have this issue. Unfortunately, I also have run into a couple that centers the page. For those, I export without marks/information at all and it has worked out fine...but that couple places doesn't mean all such services work the same. Nor have I sent but a couple jobs done in Affinity applications to, well anywhere.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I export without marks/information at all and it has worked out fine

Being old school I like to see that any bleeds are OK by outputting with tick marks. Having mainly worked with Quark over the years their PDFs are centred so never an issue or concern. 

As a comparison a QuarkXpress PDF (below) goes out of it way to awkwardly jam in the "document name" inside the tick marks so as to maintain a perfectly centred PDF.  Which is probably a good thing on the whole.  I hope AP can follow suit?

1775466794_Project1_Testpagewithmarks.png.f0a180b9428fb85e5d4e816531c1adc3.png 

Below is the above Quark PDF in the online PDF checker - all aligned and perfect.

103112359_Screenshot2019-08-06at19_40_51.png.642cfa7febd513206ba17fcbcdf09121.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davedesigner said:

Nor me, I'm testing Affinity Publisher on a few live jobs and ultimately as a replacement to Quark. ...

There are so many other things about APub (from missing functionality, work-flow and output, etc) that it may be years before I can use it to replace anything. And during that APub catch-up period, it's not like Q or ID will also not progress and I will likely get use to using that "new" functionality.

Good luck!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, davedesigner said:

I'm very surprised at your negativity. APub is already more than sufficient for smaller print projects...

What was negative? I was being honest about the type of work I do compared to both the current capabilities and how APub actually operates. For instance, data merge is required for many things I do. But not just a typical address, etc., data merge. There are other things that should happen during a merge. Take the following. During the merge, aside from names from the database, master pages need changed to another color, logos etc.

Capture_000131.png.f88d957f1829d73b9cdfc9574e7a4171.png

How would I do this for hundreds of entries? Manually. It would take part of a day. And at that, only if master pages behave. Instead, in less than 5 seconds it is finished with a robust and extensible data merge.

I use tagged text for even something as simple as books, like novels. Why? Because no one application can faithfully import .docx/.rtf files without some formatting issues. That goes for Q&ID, too. Tagged text comes in pure. I can set simple books faster.

While you wrote "smaller print jobs," my question to you would be why? Why would I use APub when there are/can be various output issues? Font issues? Color issues? etc., when I do not have these issues in X,Y or Z application. Because I own APub? That's not a good reason. The above illustration is what I call simple--in fact, about as simple as it can get. It is the lack of features/work-flow that prevents me using APub.

I will continue to Use APub/AD. And as they mature I suspect I'll use them more.

5 hours ago, davedesigner said:

...Especially so when all your design vector/image work can be done in one place using StudioLink.

I know adherents believe this capability is the best thing since sliced bread. I personally do not believe it is and still struggle with understanding of how it helps me doing layout work...and that applies if I were making a simple brochure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

For instance, data merge is required for many things I do

It's obvious that's not the market APub is aiming for, at least not for a long while.  For the small print projects for me APub pretty much nails it "as is" (subject to teething issues) 

All the data driven publishing (for me) has long since gone to dynamic websites where I act as a front end developer (my main work).  The cost of maintaining Quark yearly updates or a InDesign subscription is overkill for the small proportion of print work that comes in these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, davedesigner said:

It's obvious that's not the market APub is aiming for, at least not for a long while.  For the small print projects for me APub pretty much nails it "as is" (subject to teething issues) 

All the data driven publishing (for me) has long since gone to dynamic websites where I act as a front end developer (my main work).  The cost of maintaining Quark yearly updates or a InDesign subscription is overkill for the small proportion of print work that comes in these days.

That's why I mentioned the for me comment to begin with. That said, APub is also aimed at book layout. I don't find it fit to use for books in a comparable (to other layout applications) manner.

I do understand that for many, APub is both capable and functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.