Creating photo album - what settings to use when converting to PDFto send to the printing-company?

[c.j[dot]w]

Hello,

I'm designing a photo-album in MS Publisher that will be printed by a
commercial printing-company, and I have some thoughts on how and in what
format to save the document. I'm using Adobe Acrobat 6 to make a PDF out
of the document.

1. The printing-company want the colors to be CMYK. Where can I make
Acrobat store the colors as CMYK? In the settings on tab "Color" I have
some options; in the "Color Management Policies" I can choose "Convert
all colors to sRGB", but nothing like "Convert all colors to CMYK". So
how can I make sure the colors in the PDF will be CMYK? Do I have to
convert all the images I insert in Publisher before I insert them, or what?

2. The margins. How big are they likely to be (with ordinary digital
printing)? And, this is strange: I have set the margins i Publisher to
0. When I preview or convert to PDF, each page suddenly gets four pages
- one page with the main conents (ALL the contents, all the way out to
the paper border), and three pages with what I would have thought would
be the graphics-cut-off in the margins (only this graphic does also
exist in the first of the four pages). This phenomenon is present both
on the side and in the bottom - still (see below) "Publisher paper" is
bigger than "Acrobat paper" in one direction and "Acrobat paper" is
bigger in the other direction! Sorry if I'm terribly unclear, hope you
get what I mean.

3. Acrobat and Publisher seem to have different opinions about how big
an A4 is - Acrobat says 27.94x21.59 cm, Publisher in File->Page Setup
says 29.713x21.008 cm. Who is right, for what size should I do the design?

Thanks in advance!

 

[JL Amerson]

I can only answer the first part but better that than nothing at all.

(I use Acrobat 5 but it shouldn't change these directions too much.) Open
your .pdf file. Start to print it. Change your printer to the Distiller and
click on the Advanced button in the lower left corner. Change the Color
Profile to Photoshop 5 Default CMYK. Select OK and OK.

I had to use this when I had an ad printed in a magazine. It worked just
fine.

JoAnn

Hello,

I'm designing a photo-album in MS Publisher that will be printed by a
commercial printing-company, and I have some thoughts on how and in what
format to save the document. I'm using Adobe Acrobat 6 to make a PDF out
of the document.

1. The printing-company want the colors to be CMYK. Where can I make
Acrobat store the colors as CMYK? In the settings on tab "Color" I have
some options; in the "Color Management Policies" I can choose "Convert
all colors to sRGB", but nothing like "Convert all colors to CMYK". So
how can I make sure the colors in the PDF will be CMYK? Do I have to
convert all the images I insert in Publisher before I insert them, or

what?

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

I'm designing a photo-album in MS Publisher that will be printed by a
commercial printing-company, and I have some thoughts on how and in what
format to save the document.

You should have no independent thoughts on this whatsoever. What you
*should* have are explicitn instructions from your commercial printer.

You should not begin the project at all by yourself; you need to begin
the project by consulting with your commercial printer, who will outline
their requirements for getting the job done to your specification.

Then, and only then, should you begin your work. But your work should
not involve in any way, shape, or form any independent thinking on your
part about "how and in what format to save the document".

 

[°°°MS°Publisher°°°]

The major problem with a photo album in Publisher is how many photographs
and pages you are going to have.

Publisher does not link photographs in the correct way, and if you don't
have Publisher 2002 or 2003 your files will get that big in size it will be
a major issue. Even in Publisher 2002 and 2003 with improved compression
the files will still quickly grow in size.

How many pages is this photo album going to be, with how many pictures per
page.

--

 

[c.j[dot]w]

The major problem with a photo album in Publisher is how many photographs
and pages you are going to have.

Publisher does not link photographs in the correct way, and if you don't
have Publisher 2002 or 2003 your files will get that big in size it will be
a major issue. Even in Publisher 2002 and 2003 with improved compression
the files will still quickly grow in size.

How many pages is this photo album going to be, with how many pictures per
page.

I'm using Publisher 2002, and to now I have used embedded graphics.

The album will be rather comprehensive, something like 50 pages, and
with a number of high-res pictures on each page (each of them between
1000x1000 to 1600x1600).

Will the size be a major problem? Are other softwares better? I tested a
couple of softwares before deciding to use Publisher, and the reason for
that was mainly its intuitive interface and ease-of-use.

 

[c.j[dot]w]

Thanks for the reply. Your point is the same as Dereks. And talking to
the printing-company was the first thing I did, before even starting the
work in Publisher. I asked them what I needed to do, and they just said
"Save as PDF and make sure the colors are CMYK", so I thought that's all
I needed to know... I'll talk to them again to try to get more detailed
instructions.

Thansk everybody for the help!

 

[°°°MS°Publisher°°°]

The file size will become unmanageable and with their being a major bug in Publisher 2002 file format, if you delete or move a picture file the file is not removed internally from the Publisher file, and the Publisher file just grows and Grows and GROWS in size.
You would be far better off using Serif PagePlus which links pictures correctly and keeps no part of the picture in the file.
What is more, Serif PagePlus has CMYK PDF all built in as standard.

--

 

[c.j[dot]w]

The file size will become unmanageable and with their being a major bug
in Publisher 2002 file format, if you delete or move a picture file the
file is not removed internally from the Publisher file, and the
Publisher file just grows and Grows and GROWS in size.
You would be far better off using Serif PagePlus
<http://www.serif.com/pageplus/pageplus9/index.asp>which links pictures
correctly and keeps no part of the picture in the file.
What is more, Serif PagePlus
<http://www.serif.com/pageplus/pageplus9/index.asp> has CMYK PDF all
built in as standard.

It sounds like the perfect software - I will check it out. Thanks for
the advice.

 

[Derek Tree]

Thanks for the reply. Your point is the same as Dereks. And talking to
the printing-company was the first thing I did, before even starting
the work in Publisher. I asked them what I needed to do, and they just
said "Save as PDF and make sure the colors are CMYK", so I thought
that's all I needed to know... I'll talk to them again to try to get
more detailed instructions.

It's in your best interests to so. The alternative is to waste a lot of
time and possibly money by making decisions based on insufficient
information... :-(

There are a hundred and one ways to make a PDF and a hundred and one
apps that can make them. In most cases the results leave a great deal to
be desired.

The proper way to prepare a PDF that is destined to be printed on a
commercial offset litho printing press is to create the artwork in an
application which supports a cmyk workflow and *can* separate rgb images
and any other matter (such as text and vector llustrations) into the
correct cmyk values.

MS Publisher does *not* support cmyk and it is not easy to get work out
of it that will *not* cause problems at the Rip or on press.
The following apps *do* support cmyk:
Adobe Pagemaker
Adobe InDesign
Quark Xpress
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Illustrator
Macromedia Freehand
CorelDraw.

Ideally you should write your finished job to a virtual ps printer and
*then* distill the resulting postscript file to PDF via Acrobat
Distiller.

Your printer *should* have explained this and more to you. But printers
vary in their expertise and in their helpfulness (or lack of any).
Telling you to "Save as PDF and make sure the colors are CMYK"
is akin to a telling a second grade chemistry student to "build a strong
case and make sure you use enough plutonium" when they asked their
teacher how to make an H bomb...
Pre-press may not be rocket science but it *does* require a sound
understanding of the technicalities of putting ink on paper. Which is
not a subject Mr Gates and the folks who write MS software know very
much about...

However, in the end it's up to you. If you enjoy living dangerously and
risking time and money that's your affair. If, OTOH, you want to achieve
a professional result in a professional way at minimal expense you would
be well advised to speak to a professional.
After all, if you wanted the engine in your car rebuilt would you ask a
plumber to do it simply because plumbers know how to use a wrench?


Best wishes,

 

[°°°MS°Publisher°°°]

Derek Tree are you another one of these ill informed poorly educated
printers, or some other think they know it all but fail abysmally.

As Mike K pointed out, you left Serif PagePlus off your list, and Publisher
2003 which also supports CMYK.
Serif PagePlus has the advantage of having PDF built in.

Today the majority of printers have either QABOT (Quite A Box Of Tricks) or
Enfocus Pitstop which will happily separate to CMYK any PDF file. So with
that in mind, an RGB PDF file to a well trained educated well equipped
printer these days is just not a problem.
--

 

[Derek Tree]

Derek Tree are you another one of these ill informed poorly educated
printers, or some other think they know it all but fail abysmally.

I am neither a printer nor poorly educated. I graduated with first class
honours degrees in Print and Design (DipAD and MSc) from Manchester
University in 1974.

During the succeeding 29 years I have worked for (and with) more
printers than you are likely to have had hot dinners. I have also run a
variety of printing presses from single colour GTO's through to web
presses printing national newspapers. In those years I have learned a
few things:

1. Any fool can call themselves a "designer" but it is no guarantee that
(a) they can design their way out of a paper bag and (b) produce artwork
that will separate and print correctly on a printing press.

2. Any fool can pick up a piece of cheap software in their local
computer store and produce a 96pp colour magazine, but there is no
guarantee that anyone will want to read it or that it will separate and
print correctly on a printing press.

3.Most people have an opinion of their own abilities out of all
proportion to their true worth.

4.Most people spend their entire lives trying not to think. Sadly, most
succeed.

5. Most people are too lazy or too insecure or both to ask for help when
they need it, much preferring to muddle along and then blame someone
else for their mistakes when things go wrong.

6. Modern technology has placed ever more sophisticated tools into the
hands of those least qualified, temperamentally or educationally, to use
them successfully. The results are an ever increasing tide of
disinspirational mediocrity, lowered standards and shoddy work.

As Mike K pointed out, you left Serif PagePlus off your list, and Publisher
2003 which also supports CMYK.
Serif PagePlus has the advantage of having PDF built in.

So does Word. This is does not guarantee that either application will
produce pre-press ready and error-free PDF files. The PDF is only as
good as the creator application. Which is only as good as the "features"
it contains. Which are only as good as the person using them.

Today the majority of printers have either QABOT (Quite A Box Of Tricks) or
Enfocus Pitstop which will happily separate to CMYK any PDF file.

Absolute balderdash. Unless, by "happily separate" you mean knocking K
out of an indeterminate background. The truth of the matter is that good
as these applications are they are not "magic bullets". Nor is
separation the only issue in badly produced PDF's. Scaled and rotated
images cause quite as much grief, as do missing or incorrectly embedded
and subsetted fonts, inappropriate image resolution, text knock-outs,
custom HT functions and 4pt serif text.

Rather than placing the onus on the overworked (and usually underpaid
pre-press operator) to turn your sows ears into silk purses do you not
think it would be a more logical (not to mention cheaper and more
courteous) to *LEARN* how to prepare artwork properly in the first
place?

As Peggy pointed out: "I expect you could build a house with a hand saw
and a claw hammer, but why on earth would you want to?"
The answer you appear to favour is "Because I'm too proud to ask for
help and too insecure to admit there might be things I simply don't
know".
What a depressing outlook!

As for leaving Serif off the list. That was deliberate. We have a copy
here but AFAIWA it does *not* fully support a cmyk workflow. The latest
versions may. But as we do not have the *latest* version and I have not
personally used it in many months there would not be much point in me
recommending it. You might also wish to ask yourself the question that
if it *does* do all that InDesign does why is it a tenth of the price?
And please don't tell me it's because Adobe are ripping off their
customers. You get what you pay for in this world, in software as in
anything else. I believe it was one of your compatriots who said that if
you "pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

So with
that in mind, an RGB PDF file to a well trained educated well equipped
printer these days is just not a problem.

If this were not so laughably naive it would be an occasion for tears.
Let me enlighten you. Despite the magical abilities of applications like
Enfocus Pitstop and Aandi Inston's excellent products, the resolution of
errors and omissions in customer supplied PDF files takes up quite as
much time (if not more) than it used to take fixing native files.

Every single printer and pre-press bureaux we deal with on a regular
basis tells the same sorry tale: More than 95% of the PDF's they
receive from their customers require some intervention. 75% require
*major* intervention. We received a total of 21 PDF's last month for a
monthly magazine we produce on behalf of clients. Of those 21 PDF's, 7
had been produced from Quark Xpress, 3 from InDesign, 1 from Pagemaker,
2 from Photoshop and the rest from Microsoft Word. Only *ONE* PDF
required no work at all. 11 required between 10 and 15 minutes work. 6
required half an hour or more work and three required over an hour's
work each.

So that's over 7 hour's work to fix 21 PDF's. Time which *could* have
been avoided *if* the suppliers had bothered to learn how to do their
job professionally. Instead, they prefer (for reasons you are better
placed than me to determine) to remain in blissful ignorance of the
technicalities of print and blame someone else when things go wrong. I
was very happy for them to remain ignorant in the days when customers
handed us a typescript and a bunch of trannies and said "get on with
it". But those days are long gone.

Nowadays customers increasingly want to "do it themselves" for all sorts
of reasons - some valid, some not so valid and some downright
disingenuous. What they seem unwilling to accept are the
responsibilities that go with "doing it themselves". In the end they
(and you - if you fall into this category) are the losers. Because one
way or another they *do* and *will* pay for the results of their
ignorance, arrogance and unwillingness to learn. How? Because we charge
them more, sometimes very much more than we would charge a customer who
supplied impeccable artwork. But they don't and won't know that until
they day comes when learn that there is a lot more to producing artwork
for print than buying a couple of books from Amazon and a copy of Serif
Page Plus from PC World.

Best wishes,

 

[Lyn Eggleston]

Fantastic post, Derek.

 

[Mike Koewler]

Derek Tree wrote:
snipped

As for leaving Serif off the list. That was deliberate. We have a copy
here but AFAIWA it does *not* fully support a cmyk workflow. The latest
versions may. But as we do not have the *latest* version and I have not
personally used it in many months there would not be much point in me
recommending it. You might also wish to ask yourself the question that
if it *does* do all that InDesign does why is it a tenth of the price?
And please don't tell me it's because Adobe are ripping off their
customers. You get what you pay for in this world, in software as in
anything else. I believe it was one of your compatriots who said that if
you "pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

I still use Word 97 (it's only for typing articles without any
formatting) so I don't know if the new version of Mr. Gates' will
directly output pdf files or not, nor do I really care. PP, on the other
hand, will create PDF/X files which, from what I have read, are
pre-press ready. Unlike earlier versions (including PP8 which I believe
you have), it has a CMYK workspace, as well as an RGB one.

There should be no surprise that ID is more powerful than PP and I don't
think Serif would disagree either. But PP will do what "most" designers
need it do, once they are educated.

Respectfully,

Mike

 

[Derek Tree]

I still use Word 97 (it's only for typing articles without any
formatting) so I don't know if the new version of Mr. Gates' will
directly output pdf files or not, nor do I really care. PP, on the
other hand, will create PDF/X files which, from what I have read, are
pre-press ready. Unlike earlier versions (including PP8 which I believe
you have), it has a CMYK workspace, as well as an RGB one.

That's great news. As I said we have an older copy which one of my
colleagues has played with far more than me. Her opinion was "better
than publisher - not a substitute for Quirk". That was then. If it has
now developed some genuine pre-press strengths (the proof of which are,
of course, in the ripping) I'm delighted. We may well look at it again.
The low cost is not an issue. Reliability and a comparable feature set
to Quirk and InDesign are. If it matches up we would seriously consider
it, not least, as I believe I've said before, because it's British.

There should be no surprise that ID is more powerful than PP and I
don't think Serif would disagree either. But PP will do what "most"
designers need it do, once they are educated.

That's the problem. How many *are* educated? More importantly, how many
are prepared to put in the time and effort to learn? IME, very few.

Best wishes,

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi Derek Tree ([email protected]),
in the Microsoft® newsgroups and comp.publish.prepress
you posted:

|| That's great news. As I said we have an older copy which one of my
|| colleagues has played with far more than me. Her opinion was "better
|| than publisher - not a substitute for Quirk". That was then. If it
|| has now developed some genuine pre-press strengths (the proof of
|| which are, of course, in the ripping) I'm delighted.

Derek, as an FYI, Publisher 2003 does now support prepress strength in it's
CMYK Composite support (first time for Publisher). In fact, the person who
implemented this support in Publisher (he works in the commercial printing
division of Microsoft Publisher), used to develop for Quark right before he
recently started at MS. He brought his knowlege with him to MS and added
this feature to this newest version. Ripping the experiences I have seen has
been positive with Publisher 2003.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

 

[Derek Tree]

Hi Derek Tree ([email protected]),
in the Microsoft® newsgroups and comp.publish.prepress
you posted:

|| That's great news. As I said we have an older copy which one of my
|| colleagues has played with far more than me. Her opinion was "better
|| than publisher - not a substitute for Quirk". That was then. If it
|| has now developed some genuine pre-press strengths (the proof of
|| which are, of course, in the ripping) I'm delighted.

Derek, as an FYI, Publisher 2003 does now support prepress strength in it's
CMYK Composite support (first time for Publisher). In fact, the person who
implemented this support in Publisher (he works in the commercial printing
division of Microsoft Publisher), used to develop for Quark right before he
recently started at MS. He brought his knowlege with him to MS and added
this feature to this newest version. Ripping the experiences I have seen has
been positive with Publisher 2003.

So now we know where all the Quirk tekkies went...
And to think that I predicted only a few days ago within these very
hallowed portals:

"It's more likely they'll do a deal with the Beast of Redmond and
re-launch it (Quark Xpress) as the definitive publishing suite for
microshafties under the title "MS PubXpress and bungle it with
Office..."
[cpp thread = Re: Quark 6 Upgrade; 05 December 2003 14:23:51]

Joking aside, your news puts me in something of a quandary.
On the one hand I cannot but applaud Bill the Beast's enterprise, on
the other, I could never bring myself to rely for my daily bread and
butter on a product that came out of Redmond. Yes, I know I use his evil
OS and a few other bits and bobs but that's only until I can afford to
switch to another well-known computer platform, or, to be honest, until
an individual who I cannot name who works for a computer manufacturer I
am not permitted to disclose sends that bloody cheque!

Putting on my cynical pince nez I also wonder whether it isn't simply
another Byzantine plot by the Machiavellian Mr Balmer to extend the iron
grip of the evil empire. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that
Bill is, even as I write, having quiet tête-à-tête with Bruce Chizen
over a "merger"...

Best wishes,

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi Derek Tree ([email protected]),
in the Microsoft® newsgroups
you posted:

|| So now we know where all the Quirk tekkies went...

I wonder how many they actually brought over to the dark side

|| And to think that I predicted only a few days ago within these very
|| hallowed portals:
||
|| "It's more likely they'll do a deal with the Beast of Redmond and
|| re-launch it (Quark Xpress) as the definitive publishing suite for
|| microshafties under the title "MS PubXpress and bungle it with
|| Office..."
|| [cpp thread = Re: Quark 6 Upgrade; 05 December 2003 14:23:51]

Stranger things have happened ;-)

|| the other, I could never bring myself to rely for my daily bread and
|| butter on a product that came out of Redmond.

NEVER bring yourself to rely on your daily bread from ANY single company
;-). While in the prepress business myself for many moons, we offered the
typical quark/adobe acceptance as well as Microsoft Publisher. We made a
"substantial" amount of profit from the SOHO users printing from Microsoft
Publisher. But we didn't soley rely on Publisher. NEVER put all your eggs in
one basket.

|| Putting on my cynical pince nez I also wonder whether it isn't simply
|| another Byzantine plot by the Machiavellian Mr Balmer to extend the
|| iron grip of the evil empire. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to
|| learn that Bill is, even as I write, having quiet tête-à-tête with
|| Bruce Chizen over a "merger"

I suppose whatever it takes to keep the race car and park place/boardwalk
;-) I am happy living at baltic myself.

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

 

[Derek Tree]

NEVER bring yourself to rely on your daily bread from ANY single company
;-). While in the prepress business myself for many moons, we offered the
typical quark/adobe acceptance as well as Microsoft Publisher. We made a
"substantial" amount of profit from the SOHO users printing from Microsoft
Publisher. But we didn't soley rely on Publisher. NEVER put all your eggs in
one basket.

Sound advice. That's why I still have a box of letraset 2000 board, a
couple of rolls of rubylith, two waxers, an IBM golfball and a box of
Swan Morton 10A blades. Sadly the Agfa Repromaster 3500 had to go...

 

[°°°MS°Publisher°°°]

Derek we don't regard or recognise Blitisher education as a standard, due to
the education system in the UK is tenth rate and they fail nobody. Having a
degree in the UK is virtually corn flakes packet stuff that is meaningless.

--

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi °°°MS°Publisher°°° ([email protected])
in the Microsoft® newsgroups
you posted:

| The file size will become unmanageable and with their being a major
| bug in Publisher 2002 file format, if you delete or move a picture
| file the file is not removed internally from the Publisher file, and
| the Publisher file just grows and Grows and GROWS in size.
| You would be far better off using Serif PagePlus which links pictures
| correctly and keeps no part of the picture in the file.
| What is more, Serif PagePlus has CMYK PDF all built in as standard.

This bug can be avoided by using the Save Button on the toolbar or the File

Save As or the File > Save option. One of those prevents items from being

retained after deleting. This is how they fixed it for Publisher 2003, is by
making them consistent. I just forget which menu feature.

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.