That should be fun. Perfecting is kind of a bitch.
You doing spot UV, or just overall?
You doing spot UV, or just overall?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Farabomb on September 02, 2016, 12:17:28 PMI did, he asked for help moving a couch as payment.
Fool me once...
Quote from: Farabomb on September 02, 2016, 06:26:12 AMHe forgot fluffer in his job description. :wink:
Quote from: Ear on September 01, 2016, 04:57:39 PMGlad to hear you are happy with work.
... but I call bullshit on the people thing. I think analog shoveler is probably a sweetheart.
Quote from: Ear on September 01, 2016, 01:25:06 PMDamn I miss the daily DCS. You're good at explaining stuff.
Quote from: Grimace on September 01, 2016, 10:50:29 AMQuote from: DigitalCrapShoveler on September 01, 2016, 10:16:03 AMIt's not a bug. In actuality, Adobe "fixed" the problem. You are assigning a stroke with a value of one point to a box set to 1" x 1" or whatever, BUT you are setting the stroke to center on line in the transform palette. Logic would say, because you are adding a stroke that the 1 x 1 box would need to be a half point larger. Try setting the stoke to "inside" and it will be fine.Yeah, i know that is the way InDesign works, but up until now illy has not. I'm of the opinion that if i use the rectangle tool to create a 1 x 1 square and it comes out as such, i should be able to type .5 x .5 into the Transform dialog and expect the same behavior.
I am resizing the object, the stroke is an "add-on" that will vary in weight depending upon what kinda of effect i want. the stroke should not account for the over all size. If I choose to, i can expand the stroke later to have it included as an object.
I also like to be able to over print the stroke for a quick trap. This "fix" wasn't announced in the release notes, for me it's a big hassle.
Quote from: Possum on August 15, 2016, 03:56:57 PMEspecially with all the software we don't have, some jobs I do are just plain easier and faster in Quark by far. Hate to say it, but it's the difference in the way the two apps handle master pages, mostly.
Quote from: Possum on August 15, 2016, 03:28:08 PMI went from PageMaker 2.0 and Corel Draw1.0 to Quark 3 and Illustrator 3 when the business sold. Now the owner wants to change to InDesign, but since we have decades of old files in Quark, I'm not about to do a whole job over just to make a change in a file.
Quote from: pspdfppdfxhd on August 15, 2016, 03:09:22 PM yes, i used to like quark more than pacemaker, uh i mean ragemaker, uh i mean pagemaker at one point... so was not a quick indesign convert at all. But what I really want to know is who the hell ever had to deal with freehand? Never seen one of those files in my 20 years in this gig.
Quote from: Possum on August 15, 2016, 09:32:13 AMNow you'll just have to stay on here to reminisce.
Quote from: DPSprint on August 14, 2016, 06:59:14 PMQuote from: DigitalCrapShoveler on August 12, 2016, 09:03:20 AMsigh... the good old days of freehandQuote from: Farabomb on August 12, 2016, 07:58:15 AMI knew you were going to get your freehand into there somehow.
It was everyones Freehand. I just knew how to use it.
Quote from: Farabomb on August 12, 2016, 07:58:15 AMI knew you were going to get your freehand into there somehow.
Page created in 0.426 seconds with 18 queries.