Quote from: K3NS4N on October 13, 2015, 11:14:27 PM

Quote from: abc on October 13, 2015, 03:53:37 PMYou could remove all the overprint after the file has been exported in a tool like PitStop.
Bear in mind though this could effect transparency so you need to be wary.

I also am curious why you want to do this?

In my work, I use usually Illustrator and CorelDraw.
When I want export pdf files, this app has an option for disregard overprints, but I wonder if Illustrator has this option too.
The reason is because designers sometimes put overprint white color or maybe other color and don't understand the problem this can produce.

The solution to your problem is for you to understand why we do overprint and knockout in our design. Then ask your boss to buy relevant application and send you to training :-)

//Lyzan

Quote from: pmdark on November 06, 2015, 01:39:23 AM

Quote from: Joe on November 06, 2015, 01:05:05 AMYeah I don't know that you can either. I use CONNECT. 

This is not even close to your situation as I am on a Mac but I do have Acrobat DC on this Mac but my version of Preps is version 7. I created a new job and added a set of pages created in InDesign CS5 and printed an imposed PDF and I didn't get the error you are getting.

When are you getting the error? When it starts to print and fails or does it print the PDF and you get the error when you try to open it in Acrobat? Or where exactly?

=3= rawr! my boss should really consider upgrading to a higher version! The error happens when it starts to print ...

No, you just need to downgrade to PDF/X-1a.

//Lyzan

I am not sure if you are going to achieve your goal but you can try. It is very important that your friend's press is running with known ink densities. Linearize your plate, if you will not do that, then it is just a wast of time.

Anyway, you do not need the 23 points. Just use 3 points.

//Lyzan

Quote from: engin06 on November 04, 2015, 11:02:20 PM

Quote from: engin06 on November 04, 2015, 10:59:02 PM

Quote from: Lyzan on November 04, 2015, 12:16:57 PMPress calibration is not an easy job and an expensive undertakings if done correctly according to standard procedure. From your post, I can say that you are not in for standardization-internal or international standards. You just need a "patch" fix. There are two ways you can do this.

1. Forget about any calibration. Just use the page tone adjustment in XMF under signature tab. Here you can adjust page-by-page the 50% value of CMYK in -25/25 increment I think. BTW, I have not tried this feature, but it's there.
2. Remove any linearization curve. Run your test form at norm density that your friend's using. Enter values that you wish base on your test form result in the linearization tab instead of using characterization tab. Here you are compensating the press without regards with any standard norms. It was like you are using an image editing curves, :-)

But then the correct procedure is to follow either PSO or Gracol guidelines.

//Lyzan

Thank you Lyzan,

I will just check the tone values against standarts I mean If 40 % CMY are 53 % and K 56 % and also undertones where they are in .
Simply a compansation I will follow, since there are some adjusted values I know someone made them, I will correct after the dot test image against the standard TVI values in the attachment ( which I copied from medienstandard document of BVDM).
Do you have a follow up procedure just for this, I mean to correct the existing tonal value curve values after test print whixh will show the present dot increase status?

Regards,

Engin

With that table, you shall follow PSO guidelines. Here's a brief summary of the guidelines.

1. Standardized your file acceptance and preparation. Emphasize on color management.
2. Linearize your plate. Check uniformity across the plate.
3. Run your test form to find optimum density of the press. Compare color space with 12647-2 requirements.
4. After satisfying yourself on your color space base on your optimum density, run your test form for dot area using the optimum density.
5. Enter the result in XMF characterization. Put all relevant information especially paper and ink information. In characterization, you will have something like - target (from your table) and actual (your reading from your test form).

This is a cycle until you get what you wanted.

//Lyzan

Quote from: prepress2 on August 21, 2015, 08:55:11 AMWe've been using Co-Res for over 4 years now. Other than pressmen's problems of loosing standard screen angles built into AM screening there hasn't been any problems. With the adaptive features built into the Co-Res technology moires and stepped gradients are a non-issue. I personally love it.

Co-res makes your CTP run 2x faster than FFQS standard screening. That is instead of running your CTP at 2400, you will be able to run it in 1200. That is the major benefit.

//Lyzan

Press calibration is not an easy job and an expensive undertakings if done correctly according to standard procedure. From your post, I can say that you are not in for standardization-internal or international standards. You just need a "patch" fix. There are two ways you can do this.

1. Forget about any calibration. Just use the page tone adjustment in XMF under signature tab. Here you can adjust page-by-page the 50% value of CMYK in -25/25 increment I think. BTW, I have not tried this feature, but it's there.
2. Remove any linearization curve. Run your test form at norm density that your friend's using. Enter values that you wish base on your test form result in the linearization tab instead of using characterization tab. Here you are compensating the press without regards with any standard norms. It was like you are using an image editing curves, :-)

But then the correct procedure is to follow either PSO or Gracol guidelines.

//Lyzan

Can you give me the screenshot of Colorpath Sync? My XMF is version 5.5 and the module for press calibration is named Colorpath Organizer. Anyway, I will assume that it's almost the same. Look for the [Characterization] tab in Colorpath.

BTW, are you running linear plate? If not, you can actually use the linearization curve to become your dot gain compensation curve.

//Lyzan

The online help will guide you. I can also guide you, just ask specific question. However, I will assume that you have in-depth experience doing press calibration and characterization.

//Lyzan

We usually do it in Acrobat/Pitstop. Overprints are potential problems.

//Lyzan

Here is a sample. I exaggerate the size and placement to show the blind folio.

Quote from: james.pummell on August 13, 2015, 06:46:43 AMtl;dr Working more than one job, blind folio numbers run over—2 lots of sequencial numbers?

So if I'm imposing two jobs together, for arguments sake two 8pp booklets, when adding blind folios it goes from 1 to 16, but as they're separate jobs, they should be 1 to 8 and 1 to 8 (to match the folios within the publications.

This isn't fully problematic and would be a privilege rather than a necessity, but with lay flat binding, we need the folios on the back of the pages, which would have a less chance of buggering it up than if we were to manually do it.

Unrelated: I hate captcha

In the reading order, rename your other 1-8 to pages, then in blind folio [information presented] choose page name.

//Lyzan

Quote from: K3NS4N on August 04, 2015, 04:34:48 PMThis is a template using 120 pages.

First, I do not understand why would you do a 120pp multi-web imposition. Are you trying to cut-and-stack the pages?

/Lyzan

I don't have my Preps anymore, but it's almost the same with XMF.

It is a multi-web (4-webs) imposition. Either use a fold pattern (easy way) or number manually a 4-web multi-web imposition base on the folding dummy.

Most likely one color profile to be used by all of their printers because the customer is probably in "standardization mode". And there's nothing to worry about because they need to follow also existing international standards.