Just lucky I guess, we got our first job using a Creative Cloud font family.
Long story short, the CSR used the artist's credentials to sync the font for us...
This worked but caused a delay of a few hours. Going forward, what else / better can we do?
We have CC licenses for Adobe products but I'm unaware of the font deal being part of it...
In other words, what y'all doing?
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that if you got a CC license (the full thing, not just one or two programs), you got access to their cloud font library. Maybe they've changed it.
yeah, it's nice when you get lucky to get one to sync up.
I have found that most of the "fonts" we don't get are not part of the CC, so it's the same ole workflow, search the web & download or sub it out for something close.
:hangme:
Quote from: david on May 11, 2017, 10:07:24 AMyeah, it's nice when you get lucky to get one to sync up.
I have found that most of the "fonts" we don't get are not part of the CC, so it's the same ole workflow, search the web & download or sub it out for something close.
:hangme:
Ditto....the fonts available are very limited. Damned sure it isn't the whole Adobe font library. Also you are very limited how many can be activated unless you pay more to the Adobe Gods.
If you don't have the fonts and want to live dangerously run the "Outline all fonts" Acrobat preflight or like David said...search the web, it may be a free font, or sub it out. Or get a job at the fast food window.
Quote from: Possum on May 11, 2017, 09:51:33 AMI may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that if you got a CC license (the full thing, not just one or two programs), you got access to their cloud font library. Maybe they've changed it.
I thought that as well? Seems to have worked for us on the odd occasion that its been needed.
I had one client supply a file and I asked for the missing fonts to be supplied and they said, oh they are on the cloud... just as well we have CC I guess cos they werent going to supply them! WTF on their part, did they want their stuff printed or what?
About Typekit:
QuoteSync limits
All Typekit subscriptions allow you to sync fonts for desktop use via Creative Cloud; the number of fonts that you may have selected at one time varies by subscription level. The font sync limit for your plan is listed on your Typekit Account page.
Each individual font weight or style that you have selected is counted as one synced font. For example, selecting the regular, italic, and bold fonts from the Proxima Nova family is three fonts. Fonts purchased from the Typekit Marketplace do not count towards your sync limit.
If you're at your sync limit and want to select other fonts, you either need to remove some of the current selections or upgrade to a plan with a higher sync limit.
The font sync limit for my plan (Creative Cloud for Teams) is listed as 100. So if I have 33 fonts activated each with regular, italic, and bold fonts I am at 99. Once you reach your limit you can't add more unless un-activate some of them.
If you use fonts in website you are also limited by page views of your site. If you have a popular website that is going to get expensive fast.
Thanks Joe and everyone.
So basically, this sucks and I should stay the coarse that "that's your client's / artist's issue and you need to get their info to try to sync it"
luckily, it seems to be a rare issue - at least so far...
ugh.
I've had issues too, usually it's unorganized on the custy's part
My biggest fear for the typekit fonts are that they are going to be gone, when I have to pick up the job next month, year, or whenever.
So I make sure to put them in the fonts folder of the job so I don't have to worry about it. Probably does not fall strictly within the rules, but at least I know I will have access to the font in the future.
So you can get them onto your hard drive (not just sync)?
It's not a piece of cake, but it can be done. When you sync a font, it is actually downloaded to your computer to a hidden folder that Indesign also looks in. Although the fonts files are named by serial numbers, not the font name so it is difficult to know what it is. If I get a file that needs to have fonts synced, I turn syncing on. I then run a script I wrote to copy all synced fonts to a folder on my desktop. I then move this into the fonts folder for the job, and turn off all synced fonts in adobe. That way I have them. Of course, now that I have let the cat out of the bag, Adobe will change the way that it works, and my script will quite working.
Yeah Adobe will close that bug right now. But ignore the kazillion real bugs.
:lmao:
Yeah, it sucks. Bad Adobe. I have full licenses both at work and at home and the lack of font access by adobe is lame... especially with their hand in my pocket, while I scrounge around for fonts. Shameful.
Yes, I think if we had to go back to Indy file job supply, once we leap into the 21st C. ('real soon now' ... IBM's catch cry of yore), I would have to become Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. But now I'm too old for that, anyway. Woe is me. :laugh:
:rotf: good ol Frailer.
And agreed. I rarely ever open client Indy files, unless it needs a major overhaul, in which case I usually refer them to a designer... ain't got time for that shit these days.
To contrast my "bad adobe" comment, I will say Good Adobe, for making PDF stable and workable, for the most part. Love the PDF APPE workflow! Fonts? Oh, they're embedded. 8)
Quote from: Ear on May 15, 2017, 10:27:34 AM:rotf: good ol Frailer.
And agreed. I rarely ever open client Indy files, unless it needs a major overhaul, in which case I usually refer them to a designer... ain't got time for that shit these days.
To contrast my "bad adobe" comment, I will say Good Adobe, for making PDF stable and workable, for the most part. Love the PDF APPE workflow! Fonts? Oh, they're embedded. 8)
You must not have the latest APPE. Being embedded in no way assures you of no font problems with the latest version.
I am running the most current Sierra release... they said it had the latest APPE, as of December 2016. I have not encountered any font problems but I use extensive EnFocus preflight and embedded preflights, profiles and actions in the workflow... they may be handling potential problems for me, in the background.
Another thing I am doing this year (since the update) is bouncing any and all PDFs I receive that are less than PDF 1.7. I do have random problems, especially since the update, with PDF 1.4. Maybe that is part of the problem for those who are having trouble? Think about it, new CC, new APPE... PDF 1.4 is ancient.
I also noticed Photoshop now has a PDF 1.7+ that actually does a decent job of keeping fonts vector. It never really worked right, prior to this update. NOT that I like seeing type set in Photoshop, but I can help the doofs a little more now.
The version of APPE that shipped with Prinergy 7.5 and later is the problem. Kodak claims that Adobe tightened up the 'font security' in the version. I know too that the version of APPE in Prinergy 7.5.1, 8.0, and 8.02 have the same issues. Most of it has to do with free fonts and web fonts and there is are Acrobat, Callas, or Pitstop fixes for it other to outline the fonts in question. Don't get me wrong...Kodak might be lying about it being something that Adobe changed.
The vector type from a Photoshop PDF is kind of a faux vector. The type itself is an image but it creates a clipping mask from the type which gives you high resolution output of vector. The actual photoshop file though is still RIP killer.
Agreed about the Photoshop text, but it is a little better with PDF 1.7+. And yes, it bogs the RIP. I will always discourage it, heavily.
It might be Kodak. I run a lot of variety and haven't run into those problems with the new APPE, so long as I insist on PDF v1.7. I do know that the jump to PDF 1.7 was a big release.... first instance of ISO and extensions, which alone are big enough reasons to use 1.7, exclusively. There are other big reasons to not use legacy PDF versions, unless you are using Acrobat 5. I have an old XP machine that it might work on. :rotf:
.... you know ... Open Type had not been created, when PDF 1.4 was introduced (which means 1.4 does not support open type). Just sayin'. I think the PDF version is a big part of these mystery problems. I haven't had a single problem with 1.7. I did get font failures with 1.4 documents, when I first updated, at the beginning of the year. Wish I could get Adobe to set it as a default in the Press Quality PDF export preset, For Fuck's Sake... I end up giving the schpeal a dozen times per week. They say "...used Adobe's Press Quality Preset" and I hate having to tell them that Adobe is behind in fixing that setting.
Get info will show PDF version, in absence of Preflight Report.
Quote from: Ear on May 15, 2017, 01:53:30 PM.... you know ... Open Type had not been created, when PDF 1.4 was introduced (which means 1.4 does not support open type). Just sayin'. I think the PDF version is a big part of these mystery problems. I haven't had a single problem with 1.7. I did get font failures with 1.4 documents, when I first updated, at the beginning of the year. Wish I could get Adobe to set it as a default in the Press Quality PDF export preset, For Fuck's Sake... I end up giving the schpeal a dozen times per week. They say "...used Adobe's Press Quality Preset" and I hate having to tell them that Adobe is behind in fixing that setting.
Get info will show PDF version, in absence of Preflight Report.
im a little behind in this... always learning!!
Tell me more about using 1.7? we run a VERY old platesetter RIP for plates, (along with a pretty up to date indigo) what sort of differences will it make if I do change that setting? I usually use the default (which is obviously 1.4)
Quote from: Ear on May 15, 2017, 01:53:30 PM.... you know ... Open Type had not been created, when PDF 1.4 was introduced (which means 1.4 does not support open type). Just sayin'. I think the PDF version is a big part of these mystery problems. I haven't had a single problem with 1.7. I did get font failures with 1.4 documents, when I first updated, at the beginning of the year. Wish I could get Adobe to set it as a default in the Press Quality PDF export preset, For Fuck's Sake... I end up giving the schpeal a dozen times per week. They say "...used Adobe's Press Quality Preset" and I hate having to tell them that Adobe is behind in fixing that setting.
Get info will show PDF version, in absence of Preflight Report.
Just checked one of the PDF from a customer that always has some problem pages and their PDF's are 1.4. I do the job on Tuesday evening so I know I will have anywhere from 2-5 pdf's that will not process because of the font issue. I will request they remake one as a 1.7 pdf and see if it makes a difference.
Quote from: Ear on May 15, 2017, 01:18:10 PMIt might be Kodak.
Naw it couldn't be Kodak! :sarcasm:
They do claim it is an Adobe issue since they are the ones that changed the font security in this version of APPE but if they have lied to me and many other users I doubt it is the first or last time. Do you know what version of APPE Sierra is using?
I really don't know why Adobe defaults to 1.4 in their profiles. They also default to jpeg compression which sucks too.
The PDF/X-4:2008 profile really is what people should be using for print production. At least it defaults to a PDF 1.6 but also uses jpeg compression. I have a custom one set to 1.7 and zip compression. The problem is getting anyone to use it because by God they have used the Adobe Press Quality Preset since time began and they have the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:Arrrrgh.... Trying to convince people that "Press Quality" and "High Quality Print" are not Profession Prepress choices....
Sending them their ugly preflight report usually shuts them up.
Press Quality is actually about as close as it gets. Take Press Quality - Modify: Compatibility to Acrobat 8/9 PDF 1.7. Use Document Bleed Settings. Output>Do Not Color Manage. Save as preset - "Actual Press Quality"
Then it will be fairly bulletproof (if they remembered to convert spot to process in the swatches pallet first). But again, PDF 1.7 helps this since it changes the nature of dropshadow transparency and should stop knocking holes in active spots when it flattens in the RIP.
Quote from: Joe on May 15, 2017, 05:38:01 PMI really don't know why Adobe defaults to 1.4 in their profiles. They also default to jpeg compression which sucks too.
The PDF/X-4:2008 profile really is what people should be using for print production. At least it defaults to a PDF 1.6 but also uses jpeg compression. I have a custom one set to 1.7 and zip compression. The problem is getting anyone to use it because by God they have used the Adobe Press Quality Preset since time began and they have the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.
This was true last year, concerning 4:2008, but became invalid with the release of APPE-4 and CC.
PDF 1.7 was the first to use ISO. That alone should be enough to convince.
If not, look at what Adobe says about APPE-4.
What's new in PDF Print Engine 4Announcing version 4 of the PDF Print Engine 4, Adobe's high speed, high fidelity print platform. With new performance efficiencies and breakthrough rendering features, version 4 extends APPE's leading edge for print reproduction. PDF Print Engine 4 shares the same core technologies used in Creative Cloud applications, and has been updated and optimized for them. This guarantees consistency and reliability across proofing cycles, minimizing errors and the need for last-minute fixes. APPE 4 will enable printers to increase workflow efficiency, and capitalize on the profit potential of emerging innovations._______
So with the new RIP core, new CC... it is a mistake to backsave something. There just is not a reason to do so. To make something backwards compatible, you must remove the new features at which point, what's the fuckin' point. Legacy formats are bad, across the board.... or we would have carburetors on top of our injector rails.
... I'm not letting this go, Adobe!
I will upload my local prepress release, so you can see how I tell my clients to Fix their Adobe Creative Cloud Bug, since Adobe won't fix it.
Quote from: Ear on May 16, 2017, 02:43:13 PMQuote from: Joe on May 15, 2017, 05:38:01 PMI really don't know why Adobe defaults to 1.4 in their profiles. They also default to jpeg compression which sucks too.
The PDF/X-4:2008 profile really is what people should be using for print production. At least it defaults to a PDF 1.6 but also uses jpeg compression. I have a custom one set to 1.7 and zip compression. The problem is getting anyone to use it because by God they have used the Adobe Press Quality Preset since time began and they have the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.
This was true last year, concerning 4:2008, but became invalid with the release of APPE-4 and CC.
PDF 1.7 was the first to use ISO. That alone should be enough to convince.
If not, look at what Adobe says about APPE-4.
What's new in PDF Print Engine 4
Announcing version 4 of the PDF Print Engine 4, Adobe's high speed, high fidelity print platform. With new performance efficiencies and breakthrough rendering features, version 4 extends APPE's leading edge for print reproduction. PDF Print Engine 4 shares the same core technologies used in Creative Cloud applications, and has been updated and optimized for them. This guarantees consistency and reliability across proofing cycles, minimizing errors and the need for last-minute fixes. APPE 4 will enable printers to increase workflow efficiency, and capitalize on the profit potential of emerging innovations.
_______
So with the new RIP core, new CC... it is a mistake to backsave something. There just is not a reason to do so. To make something backwards compatible, you must remove the new features at which point, what's the fuckin' point. Legacy formats are bad, across the board.... or we would have carburetors on top of our injector rails.
Does your workflow actually use APPE 4? Prinergy does not. I know the version that broke Prinergy 7.5 was version 3.something. I am under the impression that while APPE 4 has been released by Adobe that it isn't in the wild (vendor workflows) yet. I used to be able to find the APPE version by doing the 'About Workshop' thing but it doesn't seem to include the APPE version now in that info.
Quote from: Ear on May 16, 2017, 02:45:04 PM... I'm not letting this go, Adobe!
I will upload my local prepress release, so you can see how I tell my clients to Fix their Adobe Creative Cloud Bug, since Adobe won't fix it.
I appreciate your efforts. I have been fighting the "output Preview' crashes and the SHIFT+CLICK atrocities in Acrobat for years and all it has done is given me a headache. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I hope your results are better than mine. :rotf:
Yeah, I'm sure you are correct, but it is using a newer version and it really likes modern, compatible PDF version, that won't flatten, exclude or otherwise mess with modern effects and fonts. It really shouldn't be an issue... they could update the preset in the background and all of a sudden, my life would get easier.
I thought quoting their website might draw them out. :evil: "I'm a driver, I'm a winner... things are gonna change, I can feel it"
I just found the APPE version info for Prinergy 8 which I still have not upgraded to yet so I am sure I am either on this version of APPE or a slightly older one in Prinergy 7.5.
[attachimg=1 width=400]
Edit: Prinergy 7.5 also uses APPE version 3.6.4000.2
Quote from: Ear on May 16, 2017, 02:54:21 PMI thought quoting their website might draw them out. :evil: "I'm a driver, I'm a winner... things are gonna change, I can feel it"
There is a thread over at PrintPlanet titled "creative cloud subscription a ripoff" (no I did not start it!) and that didn't draw them out either. :rotf:
Yeahhhhh but we are more annoying than they are... that's why we are here, 'member. :angel:
Where's stupid DCS and NinjaPB when we need them?
Quote from: Ear on May 16, 2017, 04:08:35 PMYeahhhhh but we are more annoying than they are... that's why we are here, 'member. :angel:
Where's stupid DCS and NinjaPB when we need them?
Which is why they don't come over here. They don't want to hear how it REALLY is! :rotf:
Whoooo wants some honeyyy... as long as there is some mooooneyyy... who wants that hooonnnnneeeyyyyyy :banana:
Quote from: Just_A_Mac_Guy on May 16, 2017, 10:25:02 AM:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:Arrrrgh.... Trying to convince people that "Press Quality" and "High Quality Print" are not Profession Prepress choices....
although they are better than some of the other choices!
I have enough trouble getting files with bleed, trying to explain why one pdf version is different to another would be mindblowing to many
Quote from: DPSprint on May 16, 2017, 05:13:45 PMQuote from: Just_A_Mac_Guy on May 16, 2017, 10:25:02 AM:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:Arrrrgh.... Trying to convince people that "Press Quality" and "High Quality Print" are not Profession Prepress choices....
although they are better than some of the other choices!
I have enough trouble getting files with bleed, trying to explain why one pdf version is different to another would be mindblowing to many
or that choosing PDF x1a preset (which is the requirement for almost all of our newspapers and Magazines) and changing so many options that it fails to actually be a PDF x1a...
PDF x1a should never be used anymore unless you have an older RIP that can't deal with transparency.
PDF x anything should not be used with a modern PDF workflow. PDF x4 was made in 2010, FFS! My 2009 iMac became obsolete, officially, with the newer MacOS.... but hey, the PDF preset from '10 is lit, mate! Pre ISO, yo. It is a standardless standard. :tongue:
Quote from: Ear on May 17, 2017, 11:43:07 AMPDF x anything should not be used with a modern PDF workflow. PDF x4 was made in 2010, FFS! My 2009 iMac became obsolete, officially, with the newer MacOS.... but hey, the PDF preset from '10 is lit, mate! Pre ISO, yo. It is a standardless standard. :tongue:
PDF/X-4 is ISO 15930-7:2008: The PDF/X4 standard is the newest preset in the Adobe line and uses PDF 1.6 and it was built for prepress/print production.
PDF/X is formalized in ISO standards 15929 and 15930:
ISO 15930-7:2008: PDF/X-4, Colour-managed, CMYK, gray, RGB or spot colour data are supported, as are PDF transparency and optional content. A second conformance level named PDF/X-4p may be used when the ICC Profile in the output intent is externally supplied. It is using PDF 1.6. A second edition with minor corrections and improvements (which does not change file identifications) is ISO 15930-7:2010.
Even though it has a 2010 date it is still the newest you can use right now.
There is an X5 but it hasn't been added to the Adobe products yet. It is also based upon PDF 1.6.
ISO 15930-8:2008 PDF/X-5, with a second edition with minor corrections and improvements (which does not change file identifications) as ISO 15930-8:2010. It is using PDF 1.6. A collection of three conformance levels:
PDF/X-5g: An extension of PDF/X-4 that enables the use of external graphical content. This can be described as OPI-like (Open Prepress Interface) workflows. Specifically this allows graphics to be referenced that are outside the PDF, which "can have value in reducing... demands... by allowing... work with low resolution" [ISO-15930-8:2010].
PDF/X-5pg: An extension of PDF/X-4p that enables the use of external graphical content in conjunction with a reference to an external ICC Profile for the output intent.
PDF/X-5n: An extension of PDF/X-4p that allows the externally supplied ICC Profile for the output intent to use a color space other than Grayscale, RGB and CMYK.
PDF/X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/X)
The PDF/X-4 file format (https://www.prepressure.com/pdf/basics/pdfx-4)
I am not disputing anything you are posting but the fact (for us) remains that the vast, vast majority of Newspapers and Magazines we post to demand PDF x1A and in fact have based their preflight and upload portals on that standard. Some Portals even refuse acceptance of file that fail to test as X1a. Most Commercial printers express a preference for working files over PDF.
I know they are out there. They fall into that group of 'we did it that way 20 years ago so why stop now?'...or they haven't upgraded their RIP in 20 years. We do a lot of newspaper work here. When we were running Nexus 8 our specs were for PDF/X-1a because Nexus at that time didn't like transparency. We now run Prinergy which gobbles up transparency. We reject PDF/X1a files if we get them.
Exactly, it's the "we've been doing it this way for 35 years" people that need to get with the times. I'm running a OLD ass version of prinergy and I want PDFX/4 files. Just because you're been doing something and it's working doesn't excuse you from being ignorant to other options or methods out there.
The only time I want natives is if I really need to unfuck your files. Since most of the time it will take 3 days before you get me all the components I need to even open the file I will spend the extra time in Pitstop rather than attempt to get the natives.
Quote from: Farabomb on May 17, 2017, 01:42:36 PMThe only time I want natives is if I really need to unfuck your files. Since most of the time it will take 3 days before you get me all the components I need to even open the file I will spend the extra time in Pitstop rather than attempt to get the natives.
yeap... its such a change from years ago when we needed your natives cos pdf was barely a thing then!
Much prefer pdfs here too, unless there are heaps of things that need correcting.
I find most publications do not want to take responsibility for things like transparency.
"Hey that's the way your files are, don't blame us." X1a rarely gives us surprises.
As for Native files, Try finding a printer who will let you communicate with thier prepress people to spec out a job.
"Just send working files and we work our magic"
Followed the next day by a phone call from the prepress guy/gal telling us what they really would like.
Most of our work now goes through print brokers who cannot spell PREPRESS.
Don't get me started on them....
I have some brokers that rent space from us. One is smart enough that is he has questions he comes and asks me. The other one can't operate a lightswitch, nevermind figure out a print job. I'm not kidding in the least. He was running around one day with his laptop in his hands asking everyone for help. I refuse to help him in any way because he's an amazing asshole and I can. Turns out he couldn't get his laptop to turn on.
It was because he wasn't pressing the power button.
I am painfully aware that there are other printers who demand outdated file formats. They would still be running film too, if it was cheap and available.
Like Farabomb says, get with the times. I do know what it is like to operate old software and technology, and it sucks. I threw the waxer away years ago, mang. From my perspective... trying to stay current to offer my clients the best product, while achieving the most ROI for my company benefits everyone. We invest in technology and take the time to learn it and educate others... but we will always run into those who dig in their heels, just to be stubborn and not change. Or too lazy to learn?
Quote from: Joe on May 16, 2017, 03:37:33 PMQuote from: Ear on May 16, 2017, 02:54:21 PMI thought quoting their website might draw them out. :evil: "I'm a driver, I'm a winner... things are gonna change, I can feel it"
There is a thread over at PrintPlanet titled "creative cloud subscription a ripoff" (no I did not start it!) and that didn't draw them out either. :rotf:
There was one thread that went on for months on Adobe's own forums squawking about CC, and another offering alternatives to Adobe's products. People submitted several lists of all kinds of options. If those didn't bother them....