John Ghormley KJ4UFG | 1 Jan 2011 01:11

Re: Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Tom <Tom@...> wrote:

> Images in PDFs created by printing to Adobe Acrobat 9 are noticeably
> different than those created by exporting to PDF in that the images are
> washed out in those created by printing to Adobe. Both types of files have
> been submitted to CreateSpace for printing with predictable results. The
> images come out brighter on books that are printed from PDFs created by
> exporting from Scribus. Has anyone else noticed this? Is there a way to
> eliminate this problem with Adobe?
>
> Tom Benjey
>

I cannot imagine why one would print to Adobe Acrobat rather than direct to
a pdf.  Ideally, the result should be the same EXCEPT for potentially the
size of the pdf file.  Scribus sets each letter's position in the document,
whereas Adobe sets each line's position, which, to the best of my knowledge,
results in a smaller pdf file. (My pre-press folks cannot imagine why I use
Scribus since it creates such big files.  Of course, they only know Macs and
In Design.  I doubt they know their OS is a Unix variant.)  But the
difference in output quality might be related to the way Acrobat formats
their pdf files vs. how Scribus does it.  Just a guess, but still cannot
figure why you need to add the extra step.
--

-- 
John Ghormley  KJ4UFG
Editor, SERA *Repeater Journal*
4010 Kandace Hills Dr.
Walkertown, NC
336-745-0575
editor@...
(Continue reading)

John Jason Jordan | 1 Jan 2011 01:25
Picon

Re: languages

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:27:30 -0500
John Culleton <john@...> dijo:

>> Good, from 1st jan. 2011 no other lagnuage but chinese is accepted
>> in this list :)

>Cantonese or Mandarin?

Wu.

But then, this is a written list, so it doesn't matter, unless you pick
one of the languages of China that uses a different writing system.
Tom Benjey | 1 Jan 2011 04:13

Re: Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe


I cannot imagine why one would print to Adobe Acrobat rather than direct to
a pdf.  Ideally, the result should be the same EXCEPT for potentially the
size of the pdf file.  Scribus sets each letter's position in the document,
whereas Adobe sets each line's position, which, to the best of my knowledge,
results in a smaller pdf file. (My pre-press folks cannot imagine why I use
Scribus since it creates such big files.  Of course, they only know Macs and
In Design.  I doubt they know their OS is a Unix variant.)  But the
difference in output quality might be related to the way Acrobat formats
their pdf files vs. how Scribus does it.  Just a guess, but still cannot
figure why you need to add the extra step.
--

-- 
John Ghormley  KJ4UFG
Editor, SERA *Repeater Journal*
4010 Kandace Hills Dr.
Walkertown, NC
336-745-0575
editor@...

A widely used printer demands that files be in PDF/X-1a:2001 format and, to
the best of my knowledge, Scribus does not yet produce files that meet that
standard. Adobe Acrobat/Distiller produces files that meet that standard, at
least some versions of Acrobat do.

Tom Benjey
717-258-9733 voice
717-243-0074 fax
Twitter:  <at> TomBenjey
Bill208 | 1 Jan 2011 06:26
Picon

Re: layer


Marc,

I've used layers on a single page document without any issues. If I have
text, images, a background color, etc. I want to be able to move items in
layers individually without disturbing other elements. I also keep the
default Background layer empty and select it when I finish so I don't
accidentally move/change anything.

Bill

Marc Flock wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I tried to use the layers. It seems OK for a complete document and not for
> one page of the document. Is it right ?
> If so, it is not very usable else I don't how to use this functionality.
> -- 
> Marc
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20101230/b59de23a/attachment.htm>
> _______________________________________________
> scribus mailing list
> scribus@...
> http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus
> 
> 

(Continue reading)

John Ghormley KJ4UFG | 1 Jan 2011 07:43

Re: Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Tom Benjey <benjey@...> wrote:

> ... but still cannot
> figure why you need to add the extra step.
> --
> John Ghormley  KJ4UFG
>

> A widely used printer demands that files be in PDF/X-1a:2001 format
>
> Tom Benjey
>

Printer as in one who operates a print shop or a machine that places text
and/or images on media?
--

-- 
John Ghormley  KJ4UFG
Editor, SERA *Repeater Journal*
4010 Kandace Hills Dr.
Walkertown, NC
336-745-0575
editor@...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20110101/d1dd91e7/attachment.htm>
Peter Nermander | 1 Jan 2011 11:34
Picon

Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe

> Images in PDFs created by printing to Adobe Acrobat 9 are noticeably
> different than those created by exporting to PDF in that the images are
> washed out in those created by printing to Adobe. Both types of files have
> been submitted to CreateSpace for printing with predictable results. The
> images come out brighter on books that are printed from PDFs created by
> exporting from Scribus. Has anyone else noticed this? Is there a way to
> eliminate this problem with Adobe?

When exporting directly from Scribus, did your choose Web/Screen or Printer?

When printing to Acrobat, did your choose RGB or CMYK? (I'm not sure
it's even possible to "print" a CMYK PDF that way.)

/Peter
Tom Benjey | 1 Jan 2011 14:08

Re: Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe

> A widely used printer demands that files be in PDF/X-1a:2001 format
>
> Tom Benjey
>

Printer as in one who operates a print shop or a machine that places text
and/or images on media?
-- 
John Ghormley  KJ4UFG
Editor, SERA *Repeater Journal*
4010 Kandace Hills Dr.
Walkertown, NC
336-745-0575
editor@...

The printer in question is Lightning Source Inc., the digital printing arm
of Ingram Book Group. LSI is widely used by publishers large and small, some
of whom frequent this list. Being able to produce PDFs that conform to the
PDF/X-1a:2001 standard is a high priority for many publishers. It is my
understanding that this feature is planned for a future version of Scribus
but is not yet available for Windows even in a bleeding edge version.

Tom Benjey
717-258-9733 voice
717-243-0074 fax
Twitter:  <at> TomBenjey
Tom Benjey | 1 Jan 2011 14:18

Re: Washed out images in PDF printing to Adobe

> Images in PDFs created by printing to Adobe Acrobat 9 are noticeably
> different than those created by exporting to PDF in that the images are
> washed out in those created by printing to Adobe. Both types of files have
> been submitted to CreateSpace for printing with predictable results. The
> images come out brighter on books that are printed from PDFs created by
> exporting from Scribus. Has anyone else noticed this? Is there a way to
> eliminate this problem with Adobe?

When exporting directly from Scribus, did your choose Web/Screen or Printer?

When printing to Acrobat, did your choose RGB or CMYK? (I'm not sure
it's even possible to "print" a CMYK PDF that way.)

/Peter

When exporting from Scribus, I chose Printer output and the preview showed
the CMYK boxes as being checked. The CMYK Coated Press Output Profile was
used. Preflighting the resultant PDF with Acrobat indicated that the images
were in fact CMYK. The only problem I have with exporting PDFs from Scribus
is that PDF/X-1a:2001 format is not an option, at least not yet on the
Windows version.

When printing to Acrobat, I chose their PDF/X-1a:2001 profile which
apparently forces output to be CMYK. Earlier this week, I produced a cover
file for Lightning Source by printing from Scribus in the same way and that
PDF passed their preflight, something it would not have done if it was not
CMYK because they rigidly enforce the standard on files input to them.

Tom Benjey
717-258-9733 voice
(Continue reading)

Ivan Winters | 1 Jan 2011 16:07
Favicon

Subject: Re : (Scribus) Insertion of a gif from a browser

1. Many thanks for all the help/advice/info

a. First advice I was given was correct. Right click on the image in browser window - 'save image as' - saved
selected image to a file in 'My Pictures'. Opened image frame in Scribus - 'Get Image'. Worked perfectly.

b. Comment re gif will not have enough dpi is correct. Only 72dpi - Yuk ! Cleaned up a few blotches on a copy of
the image in GIMP. Anything in GIMP that can increase the dpi of this image - anyone know ?

c. Re copyright. No problems - it is our image in the first place.

I would prefer all replies to be in Queen's English

Thanks

Ivan Winters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20110101/15c39b49/attachment.htm>
Gregory Pittman | 1 Jan 2011 16:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: Subject: Re : (Scribus) Insertion of a gif from a browser

On 01/01/2011 10:07 AM, Ivan Winters wrote:
>
> b. Comment re gif will not have enough dpi is correct. Only 72dpi - Yuk ! Cleaned up a few blotches on a copy of
the image in GIMP. Anything in GIMP that can increase the dpi of this image - anyone know ?

You cannot create DPI with Gimp that are not there. This is the 
advantage of formats like SVG (maybe Inkscape is in your future).

Greg

Gmane