Prepressforums.com - Anyone from Quark here? Response welcome.

Joe · #1 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 10:07 AM

I'd really like to hear from Quark on this problem I'm seeing. I still have many customers using Quark 4 and 5. They are having a lot of problems with people sending them ads as PDF files. A lot of them with transparency but even newer PDF files without transparency are a problem as Quark won't place them. Usually they send the PDF's separately and expect us to make them work. And usually they don't want to pay for prepress work but that is another story for another time.

I've told them for many moons now they need to upgrade and since they are Quark customers they always want my opinion on upgrading to Quark 7. I have to tell you, at this time, I cannot under any circumstance, recommend anyone sticking with Quark for the very problem I mentioned above. My customers have no control over what kinds of files are sent to them. I'd say a majority of people are using Adobe apps using all the fancy smancy transparent stuff and then exporting a PDF for their ads. That's great if all my customers had InDesign...the software that can import these kinds of files.

Now this is why I'd like to hear from Quark on this although I'll be surprised if I do. How in the world can you expect to compete with Adobe if you can't place the newer version of PDF's whether using transparency or not? It's a deal breaker for me and at present I am strongly urging anyone that asks for my opinion to use InDesign...even if it means they have to learn the new software. Iin my book, without Quark making some big changes soon, Quark is dead to me. I cannot recommend it to anyone. I really believe if Quark wants to survive they have to catch up in the PDF game.

Edit: Just to add...I do have customers using Quark 7. Fonts are a nightmare. Fonts the customers are using, they collect for output. I open them on my system and Quark fails to see them although other OS X apps do. How can this be? Another reason I can't recommened it. Quark: Care to respond?

Jezza · #2 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 12:59 PM

Joe, I hear you, and it's very unlikely that Quark will respond. According to them they have the most reliable pdf workflow going. Some people are stupid enough to believe them.

Regarding fonts, check you're Acrobat settings aren't set to use local fonts, is the best advice I can give right now...

almaink · #3 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 01:02 PM

Why post this here and not at Quacks site? Until Quack ponies up and pays Adobe for the rights you will never see Quack work correctly with transparency. And it goes further than then that as well. I presently have a job I'm working on, comprised of 6, 24 page manuals, in Russian, Japanese, Italian, French, English and Czech. The designer did the Russian and Czech versions in Indesign (because he doesn't have Passport version) and the rest of them in Quack. The two done in Indesign run through RAMpage as PDF's in under 5 mins., while the ones done in Quack take well over an hour each and then need to have the trapping adjusted as the gradients trap to themselves because of flattening. The culprit is a simple Illustrator spot gradient set on the foot of every page. To expedite the Quack files I had to remove the gradient before I save as PDF from Quack and place said gradient in Indesign then place the Quack PDF on top and refry from Indy.

Joe · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 07:33 AM

Well, I don't post on Quark's site and doubt I'd get a reply if I did so that's why it is here. I just don't get why any company would be this foolish and repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot over and over. Wouldn't you think this would be a serious issue to have your page layout application not be able to import the newer file formats? And I'm not talking about file formats that just came out a week or two ago. PDF's with transparency have been around for awhile now.

almaink · #5 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 07:38 AM

Ya I hear you. Quack is the biggest PITA going IMO. Al we can do is pray that they come to their senses or they sell to someone who has a clue I guess.

Joe · #6 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 08:07 AM

What sucks is my customers that go ahead and upgrade to Quark 7. Some before asking about it and others that ignore our warnings. Then they are pissed when they get their bill with all of the prepress charges for fixing their files.

We had one last week that was using Quark 4 that got charged for 10 hours of prepress time. He about had a heart attack. He wants to go to Quark 7. We then told him he'd still be charged for fixing his files, like his linked PDF's with transparency. He just doesn't get it.

[/rant]

almaink · #7 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 09:22 AM

After I beta testing Quack 7 our company decided to no longer support Quack after version 6.5. We will take a PDF from 7 but not native files. So far so good. Only one guy updated to 7 and his PDF's haven't caused any issues, yet.

Joe · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almaink

After I beta testing Quack 7 our company decided to no longer support Quack after version 6.5. We will take a PDF from 7 but not native files. So far so good. Only one guy updated to 7 and his PDF's haven't caused any issues, yet.

I'm all for going that route too. The problem being though that if a customer buys Quark 7 they can't make a completed PDF if they can't place a PDF with transparency in the page. They frown when they ask me how to fix it and I say to get Adobe Creative Suite 3. Place the PDF into InDesign and export a PDF 1.3 to flatten it. They updated to Quark 7 because they didn't want to get Creative Suite 3.

LOL...stick gun in holster...shoot foot. They shoulda listened to me!

Cory · #9 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 11:12 AM

there was someone from Quark here at one time (think her name was Shelli). Haven't seen her since she posted her first thread...I recall it was a heated thread.

prepress_vee · #10 (**permalink**) 08-06-2007, 12:24 PM

I bet someone is here... they just aren't speaking up.