Comments on: PDFs from QuarkXPress 6.5

By: Samuel John Klein

Samuel John Klein — Tue, 30 May 2006 04:30:03 +0000

Rick: thank you for your comment.

I see your point about Distiller vs. Quark produced PDFs however this article was intended to show the way to people who find they must produce PDFs using QuarkXPress 6.5. It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of this technology over another and shouldn’t be construed as such. The 6.5 implementation does have its flaws and I believe I spotlit them appropriately.

Regardless of what’s out there people will, occasionally, find themselves using Quark 6.5 to produce thier PDFs. There are things one should be aware of to produce the best PDFs they can in XPress, hence the information herein.

With respect to letting people know that Distiller makes more stable PDFs, your words say it just as well as mine could.

By: Rick McGlenister

Rick McGlenister — Tue, 30 May 2006 00:43:04 +0000

Mr. Klien: I would like to comment on your ‘PDF’s From QuarkXpress’ article. I work at a newspaper printing company and have finnally come across an Xpress PDF… and guess what!? nothing but problems. It seems that this “great feature” mirrors that of is rival’s direct PDF creation in that it produces PDF’s that are OK, except when they’re not of course!!
We have been trying to educate our customers of the problems of ‘direct’ PDF creation with Indesign and now it looks like we are going to have to do the same with Xpress. Please, please, please tell you readers that the best and most stable PDF’s are sill created by distiller and NOTHING else. This will save them and us a lot of heart-ache.

Rick McGlenister