ShadowCaster and Quark

B
Posted By
BerkeleyHallSC
Aug 21, 2004
Views
397
Replies
11
Status
Closed
Hi,

I’ve just started using ShadowCaster for Quark and have noticed a difference in my background colors between ones that are created directly in Quark compared to those from ShadowCaster – especially within the PDF it’s more notable.

Is this a common thing? I don’t understand why the colors would vary at all given that they were both created with Quark’s Color Engine.

Thanks again!

Hannah

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

LO
Lee Oswald Ving
Aug 21, 2004
(Mike) wrote in
news::

Hi,

I’ve just started using ShadowCaster for Quark

Quark has forums for it’s products on it’s website, you know.

and have noticed a
difference in my background colors between ones that are created directly in Quark compared to those from ShadowCaster – especially within the PDF it’s more notable.

Is this a common thing? I don’t understand why the colors would vary at all given that they were both created with Quark’s Color Engine.

I have no idea why you would think that. Quark doesn’t understand transparency or most other modern postcript features; Shadowcaster has to create a bitmap background to burn a shadow into it, meaning it’s no longer a Quark object.

As opposed to say, Indesign, which doesn’t need such workarounds.

Thanks again!

Hannah
T
tacitr
Aug 21, 2004
I’ve just started using ShadowCaster for Quark and have noticed a difference in my background colors between ones that are created directly in Quark compared to those from ShadowCaster…

Actually, they’re identucal–as long as you are working in CMYK and you are printing separations, not printing composites to a consumer-grade printer like an inkjet printer.

Quark cannot handle translcency in an image under any circumtances. So ShadowCaster works by taking the shadow, taking the background, and merging both of them into a single image, which it then imports into Quark.

If you are working in RGB, or if you are printing composites, the new merged image will not look the same as a Quark colored background, because Quark renders color in placed images differently than color it generates itself.

When you print separations and output to a professional imaging device like an imagesetter or platesetter, the colors will match.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
O
Odysseus
Aug 23, 2004
In article ,
Lee Oswald Ving wrote:

(Mike) wrote in
news::
[snip]

Is this a common thing? I don’t understand why the colors would vary at all given that they were both created with Quark’s Color Engine.

I have no idea why you would think that. Quark doesn’t understand transparency or most other modern postcript features; Shadowcaster has to create a bitmap background to burn a shadow into it, meaning it’s no longer a Quark object.

As opposed to say, Indesign, which doesn’t need such workarounds.
Sure it does — but it postpones them to print-time, keeping the separate elements ‘live’ and editable in the native document. That’s what the "flattening" settings are all about: how to create the combined raster image that’s included in the PostScript data being sent to the printer.


Odysseus
EG
Eric Gill
Aug 24, 2004
Odysseus wrote in
news::

In article ,
Lee Oswald Ving wrote:

(Mike) wrote in
news::
[snip]

Is this a common thing? I don’t understand why the colors would vary at all given that they were both created with Quark’s Color Engine.

I have no idea why you would think that. Quark doesn’t understand transparency or most other modern postcript features; Shadowcaster has to create a bitmap background to burn a shadow into it, meaning it’s no longer a Quark object.

As opposed to say, Indesign, which doesn’t need such workarounds.
Sure it does

No, it doesn’t, unless you are needing support for legacy RIPs.

I’m happy to say that I do not. Nor should most others.

— but it postpones them to print-time, keeping the
separate elements ‘live’ and editable in the native document. That’s what the "flattening" settings are all about: how to create the combined raster image that’s included in the PostScript data being sent to the printer.

And, truthfully, even if one is forced to use the flattener aggresively, Indy still means lots less work for the designer for lots better results.
H
howldog
Aug 24, 2004
On 21 Aug 2004 06:48:27 -0700, (Mike) wrote:

Hi,

I’ve just started using ShadowCaster for Quark and have noticed a difference in my background colors between ones that are created directly in Quark compared to those from ShadowCaster – especially within the PDF it’s more notable.

Is this a common thing? I don’t understand why the colors would vary at all given that they were both created with Quark’s Color Engine.
Thanks again!

I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho. I wonder if Leo Fender’s dead lawyers ears’ perked up.

InDesign runs circles around Quark in terms of putting in dropshadows. Except then you;ve got the confounding tranparency issues. but still, its better than Quark.
T
tacitr
Aug 24, 2004
I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho.

I have found Shadowcaster one of the most outstanding investments I’ve ever made; it works flawlessly and brilliantly for me. Of course, it’s intended for printing separations to an imagesetter, not for printing jobs to a desktop printer; what did you use it for, and with what kind of output device?

InDesign runs circles around Quark in terms of putting in dropshadows. Except then you;ve got the confounding tranparency issues.

InDesign’s transparency issues largely disappear if you’re printing to a PostScript Level 3 device. If you’re printing to anything else, the Flattener is dangerous in the wrong hands but works quite well if you have a handle on how to use it.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
H
howldog
Aug 24, 2004
On 24 Aug 2004 18:20:28 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho.

I have found Shadowcaster one of the most outstanding investments I’ve ever made; it works flawlessly and brilliantly for me. Of course, it’s intended for printing separations to an imagesetter, not for printing jobs to a desktop printer; what did you use it for, and with what kind of output device?

desktop printer. i found it overly difficult to use and just a pain inthe ass. I switched to InDesign for the most part right about then…. still use Quark 4 for some things.
EG
Eric Gill
Sep 1, 2004
howldog wrote in
news::

On 24 Aug 2004 18:20:28 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho.

I have found Shadowcaster one of the most outstanding investments I’ve ever made; it works flawlessly and brilliantly for me. Of course, it’s intended for printing separations to an imagesetter, not for printing jobs to a desktop printer; what did you use it for, and with what kind of output device?

desktop printer. i found it overly difficult to use and just a pain inthe ass. I switched to InDesign for the most part right about then…. still use Quark 4 for some things.

Back in the dark ages (pre-Indy) Shadowcaster was a Wonderful Thing. Imagine having no facility at all for such and doing the entire process by hand – using an external progam like Photoshop, with many steps for a simple shadow under a headline, and hoping the shadow fit properly when placed.

Shadowcaster was like a ray out of heaven when it came out. Saved me hours per magazine of production.

Then, of course, Indy 2.0 came out and the steps changed from the more efficient Shadowcaster routine to the ludicrously easy "just turn the shadow on" method. (Hell, combined with InEffects Styles it’s now just "click object, click shadow style").

(And then ALAP screwed up the basic functionality trying to add half-assed ‘features’.<sigh>)

I pretty much agree with Tacit, though I’ve got no idea what he’s on about with the desktop/imagesetter difference.
H
howldog
Sep 1, 2004
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:04:25 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

howldog wrote in
news::

On 24 Aug 2004 18:20:28 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho.

I have found Shadowcaster one of the most outstanding investments I’ve ever made; it works flawlessly and brilliantly for me. Of course, it’s intended for printing separations to an imagesetter, not for printing jobs to a desktop printer; what did you use it for, and with what kind of output device?

desktop printer. i found it overly difficult to use and just a pain inthe ass. I switched to InDesign for the most part right about then…. still use Quark 4 for some things.

Back in the dark ages (pre-Indy) Shadowcaster was a Wonderful Thing. Imagine having no facility at all for such and doing the entire process by hand – using an external progam like Photoshop, with many steps for a simple shadow under a headline, and hoping the shadow fit properly when placed.

Shadowcaster was like a ray out of heaven when it came out. Saved me hours per magazine of production.

Then, of course, Indy 2.0 came out and the steps changed from the more efficient Shadowcaster routine to the ludicrously easy "just turn the shadow on" method. (Hell, combined with InEffects Styles it’s now just "click object, click shadow style").

will InEffects styles run on InDesign 2.02 Windows XP?

do you still recommend it?

if so, where can i get it?
T
tacitr
Sep 1, 2004
I pretty much agree with Tacit, though I’ve got no idea what he’s on about with the desktop/imagesetter difference.

The problem with Shadowcaster if you’re printing to a desktop printer is that if you use Shadowcaster’s "Create TIFF" function to turn a Quark object into an image (for the purpose of adding a shadow over it), then print to a desktop printer, the placed image won’t match the Quark color.

It works fine if you print seps, of course, but printing a comp to a desktop printer makes the color of the ShadowCaster-created TIFF not match the color of a Quark-created object.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
EG
Eric Gill
Sep 2, 2004
howldog wrote in
news::

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:04:25 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

howldog wrote in
news::

On 24 Aug 2004 18:20:28 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I used that dog once and gave up. Shadowcaster is useless. great name tho.

I have found Shadowcaster one of the most outstanding investments I’ve ever made; it works flawlessly and brilliantly for me. Of course, it’s intended for printing separations to an imagesetter, not for printing jobs to a desktop printer; what did you use it for, and with what kind of output device?

desktop printer. i found it overly difficult to use and just a pain inthe ass. I switched to InDesign for the most part right about then…. still use Quark 4 for some things.

Back in the dark ages (pre-Indy) Shadowcaster was a Wonderful Thing. Imagine having no facility at all for such and doing the entire process by hand – using an external progam like Photoshop, with many steps for a simple shadow under a headline, and hoping the shadow fit properly when placed.

Shadowcaster was like a ray out of heaven when it came out. Saved me hours per magazine of production.

Then, of course, Indy 2.0 came out and the steps changed from the more efficient Shadowcaster routine to the ludicrously easy "just turn the shadow on" method. (Hell, combined with InEffects Styles it’s now just "click object, click shadow style").

will InEffects styles run on InDesign 2.02 Windows XP?

Looks like.

http://www.alap.com/products/ineffects.html

do you still recommend it?

Yep. Centralizes a lot of things you have fun getting at normally in Indy, and allows you to save presets.

I’d *really* reccomend upgrading to CS, though. Mucho mo’ betta work experience. Lots faster at the very least.

if so, where can i get it?

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections