When I say Fonts aren’t embedded, it may sound like I’m stating an absolute, but that is not the case. It is no different from saying that such-and-such a cigar is the best. I’m simply saying it is generally not done in the industry.
Actually, what you said (in a nutshell) was that I was using the term improperly, and insulted me. Do we agree that I was using it properly now?
You also stated that there are "problems" with embedded fonts -- can you elaborate on this?
Yes it is done, but no it is generally not done. 1. Embedding makes file size large and unmanageable. 2. embedding requires export to an EPS, or PDF, etc. which is typically not done due to A. the unfavorable way in which these formats often treat graphics, B. it makes it much more difficult to makes AA’s during pre-press.
You're saying that in the pre-press business, EPS and PDF files are not commonly used? Every press we've worked with has have both of these on their preferred list of file formats, because they eliminate issues such as different versions of the same program (Quark 4.x vs. 5.x, etc), and they are essentially the native language that the printer/press understands.
EPS is raw PostScript code with a wrapper. PDF is similar (both standards come from the same company, so it is no surprise). When you print something to a PostScript printer, it is ultimately turned into something that looks very much like EPS. As such, it's nonsensical that saving a file in EPS format would cause any issues, unless there are issues with the EPS code generation that a particular application does.
It all gets converted to PostScript in the end; EPS is just a PostScript wrapper. PDF is that, and a bit more -- but both are made by Adobe, who also makes the rastering engines for the printers we're discussing (PostScript).
Indeed, generally (not absolutely) file output is accomplished via native application. Yes, generally (not absolutely) publishers, printers, etc, have pretty much a copy of all the top tier development suites.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no -- and sometimes with version numbers that mismatch what an art department might be using -- and this can often be significant, even for minor point releases of an application (eg 4.0.1 vs. 4.0.3).
For anyone to claim otherwise is the same as when Cigar Aficionado gives a Henry Clay a better rating than an Opus X. It is a matter of experience, opinion (and probably a greased palm or two). It is a fine claim, and it is wrong of me to say otherwise, I’m just saying that Generally that is not how things are done in the trenches.
If that's what you said, then I'd have said "OK, that's not my experience, but if you say so" -- but none of this is what you said.
As far as, fact for fact debate. I said something isn’t done. Moki says it is done. I figured from a debate vantage, the best tactic is to discredit the individual thus discrediting the argument. It’s nothing personal, all part of the game. I’m not saying Moki isn’t all he says he is. I believe he is everything and more. I was attempting to discredit him because that’s where he looked most vulnerable, not because it’s true or anything.
On the subject of those attacks, they were ment in jest. Apparently I don’t have the knack of it yet but if you are all patient and work with me, I’ll get it.
On a personal note to Moki. Please do not be offended. I guess I wanted to win so I decided to bite your ear off rather than work on the mid-section. I love our exchanges, hell if you count my posts (few as they are) I’ll bet more than half are in an exchange with you.
Alright, I'm really confused now... we're to believe all of these various insults, patronizing, etc. were all part of "the plan"? ::shrug:: I did give you points to address prior to this...
In closing I would like to once again assert that I stand behind my original post as it contains all the info required to support my position. What I have said is in fact the way things are generally done. However, there are two (or more) sides to every issue. And Moki’s methods are quite acceptable if not what I consider to be the industry practice from my vantage point.
Well, let's debate the issue at hand then. The issue at hand isn't when PostScript laser printers started being used, or whether "embed" is the correct term, or whether PDF/EPS is a widely used format in the printing industry.
You stated that the problem with the band could be a result of a font substitution error. I stated this made no sense at all, because:
1) Very often logos are created by taking an existing typeface, turning it into outlines, and manipulating it, to produce a unique logo that *can't* be duplicated just by typing some text out in Helvetica (and cited examples where this was done). I've no evidence it
was done in this case, other than the fact that I've seen it done on many, many corporate and brand logos -- but you also have no proof that it wasn't done. However, even despite this...
2) Most DTP programs warn you if you open then on a machine that doesn't have the fonts that document requires; we'd have to assume people ignored these warnings or were using positively ancient programs that didn't offer such features (circa 1988)
3) Most DTP programs also let you embed fonts into the document you're printing, which is specifically done to avoid situations like this. You stated first that I had the wrong terminology, and then that this technology had "issues" and then that it could be done, but isn't often done. In my experience, none of this is the case. Yes, embedding fonts makes the file size large -- but it ensures that when you print it, you'll get exactly what you're expecting to get. As such, the file size for a final pre-press run is inconsequential to the cost of getting it right. As I'm sure we all know, setup and labor costs are a large chunk of the battle when it comes to printing. We'd have to assume whomever did the bands either didn't know or didn't care about this ability.
4) We'd also have to assume that the machines being printed from and the press being printed to didn't have the proper typeface installed. I find this absurd; for something as major as the bands for prestigious cigar brands in Cuba.
5) We'd have to assume that even if all this happened somehow, even if the fonts were not present, people didn't bother embedding them, they weren't on the printer, they ignored the warnings from the DTP programs, and printed them anyway, that they looked at the proofs and didn't notice the font was wrong. Yes, the difference can be subtle, but this is akin to saying that Coke would end up printing a series of cans that used the wrong typeface on them. Given the importance of branding, the known existence of fakes, I find it very hard to believe that something like this could pass through.
6) Even if someone DID look at the proof, and ineptly say "Looks good, print it!" we'd have to assume that no one at SA would notice that their new batch of bands weren't quite right. Or if they did notice, they'd have to say "Screw it, use 'em anyway"
The number of things that would have to either go wrong or be done in such an incredibly amateurish fashion in order for this to be cause by "font substitution" are simply mind-boggling. Certain things just are not done. If you as a printer screw up on the typeface of an important brand like Cohiba is to SA, you're not just fired, in Cuba, you're probably thrown in jail. It doesn't make sense.
