This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters  


Home > Archive > Adobe Illustrator > May 2005 > Opacity Issues





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Opacity Issues
Sonars_UK

2005-05-09, 7:14 pm

Hi,

I've recently designed a magazine advert for a client. Amongst other things
the advert included two logos. One logo was set as 100% opacity and was
positioned in the upper left-hand corner of the advert. The other logo was
a much larger version and was offset in the bottom right-hand side of the
advert. I set the opacity of this logo to 30% as it was used as a
background to the advert and some text appears over it on another layer.

The advert displays fine on my monitor, my clients monitor and the magazines
monitor. The advert also prints fine on my printer and my clients printer.

The problem is that the advert that appears in the magazine shows the large
logo at 100% opacity and some of the text that appears over it is now
unreadable.

I produced the advert using Illustrator CS and converted and sent it to the
publication as a PDF.

There has obviously been a mistake somewhere and I believe it must be with
the publishers as the PDF I sent them clearly shows the large logo set at
30% opacity.

I would really appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinion on this
situation as the advert placement cost my client a staggering £1200.00! and
I'm hoping that the problem isn't my fault!

Best regards,

Sonars UK


ai-lover

2005-05-09, 7:14 pm

Sonars_UK remove wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently designed a magazine advert for a client. Amongst other

things
> the advert included two logos. One logo was set as 100% opacity and

was
> positioned in the upper left-hand corner of the advert. The other

logo was
> a much larger version and was offset in the bottom right-hand side of

the
> advert. I set the opacity of this logo to 30% as it was used as a
> background to the advert and some text appears over it on another

layer.
>
> The advert displays fine on my monitor, my clients monitor and the

magazines
> monitor. The advert also prints fine on my printer and my clients

printer.
>
> The problem is that the advert that appears in the magazine shows the

large
> logo at 100% opacity and some of the text that appears over it is now


> unreadable.
>
> I produced the advert using Illustrator CS and converted and sent it

to the
> publication as a PDF.
>
> There has obviously been a mistake somewhere and I believe it must be

with
> the publishers as the PDF I sent them clearly shows the large logo

set at
> 30% opacity.
>
> I would really appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinion on

this
> situation as the advert placement cost my client a staggering

=A31200.00! and
> I'm hoping that the problem isn't my fault!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sonars UK


What did the publisher say about the issue? It is possible for the
publisher to open the .pdf in AI CS and adjust it if they are having
issues with it. Did you provide a printed proof with the .pdf file as a
reference? Did the publisher send a proof to the client before printing?

Sonars_UK

2005-05-09, 7:14 pm

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

We are waiting for the publisher to reply to our query. The magazine was
only released today so they have got to look into the issue further. In
answer to your other questions a printed proof was not provided as a
reference and the publisher did not send a proof to my client before
printing. I have learnt my lesson for the future though as I will always
provide and ask for proofs.

For reference here are a couple of links that illustrate my problem further:

The file emailed to the publisher: http://www.smdwebsites.co.uk/correct.pdf

How the file appears in the magazine:
http://www.smdwebsites.co.uk/incorrect.pdf

Regards,

Sonars UK



"ai-lover" <cjac001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115675600.900636.259190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sonars_UK remove wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently designed a magazine advert for a client. Amongst other

things
> the advert included two logos. One logo was set as 100% opacity and

was
> positioned in the upper left-hand corner of the advert. The other

logo was
> a much larger version and was offset in the bottom right-hand side of

the
> advert. I set the opacity of this logo to 30% as it was used as a
> background to the advert and some text appears over it on another

layer.
>
> The advert displays fine on my monitor, my clients monitor and the

magazines
> monitor. The advert also prints fine on my printer and my clients

printer.
>
> The problem is that the advert that appears in the magazine shows the

large
> logo at 100% opacity and some of the text that appears over it is now


> unreadable.
>
> I produced the advert using Illustrator CS and converted and sent it

to the
> publication as a PDF.
>
> There has obviously been a mistake somewhere and I believe it must be

with
> the publishers as the PDF I sent them clearly shows the large logo

set at
> 30% opacity.
>
> I would really appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinion on

this
> situation as the advert placement cost my client a staggering

£1200.00! and
> I'm hoping that the problem isn't my fault!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sonars UK


What did the publisher say about the issue? It is possible for the
publisher to open the .pdf in AI CS and adjust it if they are having
issues with it. Did you provide a printed proof with the .pdf file as a
reference? Did the publisher send a proof to the client before printing?


Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-09, 11:14 pm

in article _pRfe.164$8K5.82@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/09/2005 3:23 PM:

> a printed proof was not provided as a
> reference


You are a fool.





> and the publisher did not send a proof to my client before
> printing.


The printer is also a fool.

You both screwed up and you both should share the cost of reprinting the
job.


Sonars_UK

2005-05-10, 7:14 am

That's not a very nice (or constructve) reply is it!?!

I understand the point you are trying to make and I have said that I have
learnt my lesson and will use proofs in the future. I am at the begining of
a very steep learning curve and am doing my best here. Your reply Lon
showed a certain level of ignorance and I don't know why you use newsgroups
if you are not willing to share your knowledge with helpful answers or
suggestions.

The only explanation I can see is that the printer has manually changed the
opacity from 30% to 100%. I can't understand why and I am looking forward
to their reply. When I spoke to the publisher yesterday that opened the
file and confirmed that the large logo's opacity was set to 30%.

Regards,

Sonars UK


"Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces)" <Lon_Chaney_man_of_1000_faces@LCMail.com>
wrote in message
news:BEA548F6.2097D%Lon_Chaney_man_of_1000_faces@LCMail.com...
> in article _pRfe.164$8K5.82@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
> sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/09/2005 3:23 PM:
>
>
> You are a fool.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The printer is also a fool.
>
> You both screwed up and you both should share the cost of reprinting the
> job.
>
>



Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article Z7_fe.320$8K5.62@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/10/2005 1:19 AM:

> I don't know why you use newsgroups
> if you are not willing to share your knowledge with helpful answers or
> suggestions.



You have made another error. You don't get to define how newsgroups work,
or how they are used. Now run along and try and figure out how you are
going to pay for that job to be reprinted.


Brian

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article Z7_fe.320$8K5.62@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
> sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/10/2005 1:19 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> You have made another error. You don't get to define how newsgroups work,
> or how they are used. Now run along and try and figure out how you are
> going to pay for that job to be reprinted.
>
>

Dude, if you don't have anything productive to contribute take your meds
and STFU.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article 1181q06losta7fc@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 9:57 AM:


> Dude, if you don't have anything productive to contribute take your meds
> and STFU.


How about you taking your own advice, doofus.



Brian

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 1181q06losta7fc@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 9:57 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> How about you taking your own advice, doofus.
>
>
>

I feel that telling you to take your meds and STFU is good advice and
very productive.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article 1181qvmil95vmde@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 10:14 AM:

> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> I feel that telling you to take your meds and STFU is good advice and
> very productive.


I fee it is productive to tell you to take your own advice.

So there.





Brian

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 1181qvmil95vmde@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 10:14 AM:
>
>
>
>
> I fee it is productive to tell you to take your own advice.
>
> So there.
>
>
>
>
>

Yawn...... good comeback. I'm bored with you.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article 11821fqdkma5160@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 12:05 PM:

> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> Yawn...... good comeback. I'm bored with you.



As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.

hahahaha.

You're goofy.


Hecate

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:11:13 -0700, "Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces)"
<Lon_Chaney_man_of_1000_faces@LCMail.com> wrote:


>As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.
>
>hahahaha.
>
>You're goofy.
>

Oh, Mikey, Mikey, that's really not up to your usual level...

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Brian

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 11821fqdkma5160@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 12:05 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.
>
> hahahaha.
>
> You're goofy.
>
>

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Dumbass comebacks) <----- Fixed it for ya.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article h9age.18922$9n1.12055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:59 PM:

> Dumbass comebacks



Take your own advice.

Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 7:16 pm

in article ffa281pci6cram394cfisvtcnmgr0pv1m2@4ax.com, Hecate at
hecate@newsguy.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:39 PM:

> not up to my usual level...



You poor thing.

Brian

2005-05-10, 11:14 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article h9age.18922$9n1.12055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:59 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> Take your own advice.
>

"No YOU are!"

How's that?
KatWoman

2005-05-10, 11:14 pm

WE ARE DEVO

methinks civility in public discourse is
devolving....................................yieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee there
it goes, ya.


"Brian" <nospam@nawbabynaw.com> wrote in message
news:c4bge.18929$9n1.17655@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> "No YOU are!"
>
> How's that?



Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-10, 11:14 pm

in article c4bge.18929$9n1.17655@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 4:02 PM:


> How's that?


I know you are...

Brian

2005-05-11, 7:16 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article c4bge.18929$9n1.17655@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 4:02 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> I know you are...
>

.... but what am I?

LOL, this is fun.
ai-lover

2005-05-11, 7:16 pm

Sonars_UK remove wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently designed a magazine advert for a client. Amongst other

things
> the advert included two logos. One logo was set as 100% opacity and

was
> positioned in the upper left-hand corner of the advert. The other

logo was
> a much larger version and was offset in the bottom right-hand side of

the
> advert. I set the opacity of this logo to 30% as it was used as a
> background to the advert and some text appears over it on another

layer.
>
> The advert displays fine on my monitor, my clients monitor and the

magazines
> monitor. The advert also prints fine on my printer and my clients

printer.
>
> The problem is that the advert that appears in the magazine shows the

large
> logo at 100% opacity and some of the text that appears over it is now


> unreadable.
>
> I produced the advert using Illustrator CS and converted and sent it

to the
> publication as a PDF.
>
> There has obviously been a mistake somewhere and I believe it must be

with
> the publishers as the PDF I sent them clearly shows the large logo

set at
> 30% opacity.
>
> I would really appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinion on

this
> situation as the advert placement cost my client a staggering

=A31200.00! and
> I'm hoping that the problem isn't my fault!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sonars UK


What did the publisher say about the issue? It is possible for the
publisher to open the .pdf in AI CS and adjust it if they are having
issues with it. Did you provide a printed proof with the .pdf file as a
reference? Did the publisher send a proof to the client before printing?

Sonars_UK

2005-05-11, 7:16 pm

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

We are waiting for the publisher to reply to our query. The magazine was
only released today so they have got to look into the issue further. In
answer to your other questions a printed proof was not provided as a
reference and the publisher did not send a proof to my client before
printing. I have learnt my lesson for the future though as I will always
provide and ask for proofs.

For reference here are a couple of links that illustrate my problem further:

The file emailed to the publisher: http://www.smdwebsites.co.uk/correct.pdf

How the file appears in the magazine:
http://www.smdwebsites.co.uk/incorrect.pdf

Regards,

Sonars UK



"ai-lover" <cjac001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115675600.900636.259190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sonars_UK remove wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently designed a magazine advert for a client. Amongst other

things
> the advert included two logos. One logo was set as 100% opacity and

was
> positioned in the upper left-hand corner of the advert. The other

logo was
> a much larger version and was offset in the bottom right-hand side of

the
> advert. I set the opacity of this logo to 30% as it was used as a
> background to the advert and some text appears over it on another

layer.
>
> The advert displays fine on my monitor, my clients monitor and the

magazines
> monitor. The advert also prints fine on my printer and my clients

printer.
>
> The problem is that the advert that appears in the magazine shows the

large
> logo at 100% opacity and some of the text that appears over it is now


> unreadable.
>
> I produced the advert using Illustrator CS and converted and sent it

to the
> publication as a PDF.
>
> There has obviously been a mistake somewhere and I believe it must be

with
> the publishers as the PDF I sent them clearly shows the large logo

set at
> 30% opacity.
>
> I would really appreciate it if anyone could give me their opinion on

this
> situation as the advert placement cost my client a staggering

£1200.00! and
> I'm hoping that the problem isn't my fault!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sonars UK


What did the publisher say about the issue? It is possible for the
publisher to open the .pdf in AI CS and adjust it if they are having
issues with it. Did you provide a printed proof with the .pdf file as a
reference? Did the publisher send a proof to the client before printing?


Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-11, 7:16 pm

in article _pRfe.164$8K5.82@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/09/2005 3:23 PM:

> a printed proof was not provided as a
> reference


You are a fool.





> and the publisher did not send a proof to my client before
> printing.


The printer is also a fool.

You both screwed up and you both should share the cost of reprinting the
job.


Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 4:15 am

in article Z7_fe.320$8K5.62@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/10/2005 1:19 AM:

> I don't know why you use newsgroups
> if you are not willing to share your knowledge with helpful answers or
> suggestions.



You have made another error. You don't get to define how newsgroups work,
or how they are used. Now run along and try and figure out how you are
going to pay for that job to be reprinted.


Brian

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article Z7_fe.320$8K5.62@newsfe3-win.ntli.net, Sonars_UK at
> sonars_uk@removehotmail.com wrote on 05/10/2005 1:19 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> You have made another error. You don't get to define how newsgroups work,
> or how they are used. Now run along and try and figure out how you are
> going to pay for that job to be reprinted.
>
>

Dude, if you don't have anything productive to contribute take your meds
and STFU.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

in article 1181q06losta7fc@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 9:57 AM:


> Dude, if you don't have anything productive to contribute take your meds
> and STFU.


How about you taking your own advice, doofus.



Brian

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 1181q06losta7fc@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 9:57 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> How about you taking your own advice, doofus.
>
>
>

I feel that telling you to take your meds and STFU is good advice and
very productive.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

in article 1181qvmil95vmde@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 10:14 AM:

> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> I feel that telling you to take your meds and STFU is good advice and
> very productive.


I fee it is productive to tell you to take your own advice.

So there.





Brian

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 1181qvmil95vmde@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 10:14 AM:
>
>
>
>
> I fee it is productive to tell you to take your own advice.
>
> So there.
>
>
>
>
>

Yawn...... good comeback. I'm bored with you.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 7:20 am

in article 11821fqdkma5160@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 12:05 PM:

> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> Yawn...... good comeback. I'm bored with you.



As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.

hahahaha.

You're goofy.


Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 7:15 pm

in article h9age.18922$9n1.12055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:59 PM:

> Dumbass comebacks



Take your own advice.

Hecate

2005-05-14, 7:15 pm

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:11:13 -0700, "Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces)"
<Lon_Chaney_man_of_1000_faces@LCMail.com> wrote:


>As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.
>
>hahahaha.
>
>You're goofy.
>

Oh, Mikey, Mikey, that's really not up to your usual level...

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Brian

2005-05-14, 7:15 pm

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article 11821fqdkma5160@corp.supernews.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 12:05 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> As if that your level of boredom is an insult to me.
>
> hahahaha.
>
> You're goofy.
>
>

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Dumbass comebacks) <----- Fixed it for ya.
Man of 1000 Faces

2005-05-14, 7:15 pm

in article ffa281pci6cram394cfisvtcnmgr0pv1m2@4ax.com, Hecate at
hecate@newsguy.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:39 PM:

> not up to my usual level...



You poor thing.

Brian

2005-05-17, 7:17 am

Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> in article h9age.18922$9n1.12055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com, Brian at
> nospam@nawbabynaw.com wrote on 05/10/2005 2:59 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> Take your own advice.
>

"No YOU are!"

How's that?
KatWoman

2005-05-17, 7:17 am

WE ARE DEVO

methinks civility in public discourse is
devolving....................................yieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee there
it goes, ya.


"Brian" <nospam@nawbabynaw.com> wrote in message
news:c4bge.18929$9n1.17655@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Lon Chaney (Man of 1000 Faces) wrote:
> "No YOU are!"
>
> How's that?



Sponsored Links


Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com  Software forum  Computer Hardware reviews