Copy link to clipboard
Copied
So I have a file that I am making for a client, and they are numbered tags that are double sided. The issue is that I have one side that will have the sequential numbers and the back is the same on every single one. The numbering goes from 00001 to 10000, and I have parent pages that automate the numbering based on the page number. I was asked by the printer that they need me to insert the back in between each page, but if I intert them manually that would take FOREVER and it would disrupt the numbering. I currently have the sequential numbers in one layout, and I created an alternate layout with the same number of pages with the back information. Any advice on how I can export to PDF with these pages alternating without disrupting the number order, and if there's a way I can automate this that would be great too but I'm not choosey.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Some time ago, I've modified Place Multipage PDF script - Windows version - that would place pages from the PDF only on left or right pages.
I can try and find it - or post it here again if you are interested.
Or maybe it can be done in Acrobat - alternate combination of pages from two files?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
So you have a tag layout with 10,000 copies that are identical except for the number.
You want 10,000 tags printed with the same image (and most importantly, number) on both sides.
So the printer wants a 20,000 page file ordered (page) 1-1, 2-2, 3-3...
This is an example of why item numbering is almost always (and still) done as a separate step at the printing level. Print 10,000 copies of the tag, efficiently. Run all 10k through a numbering press, in one or two passes depending on its sophistication.
Asking for a linear setup file for this job is... peculiar.
At a minimum, if this is how this shop works, they should have print control/imposition software that can do the doubled printing, or simply run the job 1-10k in two passes. But I'd maintain that a really capable print shop would have a numbering press instead.