1 person found this helpful
This is not an InDesign or Adobe issue. It's an Apple issue.
I am on CS4 and my colleagues are on CS5 and they have no end of problems getting their PDFs the way they want them from the command near the Export options under FILE.
What command near near the Export options? Can you be specific? Post a screen shot? Are your colleages working in Snow Leopard? If that's it, then Bob is correct, and this is an Apple issue, but I can't tell what you are talking about.
We work at a printers and in the end my colleagues come to me with CS4 to get the print ready files through to our RIP for making plates for litho printing.
The vital parts that are missing for CS5 is the option to choose the sheet size of the PDF and much more precise management of the colours and DPI/LPI.
Are you saying that an EXPORTED PDF will not RIP correctly on your system? What specifically doesn't work?
If you're referring to the missing Adobe PDF printer option under Mac OS X (Snow Leopard and Lion), please read this post I did a couple years ago. (It has nothing to do with Adobe or InDesign specifically.)
On behalf of Adobe:
I assume you are referring to InDesign running on under MacOS.
(1) Adobe never “took away” any ability to produce PDF via distillation of PostScript. In what was described by Apple as a security enhancement, Apple themselves disabled the ability of Adobe Acrobat to have an automated “print to Distiller” capability via the Adobe PDF PostScript printer driver instance on the Macintosh (this feature remains available under Windows). If you are going to complain to anyone, complain to Apple. This has nothing to do with a particular version of either InDesign or the Creative Suite, but rather, MacOS version.
(2) You still can conceivably produce PDF via distillation of PostScript by producing a PostScript file and then either manually distilling it or using the “watched folder” capability to automate the process of distilling PostScript into PDF.
A “petition” isn't going to change anything in this regards.
However, even though production of PDF via distillation of PostScript is still available, albeit not quite as convenient, we would wonder why you believe that you need to produce PDF in that manner?
PostScript generated by InDesign is not optimized for creation of PDF, but rather for printing directly to a PostScript device. It is highly device dependent with no support of color management and live transparency. It is created for a specific page size, a specific device resolution, and a specific color space. The fonts are embedded in the PostScript file in a manner that is not conducive for high reliability PDF creation.
Adobe most strongly recommends that all PDF creation from InDesign be performed by the Export function in which PDF is directly generated from the InDesign document without any PostScript intermediary. This provides the ability to produce highly optimized, device independent PDF with full color management, live transparency, searchability, etc.
You state that the vital parts that are missing for CS5 is the option to choose the sheet size of the PDF and much more precise management of the colours and DPI/LPI. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all.
Regardless of the “page size” chosen for your InDesign document, you can effectively choose a different (larger, but not smaller, obviously) page size for the exported PDF by judicious use of the bleed and slug areas either as defined originally for the document or as overrides at PDF export.
In terms of color management, PDF export fully supports ICC color management and by selecting appropriate export joboptions (such as PDF/X-4), you can fully manage all colors (RGB, CMYK, LAB, and spot colors) through the rest of your workflow.
I am not quite sure what you mean by precise management of DPI/LPI, but neither for composite PostScript (which is what you would distill to get a composite color PDF file) nor for PDF export does InDesign support direct specification of screening parameters (what I assume you mean for DPI/LPI). If you print separations directly from InDesign to a PostScript device, yes, the InDesign Output Print dialog allows you to specify generic (not on an image by image basis) frequency and angle for each of the separations which results as setpagedevice parameters in the PostScript file (and subsequently ignored by the Distiller). And if in fact you are creating pre-separated PDF, you are really using a non-supported, strongly not-recommended workflow.
Assuming that you are using a composite color PDF workflow, separation colorant line frequency and angles is normally handled automatically by any modern-day RIP. If you are sending your PDF files directly to a RIP, this separation colorant line frequency and angle information is normally either set via JDF commands or via the RIP's operator console and/or job submission system and is not somehow extracted from the PDF file itself. Many RIPs totally ignore such information, especially if they use FM or proprietary screening techniques.
is the OP imposing finished artwork in InDesign or elsewhere, such as Preps or Dynastrip? what RIP is the OP using, or are the PDFs being sent directly without further intervention to an output device like a platesetter? are plates being made directly from indesign to a level 2 RIP?
At my work, we prepare PDFs to the trim size but allow bleed to be included. these PDFs are then put into our RIP (AGFA apogee) and we are then spoilt for choice as to how we impose the artwork (we can impose the artwork using preps or apogee impose, or our planners can do it for us in our MIS). art is imposed to sheetsize and plategrip is built into our RIP, and LPI/angles are also controlled by the RIP.
if the OP can perhaps expand on the original post to explain the issue.
Dov Isaacs> You are coming across as rude with your use of "".
I know now after all the informative comments that it is an apple issue and so will redirect my chagrin there.
If no one moans nothing gets done.
We have equipment that dates back to about 2003-2007 so we are outdated, but are not a big firm and cannot fork out the £40,000 for a new bit of kit,
just because Apple decides to change its mind about something.
We use a Harlequin RIP for an ABDICK poly plate processor. We are a spot colour printer who rarely deals with CMYK.
Our ABDICK uses 150lpi. We are used (In CS4 and lower) to being able to control all aspects of how the plate comes out using page sizes, selecting
which plates process, their dot angle, grip edge everything.
We used to use Appletalk to send the files directly to our ABDICK, but now we all have to produce PostScript files. It used to be simple, but now it
feels like we have taken a step backwards. This again is a MAC issue.
So now I know more about where the fault lies, I will take up the issue with Apple.
People who don't petition are the unheard masses and my speaking out has given rise to all the information that I need to move my cause on. The
squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I can only assume by your tone that you have been faced with people asking about this issue before and there is some conflict between Apple and Adobe.
I am only the user that is caught in the middle.
I am sorry if you think that I am being rude, but I am trying to give you as much of a factual and realistic response as possible.
Nor am I trying to fan any flames associated with any perceived conflict between providers.
Note that because Apple did remove the capability of having the AdobePDF PostScript printer driver instance, the support for same has been removed by Adobe from Acrobat. Even if Apple was to reinstate the ability to do this (which we strongly doubt since the reason for removing it was claimed to be a serious security vulnerability, not from Adobe's code but rather from potential third party malware), Acrobat has no plans to do reinstate that support.
This still brings up the issue of specifying global halftone settings and angles in a PDF file. Producing PDF via distillation of PostScript never did provide such a capability unless you were producing pre-separated PDF. If you were producing composite color (CMYK or otherwise) via distillation of PostScript, there would be no commands put into the PostScript associated with global halftone settings and if you were producing pre-separated PDF via distillation of PostScript, those global halftone settings would be have been discarded by the Distiller anyway. Something is fairly inconsistent between what you think you generated and how you think such global halftone settings were sent to your RIP along with the PDF file.
Based on what I know about Global Graphic's Harlequin technology, your RIP should be able to be configured for halftone settings (screen frequencies and angles) external to the PDF file itself.
I understand your sensitivity to costs associated with replacing RIPs. However, if you haven't already done so, you may want to investigate whether a software upgrade to your RIP (probably much less expensive than replacing the RIP) would assist in resolving incompatibilities.