Adobe printer with Snow Leopard

[Dov Isaacs]

No: export PDF works fine ONLY with PrintEngine RIPs... so, beyond the Adobe's official propaganda (made mainly to force the printers to upgrade their RIPs and give more money to Adobe), on the field the rule is simple:

- if the printer has a PrintEngine RIP, then export is the best solution,

- but if the printer has a PostScript RIP, better make a PS file and distill,

- and if you don't know what kind of RIP the printer has, or if you don't know who is the printer, better use the old safe method PS+distill.

That's another long debate... PostScript is perhaps lossy, but distilled PDF are more reliable and compatible with PostScript RIPs...
... and are sometimes more compatible with Adobe's softwares: each time I experienced problems with exported PDF, either with my RIPs, or with Acrobat or InDesign, the problem has disappeared with PS+Distiller!

... and personnaly (and I guess that many people will agree) I prefer a lossy method that works 95% of the time, to an unlossy system that crashes most often...

(Another thing that I hate with exported PDF, is that the page enlargement is set by defaut to stupid values: for an A4 pages, it's 12.408 mm...
... no doubt that it is a good value, corresponding to something usual for people who works with inches, but I bought a french localized version, and I use millimeters as units... and I would like to have a page enlargement that match with the selected unit... 10 mm, for example!)

With regards to your comment that "Adobe's official propaganda (made mainly to force the printers to upgrade their RIPs and give more money to Adobe)," this is totally ridiculous! Relatively little money is made by Adobe in terms of licensing fees of either Adobe PostScript 3 or the Adobe PDF Print Engine. There is no either "official" or "unofficial" propaganda trying to feed that business. The fact, though, is that if you have a RIP that obeys the PostScript Language Reference specification, going all the way back to PostScript Language Level 2, you should find no problem whatsoever printing an exported PDF from InDesign or Illustrator via PostScript from Acrobat! I have yet to find one exported PDF file that could not properly be printed to my 15 year old Hewlett Packard LaserJet 5M (based on Adobe PostScript Level 2) much less more modern printers and RIPs based on Adobe PostScript 3 or the Adobe PDF Print Engine. If you have an ancient coal fired, steam driven RIP based on PostScript Language Level 1 or a high-end RIP that has not been under software maintenance getting updates and fixes from the supplier, yes, you may likely have problems with exported PDF as well as PDF produced via distillation of PostScript. (For example, Identity-H double byte encoding can occur with Distiller as well as via direct PDF export!)

There is no debate as to whether PDF produced via distillation of PostScript is "lossy" - it definitely is lossy and device resolution and color space-dependent compared to direct export PDF to versions PDF 1.4 or greater especially if your original InDesign or Illustrator content has live transparency and/or color management. This isn't a "maybe" - both Leonard and I do know what we are talking about (we are both directly involved with this technology within Adobe and with the development of international PDF standards including PDF/X, PDF/A, and ISO PDF) and there are many, many print service providers who will back this up! (Note that even the Ghent PDF Workgroup in which Leonard and I both represent Adobe - a very conservative and traditional group - is currently developing new standards based on PDF/X-4. You absolutely cannot produce PDF/X-4 via distillation of PostScript!) Oh, by the way, even Global Graphics (supplier of the Harlequin RIP technology) agrees with us on these issues; it is obviously not just an Adobe conspiracy!

Print service providers who really want to stay in business have stopped playing the "blame game" and realize that always blaming their customers as well as very obsolete or buggy RIPs and other obsolete PDF workflow products for printing problems (including transparency issues, color management issues, and outright PDF file errors) only increases their own real costs, increases customer dissatisfaction, and hastens their own demise.

Modern graphic arts is much more associated with software workflow than "gear." Amazing how some printers will drool over and continue to invest big $ (or Euros or whatever) in the latest presses yet be cheap when it comes to productivity gains and fixing problems by investing in software maintenance and upgrading their workflows to match the more exacting demands of increasing graphically rich and complex content coming from designers these days.

In reality and in summary, this discussion is not really about PDF via distillation of PostScript versus exported/saved PDF from Adobe applications, but rather about replacing old workflows that best supported 1990's era content with no transparency and simple "color by the numbers" CMYK+spot-only content that cannot properly support live transparency, managed color (including ICC color managed RGB digital photographic images), and international font support.

- Dov

[almaink]

But Dov I'm still waiting on an answer as to why some PDF's exported from InDesign CS3 or CS4 if placed in InDesign CS2 will not export to PDF. Case in point. I receive PDF files for a 64 page ad book, some are InDesign CS3 or 4 generated via export to PDF. After they are placed into the ad book in Indesign CS2 the resulting file will not export to PDF! I get nothing but a dumb error that states, :"File failed to export to PDF", da, no kidding. If I write a postscript file it will PDF no problem but it also will flatten any transparency, and I can't have that. If I open the file in InDesign CS4 it will export. But that is not a solution for people that don't have CS4, or can't use it for various reasons.

[Dov Isaacs]

But Dov I'm still waiting on an answer as to why some PDF's exported from InDesign CS3 or CS4 if placed in InDesign CS2 will not export to PDF. Case in point. I receive PDF files for a 64 page ad book, some are InDesign CS3 or 4 generated via export to PDF. After they are placed into the ad book in Indesign CS2 the resulting file will not export to PDF! I get nothing but a dumb error that states, :"File failed to export to PDF", da, no kidding. If I write a postscript file it will PDF no problem but it also will flatten any transparency, and I can't have that. If I open the file in InDesign CS4 it will export. But that is not a solution for people that don't have CS4, or can't use it for various reasons.

I wish I could give you an answer to that, but obviously I cannot without doing a possibly fairly deep analysis of the PDF files in question. An interesting question is whether those same PDF files exported form InDesign 5 and 6 placed into InDesign 6 export correctly. At least we would know that a problem has been fixed in a newer version of the application.

- Dov

[claude72]

With regards to your comment that "Adobe's official propaganda (made mainly to force the printers to upgrade their RIPs and give more money to Adobe)," this is totally ridiculous! Relatively little money is made by Adobe in terms of licensing fees of either Adobe PostScript 3 or the Adobe PDF Print Engine. There is no either "official" or "unofficial" propaganda trying to feed that business.

Yesssss... of course... and you are Elvis Presley and I am the Queen of England...

Don't think I'm a fool: I clearly know how a capitalist companies works: cars manufacturer make more secure cars, many companies does advertising, cell-phones manufacturers makes keyboard that doesn't work more than 2 years, Apple make their computers more beautiful: every companies make what they can to sell their stuff... and Adobe works exactly like a capitalist companie, making everything possible to sell its stuff... including selling PrintEngine RIPs. And in computing business it is very easy to organize scientifically and volontarilly the incompatibility: a simple line of code is enough to block the user and force him to buy new softwares.

Just an example: OK, the PDF printer doesn't work under OS 10.6... and Apple seems to be the culprit... so Adobe makes a new system, that amazingly don't use PostScript, but works with the same libraries than export... just these libraries that make PDF uncompatible with PostScript RIPs... very clever: Adobe takes advantage from an Apple's evolution to remove the PostScript technologie that works with every PostScript RIPs and replaces it by the export technologie that works only with new Printengine RIPs... surprizing!!! no, in fact not surprizing: removing the tools to make PostScript based PDF simply force the users to make PDF that are compatible only with PrintEngine RIPs, and will force the printer to replace their PostScript RIP by new PrintEngine RIP when they will be fed-up to loose time and money with these PDF.

... and Adobe goes further in the organization of this new uncompatibility with PS RIPs by removing the PPD "AdobePDF9" automatically... why remove this PPD??? there is absolutely no need, Adobe could have left it in place, it would simply allow the users to go on making PostScript files and distilling...

... and if the user try to put back this PPD at it's right place, Adobe removes it again... and it is now impossible to output a PS file "device dependent" with the Adobe PDF PPD from InDesign... simply because since some years, Adobe imposes it's methods and it's point of view: Adobe has decided that the user will no more distill, and Adobe makes everything possible to be sure that the user will not distill...

But why? why so much hate against distilling? simply because distilled PDF are more reliable and more compatible with old PostScript RIPs, and leaving this PPD will allow the user to make good PDF for old RIPs, and Adobe will not sell its new RIPs... and that's not "conspiracy", that's simply the basis of capitalism: make the users buy as much as possible, even force him when possible.


Now, it's up to you to demonstrate that I'm wrong: as you work by Adobe on Acrobat, with your friend Leonard you perhaps have enough power in the companie to simply let the next Acrobat update puts back the PPD, cancel the automatic suppression, and then demonstrate to me that I'm wrong and that Adobe listen to the user's problems and allows to the users the choice to make their PDF with the method they want

The fact, though, is that if you have a RIP that obeys the PostScript Language Reference specification, going all the way back to PostScript Language Level 2, you should find no problem whatsoever printing an exported PDF from InDesign or Illustrator via PostScript from Acrobat! I have yet to find one exported PDF file that could not properly be printed to my 15 year old Hewlett Packard LaserJet 5M (based on Adobe PostScript Level 2) much less more modern printers and RIPs based on Adobe PostScript 3 or the Adobe PDF Print Engine. If you have an ancient coal fired, steam driven RIP based on PostScript Language Level 1 or a high-end RIP that has not been under software maintenance getting updates and fixes from the supplier, yes, you may likely have problems with exported PDF as well as PDF produced via distillation of PostScript.

Again, don't think I'm a fool! I don't have an old steam RIP, I have 2 Agfa PostScript level 3 RIPs, both based on a true Adobe CPSI (which I hope obeys the PostScript Language Reference specification), both compatible PDF 1.3:
- a Viper 3.04, with the last update ".04" from Agfa,
- and an Apogee Serie2, with the last Update6 from Agfa...

... both accept distilled PDF 1.3 in their hot-folders without any problem...
... but with an exported PDF 1.3 the viper crashes and the Apogee flushes the job.
Using Acrobat (8) works less bad: when Acrobat doesn't crash, only 50% of the exported PDF are flushed with a PostScript error.

There is no debate as to whether PDF produced via distillation of PostScript is "lossy" - it definitely is lossy and device resolution and color space-dependent compared to direct export PDF to versions PDF 1.4 or greater especially if your original InDesign or Illustrator content has live transparency and/or color management.

Yes there is no debate: it doesn't the matter... I (and many other printers also) prefer something a little bit lossy that works, than something marvellously keeping everything but that does work only 50%. End of the debate.

Modern graphic arts is much more associated with software workflow than "gear." Amazing how some printers will drool over and continue to invest big $ (or Euros or whatever) in the latest presses yet be cheap when it comes to productivity gains and fixing problems by investing in software maintenance and upgrading their workflows to match the more exacting demands of increasing graphically rich and complex content coming from designers these days.

Yeah, you said it: that's the real american capitalist point of view, and the real capitalist speech from Adobe... buy, buy, invest, change, be up-to-date... and give money to Adobe!

... but you simply forget that all the printshops do not have 200 employees (even not 20) and do not earn billions of dollars or euros every year: the pre-press workflow you are talking about costs more than 6 monthes of my activity, and again, don't think I am a fool, I have already looked at the possibilities and made a simulation: I will need 20 years to pay it... but it will be obsolete 2 years after being bought. No comment.

Today, your technologies with "productivity gains", etc., etc. is only affordable by big print-shops... let's say more than 20 employees and at least 2 presses running all day long... in my printshop, we are 5 employees, and we have ONE 4-colors press running quarter or third of the time, and I am the only pre-press operator... what "productivity gains" can I expect? no more job and firing me myself? I don't need "productivity gains", I only need to product!!! and for that I have no money to invest in brand new RIPs... so I have to work with my existing RIPs, and for that I need PS based PDF.

Simply be realistic: your are driving at full speed on the highway of technologies... but only some printers can follow you: your technologies is not for every printers, and only big one can afford...
... in France, middle printers are absorbed by big printers, because they cannot afford for the technologies needed today to be concurrent with big printshops...

... and Adobe is simply strangling and ruining the little printshops by forcing them to buy and buy and buy and re-buy new softwares, without leaving enough time to earn enough money to pay the previous versions...
(when CS4 came, only 13 monthes after the CS3 - instead of 18 monthes normally - I had not made enough job with my CS3 to pay it!!!)

In reality and in summary, this discussion is not really about PDF via distillation of PostScript versus exported/saved PDF from Adobe applications, but rather about replacing old workflows that best supported 1990's era content with no transparency and simple "color by the numbers" CMYK+spot-only content that cannot properly support live transparency, managed color (including ICC color managed RGB digital photographic images), and international font support.

Yes, you begin (at least) to understand: little printers cannot afford to replace their RIP, and we don't need live transparencies to work, we don't need your color managing*... so simply let the people work how they want, and let people who cannot afford for a new Print Engine workflow work with their old PostScript workflow!!!

Don't you know that in some countries, today little printers are happy to buy a Viper 1.5 RIP??? 1.5!!! it's a PS level 2 RIP, released around 1993!!!
Don't you know that still today some other printers when they receive a PDF simply pixelize each page of the PDF in Photoshop at 300 ppi and place all these pictures in XPress 4 or 5 pages to image on PS level 1 or 2 RIPs?
Do you really think that these people have the money to buy a new PrintEngine RIP??? no, they haven't and if Adobe does not leave them work with PS files, they will die and Adobe will loose customers!!!

Technologie is nothing if not shared and if not affordable!

It's easy, simply cancel the line of code that suppress the PPD "AdobePDF9" and let people do their PDF by distilling PostScript files, like the little printers need.



* don't try to speak about Adobe's color management with me, there is a risk that I become angry... cause color management and profiles in Adobe's european softwares are a real pieces of ***** and it's easier and better to work without.

[Stephen Marsh]

Following this "debate" with much interest!

I am middle of the road between both opposing camps, however I tend to lean more toward the end user point of view than the "company line".

I generally export PDF, however there can be good reasons not to! Some publications will only allow the submission of PDF files that have been distilled - no exporting allowed. Then there are other reasons - case in point below...

Exporting a PDF from InDesign CS3 using a custom PDF setting, the ideal is to have a file around 650kb - close to the client supplied PDF for web downloading...Sadly, exporting from InDesign results in a file size of 4mb.

Printing to PostScript and Distilling a PDF using the same custom PDF preset...file size is 704kb.

Same source INDD file. Same PDF preset. This is a 4 page file, the origianal PDF has been placed into InDesign and some extra elements have been added to the pages. Acrobat ver 1.5 to match the clients PDF for online use.


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

[pcmodem]

If someone has the money to purchase the upgrades to OS X and Adobe Software, but still has RIP's from Pre-OSX days. They need to think about spending some of their money else where. Sending from a New Page Layout application to an old RIP is like trying to use a VCR tape in a Blu-Ray player. You don't have to be on the bleeding edge of technology but you should stay current to some degree. Not staying current will bite you in the behind sooner or later.

[claude72]

Sending from a New Page Layout application to an old RIP is like trying to use a VCR tape in a Blu-Ray player.

No! because both devices have characteristics which show that they are not compatible...

... but in an opposite manner, the CS3 characteristics matche with my RIPs characteristics:
- my RIPs are PostScript level 3 and PDF 1.3 compatible,
- the CS3 needs a PostScript level 3 RIP and can output 1.3 PDF...

... and whatever their ages PS level 3 softwares match with PS level 3 RIPs, and PDFs 1.3 match with PDF 1.3 compatible RIPs... so, my CS3 matches with my RIPs!

You don't have to be on the bleeding edge of technology but you should stay current to some degree.

Yes, and the limits of "staying current to some degree" are:
• using RIPs with a PostScript level equal to the PostScript level of the datas outputted by the softwares,
• and outputting PDF with a version equal to the version accepted by the RIPs...

... and according to the manufacturers's characteristics of both softwares and RIPs, my CS3 and 1.3 PDFs match with my RIPs, and it should work without any problem...

... or Adobe is lying and cheating us!

[Joe]

No! because both devices have characteristics which show that they are not compatible...

... but in an opposite manner, the CS3 characteristics matche with my RIPs characteristics:
- my RIPs are PostScript level 3 and PDF 1.3 compatible,
- the CS3 needs a PostScript level 3 RIP and can output 1.3 PDF...

... and whatever their ages PS level 3 softwares match with PS level 3 RIPs, and PDFs 1.3 match with PDF 1.3 compatible RIPs... so, my CS3 matches with my RIPs!




Yes, and the limits of "staying current to some degree" are:
• using RIPs with a PostScript level equal to the PostScript level of the datas outputted by the softwares,
• and outputting PDF with a version equal to the version accepted by the RIPs...

... and according to the manufacturers's characteristics of both softwares and RIPs, my CS3 and 1.3 PDFs match with my RIPs, and it should work without any problem...

... or Adobe is lying and cheating us!

PDF 1.3 and Postscript of any level is not "current". PDF 1.3 is Acrobat 4 compatible. A full 5 versions behind the "current" version of Acrobat. As far as postscript, I don't believe Adobe is doing any enhancement of postscript now or in the future. Yes, CS3 can still output a 1.3 PDF as can CS4. That does not mean they are that versions recommended PDF level though. They can also output a jpeg but that doesn't mean you should. There is a reason that Adobe made higher versions of PDF, ie...1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7. To take advantage of features built into the rest of current versions of Creative Suite. All PDF 1.3 is now, is a workaround for those with older RIPs that can't handle the current level of PDF's produced by current versions.

Yes, Adobe is trying to make money. Yes Adobe would like everyone to use the latest they have to offer. No crime there. Welcome to capitalism.

[claude72]

PDF 1.3 and Postscript of any level is not "current".

Yes, but PDF-X4 begins only to be used, and 1.3 is the basis of all PDF-X1 norms, that are still in use...

They can also output a jpeg but that doesn't mean you should.

The reasons are not the same! JPEG is not vector based and is not multi-page and doesn't match with quality. But PDF 1.3 has all the features needed to print quality with a PostScript RIP, but needs users more skillfull than exported 1.4 (or higher) PDF and PrintEngine RIP.

No crime there. Welcome to capitalism.

I agree, it's more (or only) a political problem!!!

But no crime... are you sure? the capitalism itself isn't it a crime against humanity???

[pcmodem]

claude,

Why do you upgrade your Operating System?

Why do you upgrade your Adobe software?

Why do you not upgrade your RIP?