So why do you need the die line in there? Since it is just a die and not part of the art, take it out.
Good question. Because we have a PDF workflow/rip that nests the file until a proof is needed. So we export as PDFX/1a since it's by far still the most requested PDF format (you'd be surprised how many printers still don't want to deal with RGB to CMYK conversions and live transparency). Sometimes we need a proof with die on, sometimes with die off (in that case we instruct the rip to not print the die plate -- since it's set as overprint it shouldn't make a difference, it won't leave a white area). It makes no sense exporting a PDFX4 (my workflow would handle it just fine) for proofing purpose on our end while sending out PDFX/1a... Anyway, that's not the point. I just don't get how a fill area of "none" combined with an overprinting spot stroke affects flattening this way...
Better train people and risk they leave - than do nothing and risk they stay.
Hmmm... it sounds like the dieline is an InDesign polygon with a spot stroke? Make sure there are no transparency effects on that polygon (Effects palette -> Clear Transparency). Maybe try exporting as an EPS with nothing but the dieline, and then Placing that EPS back in? Also, is the dieline spot color a color created within ID, or is it a spot color brought in with a PDF/EPS/etc? Can you create a new spot color for the die, nuke the old one and try again?
I rasterized both PDF files into Photoshop at 300ppi CMYK. I then layered one over the other in difference blend mode, then flattened. I then ran an equalize command to exaggerate the differences. I then ran curves to exaggerate the differences again. The only pixel difference between both files was the die! Have you done a test print to see if output to print shows any difference between the two jobs?
On another note - radial gradients are very unforgiving, they can usually show banding very easily. In Photoshop, one can create a gradient with "dither" and or in addition one may add minor noise. As far as I know, InDesign does not offer these features to "vector" gradients - although with an inner glow object effect one can add some minor noise.
Stephen Marsh
Last edited by Stephen Marsh; 08-08-2012 at 01:23 AM.
Hmmm... it sounds like the dieline is an InDesign polygon with a spot stroke? Make sure there are no transparency effects on that polygon (Effects palette -> Clear Transparency). Maybe try exporting as an EPS with nothing but the dieline, and then Placing that EPS back in? Also, is the dieline spot color a color created within ID, or is it a spot color brought in with a PDF/EPS/etc? Can you create a new spot color for the die, nuke the old one and try again?
Drewstre, already tried all of that, with same result. Thanks.
Last edited by Colorblind; 08-08-2012 at 10:45 AM.
Better train people and risk they leave - than do nothing and risk they stay.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but have tried the oldy but goody favorite of deleting the layer, saving the file as a different name, then opening it and creating a new die layer?
I rasterized both PDF files into Photoshop at 300ppi CMYK. I then layered one over the other in difference blend mode, then flattened. I then ran an equalize command to exaggerate the differences. I then ran curves to exaggerate the differences again. The only pixel difference between both files was the die! Have you done a test print to see if output to print shows any difference between the two jobs?
On another note - radial gradients are very unforgiving, they can usually show banding very easily. In Photoshop, one can create a gradient with "dither" and or in addition one may add minor noise. As far as I know, InDesign does not offer these features to "vector" gradients - although with an inner glow object effect one can add some minor noise.
Stephen Marsh
Stephen, thank you for taking the time to download the files and do your tests. I also rasterized in Photoshop (at 600 dpi) and you're right, both rasterized versions look the same. But when both PDFs are viewed in Acrobat Pro (400% blowup top left area, separation/overprint preview on), you can see a slight difference as in these Photoshop enhanced screen captures.
Last edited by Colorblind; 08-08-2012 at 10:47 AM.
Better train people and risk they leave - than do nothing and risk they stay.
Stephen, thank you for taking the time to download the files and do your tests. I also rasterized in Photoshop (at 600 dpi) and you're right, both rasterized versions look the same. But when both PDFs are viewed in Acrobat Pro (400% blowup top left area, separation/overprint preview on), you can see a slight difference as in these Photoshop enhanced screen captures.
Colorblind, as I said, radial gradients are tricky! They are "perfect" and often lack any noise to break up possible banding. If a transform is applied (curve, profile, softproof) then there will likely be some sort of alteration of the data and banding will appear.
As the Photoshop test proves - both files are the same, so I would bet that this is a display issue.
i've downloaded the files too and don't find any differences between the two pdf files at all expect of the die line. i'm coming from an packaging background and we have on our job files (mostly illu but indy too) multiple spot colour for annotations. i've never seen any differences with or without them and it would realy surprise me if there are any...
did you compare the percentage value of the cmyk channels in both file or did you only compare them visually?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by pacart
