Photoshop CS4 and Type

[David Kunkel]

Why not just convert Photoshop text to curves?

Why not just convert Photoshop text to curves?

Although I'm 'only a designer', I spent 12 years in a print shop doing customer design services, production art, and preflight. Now I do a lot of tradeshow graphics where Photoshop is the best way to deal with large (huge) bitmaps, type, and transparency together--this is where Photoshop excels over InDesign, Quark, or Illustrator. I always convert my Photoshop text to a vector shape before sending these files to the production house, by right-clicking on the text layer and choosing "Convert to shape". I'll split it onto multiple layers using the vector tools if I have to recreate multi-color text (such as a contrast-colored bullet). I'll usually follow up by saving as a Photoshop EPS, though that's not necessary. The EPS preview adds a lot to the file size but compression brings it most of the way back; I'll make the EPS half size at double resolution to reduce the preview's pixel count and minimize the size bump. The resulting vector art is well received by all the vendors I work with, and I think it will be seen by the trapping software just like any other generic vector path would.

 

[WillAdams]

Not a new technique, but kind of off-the-wall and not used that often (everyone I've told about it has always been surprised):

- drag the PhotoShop .psd to Adobe Illustrator (be sure to choose the option to keep text editable, &c. --- you may need to re-arrange / merge the layers so that all text / vector elements you need to fix are above any transparency effects)

- once in Adobe Illustrator one has compleat control over how text is coloured and if need be, one can re-draw any elements which aren't working out from how PhotoShop had represented them.

William

 

[pacart]

Please explain to me why people are doing vector in photoshop anyways. Photoshops main purpose is for raster images, if you need to scale something in any number of sizes why not just go straight to illustrator, thats what it is for. Then you don't have to worry about dpi at all and if your art has raster images you can either put the resulting eps or ai file into photoshop, indesign or bring raster into illustrator.

I guess im just saying i use the programs for their main purpose....

Raster in photoshop
Vector in illustrator
bring them together in Indesign

 

[David Kunkel]

Re: my earlier post

Re: my earlier post

I re-read the thread and felt I should add to my earlier post:

When saved as an .EPS, Photoshop's "fill" layers with vector clipping paths seem to behave just like vector objects created in Illustrator: mathematically defined edges with mathematically defined fills. I've examined tradeshow graphic outputs where the output file's line screen was 150dpi (more is unnecessary when the output is hanging 12 feet off the floor) and through a loupe the vector objects (that used to be type) were definitely seen to be at the device's output resolution of 1200 to 2400dpi. While I've talked a lot about tradeshow artwork that's typically printed out on inkjet-like devices, I've also found these things to be true in commercial printing on standard presses.

InDesign and Illustrator also clip bitmaps with a vector edge anytime a photo appears in a frame or behind a clipping path, and the trap software seems to handle them just fine. I don't see any reason why a bitmap clipped by a vector path in Photoshop and saved as an EPS should be handled any different by the imagesetter/platesetter then a bitmap placed in Illustrator over a rich background, clipped by a vector path, and saved as an EPS--unless it's going through some process that's rasterizing the whole thing, like at the one printshop that was outputting my EPSs via Photoshop and rasterizing them at the "open" dialog!

PDFs are unreliable and I avoid them like the plague because of the way they downsample bitmaps, break transparency effects into bitmaps butted against vector art (with the occasional gap or color shift visible in output), and color manage unpredictably when their settings conflict with device settings. Like in the example above, some print vendor's output devices or workflows rasterize everything in a Photoshop native file, depending on the output workflow. I've found that EPS has always been the most reliable output for me.

Finally, a friendly comment about "stupid" designers: We go to school for four to six years to learn how to create effective design. While I had the opportunity to work in and learn from a print shop, most designers don't, and they really can't take another two to four years to learn how to be print professionals as well as designers. It's no wonder that they solve their design and output problems differently than a prepress tech or pressman would like, but we bring in the work that fills the job jackets and give the presses something to run, so roll your eyes and chuckle, and make it work! We need each other, and trust me, you wouldn't want to trade 'challenges'.

 

[WillAdams]

The problem is PhotoShop's colour controls for type and the interaction w/ that and the .eps and .pdf filters are so primitive that one can't get black type w/ overprinting, or spot colour type.

The reason why people use PhotoShop for everything is the old saw about having a hammer and seeing nothing but nails.

William

 

[pacart]

FYI - PEOPLE

JUST REMEMBER AT THE END BEFORE IT HITS THE PAPER, THE ART IS ALWAYS RASTERIZED.

JUST SAYIN.

AND FOR THE COMMENT ABOUT NOT WANTING TO TRADE "challenges" a lot of us fill both rolls and have no problem designing for print and making sure that it is ready to go when all is said and done.

sorry about the capitalization. not yelling.

 

[claude72]

JUST REMEMBER AT THE END BEFORE IT HITS THE PAPER, THE ART IS ALWAYS RASTERIZED.

Yes, but not rasterized the same way that Photoshop does: the main différence is that a RIP rasterized everything in 1-bit screened pictures, using different ways to rasterize the vectors, the contone pixels and the bitmap pixels...

... althought Photoshop rasterized text in contone mode when placed in a contone picture, and the RIP has then to rasterized again from the contone pixels to 1-bit screened pictures, adding haze on the text.

No EPS isn't dead, it is a good format to use, i prefer it over pdf.

Not completely dead, but 3/4 dead: AI, PSD and TIFF do the job most times...
... but EPS has still some interesting features that help greatly in some cases!

For me, PDF is only an "exchange" format, not a real work-format for imports...
For Photoshop pictures I prefer TIFF or PSD instead of PDF, and for Illustrator files I prefer AI or even EPS...
... but PDF has some (new) interesting features that help greatly in some cases

The way i deal with text in photoshop is to make it a 600dpi bitmap file, then place it into the document in indesign. Works everytime, looks smooth like vector. I should say prints smooth like vector, looks like crap on your screen sometimes

Good solution, but for offset printing, 600 ppi is a little bit too low: 800 ppi is acceptable, better use 1000-1200 ppi.

Please explain to me why people are doing vector in photoshop anyways.

The short answer is: incompetence.

The long answer is because they don't know how softwares, display, rasterization, ripping and printing work, and they simply trust:
- their screen, believing that if it looks good on the screen, it will print fine,
- and Adobe, believing that if Adobe put this feature in the software, so it works and can be used without any trouble...
... forgetting that Photoshop is not only made for print jobs, but also made for many other jobs needing to work on pictures and able to use text in the pictures without any problem (like Web, video...)

But some are also stupid: once I met a "designer" who was proud to say to me that he just made a 100 pages book all in Photoshop, giving to the printer 100 grayscale 300 ppi TIFF pictures!!!

And more and more (bad) printers are fed-up to deal (or are not able to deal) with the problems of PDF or native files and ask their customers to supply only 1 page JPEG pictures... but the customer doesn't know that only bad printers ask for JPEG files, and in customer's mind, the printer is THE professionnal who knows how to do the job... so if the printer asks for JPEG pictures, it means that a simple JPEG picture is enough, and it means that the job can be done with Photoshop.

I tried saving it as a Photoshop PDF. I thought eps's were a dead format? I haven't saved as an eps in years now...

As I said in one of my previous post, outputting EPS (including vector data) or PDF from Photoshop are 2 suitable ways to output crisp vector text from Photoshop. But none is a better solution than the other, and problems occur with both...
The good news is that problems occurring with PDF can often be fixed using EPS, and problems occurring with EPS can often be fixed with PDF...

... but sometimes both PDF and EPS do not work properly and texts (or some texts) stay in pixel mode (because of a faux-bold for example)... I had the problem yesterday on black only text, and I finished with a 1200 ppi rasterization.

 

[Joe]

I re-read the thread and felt I should add to my earlier post:

When saved as an .EPS, Photoshop's "fill" layers with vector clipping paths seem to behave just like vector objects created in Illustrator: mathematically defined edges with mathematically defined fills. I've examined tradeshow graphic outputs where the output file's line screen was 150dpi (more is unnecessary when the output is hanging 12 feet off the floor) and through a loupe the vector objects (that used to be type) were definitely seen to be at the device's output resolution of 1200 to 2400dpi. While I've talked a lot about tradeshow artwork that's typically printed out on inkjet-like devices, I've also found these things to be true in commercial printing on standard presses.

InDesign and Illustrator also clip bitmaps with a vector edge anytime a photo appears in a frame or behind a clipping path, and the trap software seems to handle them just fine. I don't see any reason why a bitmap clipped by a vector path in Photoshop and saved as an EPS should be handled any different by the imagesetter/platesetter then a bitmap placed in Illustrator over a rich background, clipped by a vector path, and saved as an EPS--unless it's going through some process that's rasterizing the whole thing, like at the one printshop that was outputting my EPSs via Photoshop and rasterizing them at the "open" dialog!

PDFs are unreliable and I avoid them like the plague because of the way they downsample bitmaps, break transparency effects into bitmaps butted against vector art (with the occasional gap or color shift visible in output), and color manage unpredictably when their settings conflict with device settings. Like in the example above, some print vendor's output devices or workflows rasterize everything in a Photoshop native file, depending on the output workflow. I've found that EPS has always been the most reliable output for me.

Finally, a friendly comment about "stupid" designers: We go to school for four to six years to learn how to create effective design. While I had the opportunity to work in and learn from a print shop, most designers don't, and they really can't take another two to four years to learn how to be print professionals as well as designers. It's no wonder that they solve their design and output problems differently than a prepress tech or pressman would like, but we bring in the work that fills the job jackets and give the presses something to run, so roll your eyes and chuckle, and make it work! We need each other, and trust me, you wouldn't want to trade 'challenges'.

????

Boy, I'll bet there are a lot of workflow makers surprised to hear this.

This is 2010. PDF's are very reliable given a modern workflow and creating them correctly.

 

[WillAdams]

Claude72 wrote:
>outputting EPS (including vector data) or PDF from Photoshop are 2 suitable ways
>to output crisp vector text from Photoshop.

Except that one gets no control over overprint, and minimal over the colour model, and the ``type'' comes in as bitmap images hidden away in clipping paths so that one can't do spot colours &c.

William

 

[David Kunkel]

Why I said that

Why I said that

????

Boy, I'll bet there are a lot of workflow makers surprised to hear this.

This is 2010. PDF's are very reliable given a modern workflow and creating them correctly.

I created a vector starburst design with an outside glow created in Photoshop's Layer Effects applied to a vector-clipped fill layer. This lays partly over a photo and partly over a grid design created in a similar fashion (circuitry over a dropshadow), and partly over a solid fill area. At the time Illustrator's controls for transparency (CS2) weren't up to the task of layering all that nice transparency and shadow, so I created it in Photoshop and it looked fantastic. I proofed it by printing it to my 600ppi PS laser printer at 4x size (composite and seps) to be sure all the vectors, shadows, and transparencies worked properly and were up to being printed at 2400ppi; the resolution was fine. I created a press-ready PDF and sent it to my printer. Long story short: the proof was hideous. In flattening, the art was ruined with bitmaps butted up to vectors, gaps between them, art cut into stripes, etc. So I sent the printer the Photoshop EPS and all those problems just disappeared. The proof was flawless and so was the final product.

So that's why I don't trust PDFs when i don't have to.

 

[Joe]

I created a vector starburst design with an outside glow created in Photoshop's Layer Effects applied to a vector-clipped fill layer. This lays partly over a photo and partly over a grid design created in a similar fashion (circuitry over a dropshadow), and partly over a solid fill area. At the time Illustrator's controls for transparency (CS2) weren't up to the task of layering all that nice transparency and shadow, so I created it in Photoshop and it looked fantastic. I proofed it by printing it to my 600ppi PS laser printer at 4x size (composite and seps) to be sure all the vectors, shadows, and transparencies worked properly and were up to being printed at 2400ppi; the resolution was fine. I created a press-ready PDF and sent it to my printer. Long story short: the proof was hideous. In flattening, the art was ruined with bitmaps butted up to vectors, gaps between them, art cut into stripes, etc. So I sent the printer the Photoshop EPS and all those problems just disappeared. The proof was flawless and so was the final product.

So that's why I don't trust PDFs when i don't have to.

Which is WHY I mentioned modern workflow. If the printer has a modern workflow and does not flatten until output you will not see issues such as this. If people are still trying to flatten effects created in CS4 they are going to have problems. Flattening is evil. If your printer is still using a RIP from 2005 then you need to create the artwork from software from 2005. Something that RIP still understands...which it doesn't files from CS4. This is why printers have to stay up to date on the software that designers are using and RIP's that understand the files coming from them.

 

[claude72]

and the ``type'' comes in as bitmap images hidden away in clipping paths

No : text is clipping pathes, and it is coloured by bitmap images...

one gets no control over overprint, and minimal over the colour model,

That's right, this particular structure of the "text" makes it untouchable in the PDF or EPS...

... so if you need to modify colours or overprint, or correct spelling mistakes, you have to do it with Photoshop in the PSD file and re-do the PDF or EPS file.
(to get overprint, you can apply a "multiply" mode for the text layer you want to overprint...)

OK, it's not as easy than a good layout in InDesign or XPress, but it works most often and output crisp text...

Which is WHY I mentioned modern workflow.

Sorry Joe, but that's a little bit bullshit... or Adobe is tricking us...

First, often Adobe softwares are sometimes unable to open or correctly dislay the PDF made by another software of the same suite: for example, Adobe's Acrobat 8 from the CS3 not able to display a PDF done by Adobe's InDesign CS3 with standard Adobe's settings... I don't know where is the bug, whether it is in Acrobat or in InDesign or in the settings, or the 3, but there is bugs...


Second, transparencie flatenning is often evil because Adobe's softwares are made with the feet and buged... if Adobe is not able to make work correctly the features they sell, then they are thief and they tricked us.


And third, CS4 is sold (at silver price) to be able to output 1.3 and 1.4 PDF...
... and 1.3 or 1.4 PDF are norms of the last century... so a 1.3 or 1.4 PDF coming from an Adobe's software and made with Adobe's setting should work without any problem in a 2005 "PDF compatible" RIP based on an Adobe's CPSI, sold at gold price to be able to understand all PDF up to 1.5... if not, then Adobe is a thief: again, I don't know where we are tricked, is the "1.5 compatible RIP really compatible with 1.5 PDF or not?, or is the PDF 1.3 or 1.4 outputted by InDesign or Distiller really only 1.3 or 1.4? or perhaps the settings are crap? but something is wrong in Adobe's softwares!!!
And according to the price that we pay these softs, we have the right to get something that works.

(I volontarily take 1.3 and 1.4 PDF as example, because 1.3 flatens the transparencies and should flaten them correctly, but 1.4 can let the transparencies live and the 2005 RIP should be able to flaten them correctly)

 

[Joe]

No, it's not bullshit...it's reality. If you have a RIP running APPE 2.x you shouldn't have to worry about flattening issues. I've seen Acrobat and InDesign flatten differently. I don't trust either one for the very reasons that you stated. CS4 allows you to flatten to 1.3 for people with older RIPs that can't handle transparency. But it's a crapshoot applying some of the available text effects and making a 1.3 pdf from InDesign or Illustrator. The atomic regions alone is enough of an issue, not to mention text that touches transparency rasterizing, to make me want to never flatten a PDF again.

A year ago using the old non APPE postscript RIP I recommended all customers to send us 1.3 PDF's because that RIP, although it was up to date, could not reliably handle transparency from CS2 through CS4. It was listed as being PDF 1.6 certified and it could handle that version of PDF as long as their was no transparency involved. Like Quark, pre version 8.1, PDF's. With the new APPE 2.x RIP, I now tell all customers to never flatten anything.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

I created a press-ready PDF and sent it to my printer.

If it looked like shit it wasn't press ready! The biggest problem with PDF is that people think that you can just select press ready and it is press ready…*irrespective of press or paper.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to create great stuff in PhotoShop. But exporting to Photoshop PDF isn't fool proof.

Please there are plenty good designers but 99% designers expect you to save their design and will never thank the prepress for actually making it printable, mainly because they think they did it all by the book. Ususally the more educated they are the more stuck up they are and will not listen to real world limitations. Prepess people pointing out problems do so to help make them aware, not just to be obnoxious.

There are other reasons why text isn't suited for photoshop.
There is still no TIC TAC in photoshop… and though there are ways to measure points I would not call any of Photoshops features preflight
There is no find font, no package command.

Still what I said earlier on in this post it is very dependant on what the actual job looks like.
Is there a negative 8pt helvetica light disclaimer text on a rich background you'll almost never get it good if you just rely on photoshop. Mile high bold letters with transparency, glows, dropshadows etc…*sure they will print from photoshop, and look fine.

(PDF note: Oh and in the flattening discussion the biggest problem still is poor colour management. At the designer. At the layout. At the printer. One of Swedens largest printers were inconsistent with the customer instruction telling that Colour management need be activated, and the job options they supplied saying to discard all ICC profiles. When contacted, they said that all images and art must be in CMYK before placing in InDesign. This kind of dissinformation really adds to the confusion. If you go any PDF direction I would strongly advise a PDFx1 or PDFx4 workflow.)

 

[Joe]

I recommend against PDFx1 unless you have an old RIP that can't handle transparency.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Why Joe? Could you please motivate your comment!
(PDFx's are for "print ready", you will ofcourse need a source file format to handle edits)
IF you are saving PDF 1.3 PDFx1a is the only reasonable option the whole development on X is to pin down the variables that created unpredictable outcome. If the client is using preview separations PDF x1a will show what it will look like. We sometimes have to send files for a digital run or co-produce at another site and PDFx1a has a solid track record. Anything that happens is visible in the PDF. If Acrobat and InDesign handle things differently it is a configuration issue, usually the "management" in colour management being what is missing. Underlying or transparent objects will be rasterised irrespective of where it happens, better the person with the source files sees it (there are tools called flattener preview so that you can be aware of it)
PDF touchups are really not recommended anyway.

PDFx4 is an option ofcourse. But there are things to bear in mind. What is default rendering intent. Is BCP enabled for relative conversion in all possible workflows? What CMM is converting colours? Are there any unmanaged colours that are handed inconsistently?

 

[claude72]

No, it's not bullshit...it's reality.

Yes Joe, I know you're right... and you confirm what I think, Adobe is tricking us: OK, transparencies work now with the new PrintEngine RIPs (assuming that all printers have the money to change their RIPs... )...

... but transparencies appear in 2000 with Illustrator 9, and the first PrintEngine RIP came only in 2006 (probably with a lot of bugs), the second in 2008... meaning that between 2000 and 2006/2008 Adobe tricked all users by selling softwares with wonderful new features and possibilities that look great on the screen, but are not printable... and tricked all printers by selling RIPs that where not really able to image transparencies in a reliable way.

I've seen Acrobat and InDesign flatten differently.

Me too... and sometimes I solved problems with transparencies flatenning in InDesign by exporting a 1.4 PDF from InDesign (with live transparencies), just to be able to image this PDF with Acrobat and let Acrobat do the flatenning!

not to mention text that touches transparency rasterizing

Oh yes! I never understood why flatenning does a such stupid thing!!! as there is no need to rasterize a text that is OVER a shadow: it should simply let the text in vector mode overprint on the shadow and it does the job!!!
(but if you put the text on a different layer over the picture and its shadow, the text is not rasterized...)

These softs are developped with the feet!!!

A year ago using the old non APPE postscript RIP (...) It was listed as being PDF 1.6 certified and it could handle that version of PDF as long as their was no transparency involved. Like Quark, pre version 8.1, PDF's.

Or like PDFs distilled with Acrobat Distiller from an InDesign PostScript file.

Today, I work with to RIPs : both are Agfa RIPs, both using a real Adobe CPSI, both compatible PDF 1.3...
- with the Viper 3, I tried 3 times to image a 1.3 PDF: it crashed at each attempt... I tried with distilled or exported PDF, no matter it always crashed!
- the Apogee 2 doesn't crash, but gives some strange unpredictable results... mainly issues with the media format and the PDF format... perhaps I don't know how to use it...
... but finally, I gave up and I image my PDF from Acrobat... but when I need to image a PDF using separations, Acrobat 8 crashes 1 time over 2, and Acrobat 7 "forgets" some pictures (for example, printing the black channel of the picture on the black film, but not printing the CMJ channels on the CMJ films...)

Today, it's a pain in the ass to work with Adobe softwares

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to create great stuff in PhotoShop. But exporting to Photoshop PDF isn't fool proof.

Photoshop PDF (or EPS) are only a way and a step to re-do the job...

One of Swedens largest printers were inconsistent with the customer instruction telling that Colour management need be activated, and the job options they supplied saying to discard all ICC profiles. When contacted, they said that all images and art must be in CMYK before placing in InDesign. This kind of dissinformation really adds to the confusion.

Same problem in France: most of the printers, even the big ones, ask for "CMYK 300 dpi PDF", and most of them also ask for pictures without profile...
(and they still recommend the use of EPS pictures, even in InDesign, like in the old times of XPress 3 and 4!)

 

[Joe]

Why Joe? Could you please motivate your comment!
(PDFx's are for "print ready", you will ofcourse need a source file format to handle edits)
IF you are saving PDF 1.3 PDFx1a is the only reasonable option the whole development on X is to pin down the variables that created unpredictable outcome. If the client is using preview separations PDF x1a will show what it will look like. We sometimes have to send files for a digital run or co-produce at another site and PDFx1a has a solid track record. Anything that happens is visible in the PDF. If Acrobat and InDesign handle things differently it is a configuration issue, usually the "management" in colour management being what is missing. Underlying or transparent objects will be rasterised irrespective of where it happens, better the person with the source files sees it (there are tools called flattener preview so that you can be aware of it)
PDF touchups are really not recommended anyway.

PDFx4 is an option ofcourse. But there are things to bear in mind. What is default rendering intent. Is BCP enabled for relative conversion in all possible workflows? What CMM is converting colours? Are there any unmanaged colours that are handed inconsistently?

Mainly because of flattening issues. I do not want any PDF's that have been flattened by either postscripting/distilled/exported to 1.3. I guess I'm lucky to have a RIP that deals fine with transparency. Yes of course the PDF's are print ready but the gaps someone mentioned earlier when images break apart (yes, most of the time they don't output but there are know instances when they do show up on final output) and the text rasterizing that touches transparency. It's unnecessary with my current workflow to try to use flattened PDF's so why would I want to. PDFx4 in the newer standard but honestly we make our own job options for customers because most of them refuse to deal with the failures from trying to make a PDFx anything.

 

[Joe]

Yes Joe, I know you're right... and you confirm what I think, Adobe is tricking us: OK, transparencies work now with the new PrintEngine RIPs (assuming that all printers have the money to change their RIPs... )...

... but transparencies appear in 2000 with Illustrator 9, and the first PrintEngine RIP came only in 2006 (probably with a lot of bugs), the second in 2008... meaning that between 2000 and 2006/2008 Adobe tricked all users by selling softwares with wonderful new features and possibilities that look great on the screen, but are not printable... and tricked all printers by selling RIPs that where not really able to image transparencies in a reliable way.

Exactly and you will see the same thing with CS5 when it is released. New features that existing RIP's don't understand. Welcome to modern prepress.

I see the same things you are seeing with Acrobat 7 and 8...because versions 7 and 8 are not up to date. Sure they'll work 95% of the time. It's that other 5% that will bite you in the you know where.

 

[claude72]

I see the same things you are seeing with Acrobat 7 and 8...because versions 7 and 8 are not up to date.

I understand that a mix between old softs, old computer, old RIP and new files can cause some issues...
... but althought I have PostScript level 3 RIPs that both comply with Adobe's specifications for the CS3, I had already these troubles in the early times I used the CS3 (including Acrobat 8), just after I bought it brand-new in 2007 (only some days after it has been released in France) with a brand-new MacPro running the last OS available...

I can understand that Acrobat 8 is today no more up-to-date with new Adobe's stuff, but I cannot understand that Acrobat 8 - which is able to read PDF 1.7 - has issues and is not "up-to-date" with PDF 1.3 or 1.4, even created by a CS4???
PDF 1.3 is a "norm" established by Adobe, and a PDF 1.3 outputted from Adobe's ID CS4 should have the same 1.3 structure than a PDF 1.3 outputted from Adobe's ID CS1 (or even ID 1.0) and should work with any AcrobatPro from 4 to 9...
(or is there an hidden digit after "1.3", and PDF 1.3 outputted by InDesign CS4 are in fact PDF "1.35" althougt Acrobat 8 is limited to PDF "1.34" and CS5 will product PDF "1.36" )

... but I also have the same troubles with MY own PDFs, that I outputted MYSELF from MY InDesign CS3 (exported or distilled): it doesn't work and Acrobat 8 crashes, althought ID CS3 and Acrobat 8 are both parts of the same suite and should normally "match" together!

(and there is no relationship with the "age" of the RIP, cause:
- when I print in separations Acrobat crashes with all printers I tried: my physical printers/RIPs and even most recent up-to-date (virtual) printers,
- and when I send composite datas from Acrobat 8 with the In-RIP separation feature of my RIP turned on, then it works fine!)