Photoshop CS4 and Type

[Joe]

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 unserstand 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/RIP and even most recent up-to-date (virtual) printers, and it works fine when I send composite datas from Acrobat 8 with the In-RIP séparation feature of my old RIP turned on)

I wish I had some answers for you but I don't. I see the same stuff. Sometimes Acrobat is the tool of choice. Sometimes InDesign. Sometimes Illustrator. Different problems with the same PDF versions. Makes no sense a lot of time but the one thing I have noticed is that if I stick with PDF 1.4 and above with transparency intact, CS4 apps, and using the APPE 2.x RIP I have far fewer problems than before with the CPSI RIP. That thing was always an adventure.

 

[claude72]

I wish I had some answers for you but I don't. I see the same stuff.

Thanks for your help... I guess the answer is easy: bugs, and bugs and more bugs...

And probably some of these bugs are volontarily left by Adobe to force the users to buy new version of the softs and new Print Engine RIPs...

 

[Joe]

Thanks for your help... I guess the answer is easy: bugs, and bugs and more bugs...

And probably some of these bugs are volontarily left by Adobe to force the users to buy new version of the softs and new Print Engine RIPs...

Well, if they made perfect software the cash flow would stop flowing.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Are you useing the feature / bug form?
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

If you are not willing to stick with standards explicitly developed for backward compatibility you have no right to complain about backward compatibility. I'm hearnig I that you know better than the standards at the same time as you complain about things not working. They do work if you stick by the book, and it is even possible to stray from the rules as long as you know what you are doing.

I still have to see what you are talking about as a bug. Usually masked bitmapps that do not fit, or stitching that comes in print is connected to involuntary resampling. I know some rips resample. Struggled with a sister site that had implemented Dalim workflow, and sure enough there were configurations were resamplingwas enforced that explained the strage artifacts. This is configuration issues where the weakest link bursts the chain. To rely on new technologu has the weakness that there is no guarantee that and older add is not placed, and so you must be able to be backwards compatible.

I think it is important to report buggs, and request features to help move software in the right direction.
Also important not to cry wolf (or bug) due to poor routines, impementation and configuration.

 

[claude72]

Are you useing the feature / bug form?

No... each time I have phoned to the hot-line to report a problem, it has never been corrected... and as much as possible the hot-line reject the responsability of the problem on 3rd part softwares, or on the user... and when they don't know, they simply ignore the e-mails.
Joe is right : if they correct all the bugs, nobody would buy the next version!!!

If you are not willing to stick with standards explicitly developed for backward compatibility you have no right to complain about backward compatibility.

But I use the standards for backward compatibility!

I output PS files, that I distill in 1.3, to match with my RIP 1.3 compatible, with transparencies flatenned... I ask my customers for distilled 1.3 PDF, I train them when I have the opportunity...

... but most of the PDF arrive without any question, mostly "made with feet" (exported from InDesign in 1.4 with defaut Adobe job-option), Acrobat 8 open them without any trouble but either the RIP returns a PostScript error or Acrobat crashes when I need separation!

I'm hearnig I that you know better than the standards at the same time as you complain about things not working. They do work if you stick by the book...

Even sticking to the book, following exactly the procedures, some doesn't work...

In the CS3 softs, there is choice to output PostScript level 2 files... but imaging from CS3 with a PostScript level 2 RIP gives only PostScript errors, even using this option!

I have PitStop, and I activate in PitStop the option to make Acrobat keep the version of the PDF file... but after imposing my 1.3 PDF in Acrobat, I always get a 1.6 PDF...

In Acrobat it is possible to save printing settings, but althought I choose "150/2400" and save, at next use the setting is back to "100/1200"...

InDesign CS3 save the position of the doc on the screen... but not on a second screen...

The subject we were talking about: Photoshop handles vector text... but none of the Adobe softs is able to use it directly... must use exchange formats to get the vector text (which is not really text and not really vector)...
And if faux-bold is used, it becomes impossible to output vector... we have been tricked during many years with faux-bold in XPress, everybody was happy that faux-bold doesn't exist in Illustrator and InDesign, but some stupid Adobe's fool put this silly "feature" in Photoshop!

Etc., etc., etc.

I still have to see what you are talking about as a bug. Usually masked bitmapps that do not fit, or stitching that comes in print is connected to involuntary resampling.

I don't have that kind of problems. Generally, when the PDF outputs, it ouputs correctly (except once with the CMJ missing on the pictures)... most of my problems are:
- errors in Acrobat when imposing PDF
(I use ImposerPro... this soft has been developped and released by ALAP some monthes before Quark bought ALAP... and Quark simply sold the soft without any further debugging, then they updated it for Acrobat 8, and let it die... now I have to buy another one...)
- PostScript errors (thought everything is within the announced compatibility range of RIPs and other softs and thought all my attempts to carefully stay in this compatibility range)
- and Acrobat crashes...

I know some rips resample. Struggled with a sister site that had implemented Dalim workflow, and sure enough there were configurations were resamplingwas enforced that explained the strage artifacts.

Yes, you're right, some RIPs, and that's the case for Dalim workflow, have an automatic defaut downsample at 300 ppi for contone pictures.
But AFAIK my Agfa RIPs don't have such feature.

 

[Joe]

Are you useing the feature / bug form?
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

If you are not willing to stick with standards explicitly developed for backward compatibility you have no right to complain about backward compatibility. I'm hearnig I that you know better than the standards at the same time as you complain about things not working. They do work if you stick by the book, and it is even possible to stray from the rules as long as you know what you are doing.

I still have to see what you are talking about as a bug. Usually masked bitmapps that do not fit, or stitching that comes in print is connected to involuntary resampling. I know some rips resample. Struggled with a sister site that had implemented Dalim workflow, and sure enough there were configurations were resamplingwas enforced that explained the strage artifacts. This is configuration issues where the weakest link bursts the chain. To rely on new technologu has the weakness that there is no guarantee that and older add is not placed, and so you must be able to be backwards compatible.

I think it is important to report buggs, and request features to help move software in the right direction.
Also important not to cry wolf (or bug) due to poor routines, impementation and configuration.

Lukas, it's pointless to argue this with you. I don't like flattened PDF's for the reasons I have stated. And I now have a RIP that does not need them flattened. Why would I still want PDFx1a at this stage? I don't make the PDF's. My customers make them and then send them to me. I assure you that I know how to make a good PDF.

The problem is that the people that are doing the designing will not give the extra effort to make correct PDF's. At one time I was urging my customers to make PDFx1a but it was too much trouble for them to have to make sure all images were CMYK or grayscale and that all fonts were embedded. It made their jobs easier to let the RGB and missing images/fonts fly and let me be the one to deal with it. Keeping the transparency live means I no longer have to worry about the things that occur in the flattening process. Oh yeah, trying to edit images from a flattened PDF that is broken up into many pieces is another joy from flattening. And the flattening process differs from application to application and the process in which you flatten it. Printing to PS and distilling many times will flatten differently that direct export to PDFx1a. Quark flattens different than Indesign. PageMaker gives different results as well. Even the Adobe apps will give you different flattening results (InDesign, Acrobat, Illustrator, and Photoshop). If I don't have to deal with that mess any more why should I want to? So no, I do not recommend PDFx1a for files that are being supplied to me. I want the transparency to stay live. It's that simple and it's not changing.

And yes I've tried that link for the Feature Request/Bug Forum several times. Have never had any results from it though.

 

[Joe]

(I use ImposerPro... this soft has been developped and released by ALAP some monthes before Quark bought ALAP... and Quark simply sold the soft without any further debugging, then they updated it for Acrobat 8, and let it die... now I have to buy another one...)

claude72, give Inp02 from Dynagram a look if you need a new impo app. I've been very impressed with it over the last couple of weeks of playing around with it. I have no connection or interest with the company but just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Thinking about clipping I remember the old postscript problem of the anchorpoints defining the crop box. It could be in fonts where anchor points are not at the extremities that the bitmap to be masked would not be large enough to fill those curves protruding beyond the anchor points.

Oh and I do agree that there is still more to be done to make vectors better in Photoshop and the suite more integrated. I do not believe there is a plan where they say, oh letts save that feature/fix for the next version so that we can force people to upgrade.

OT: Joe, yes I do agree that unflattened files are a better option for editability.

 

[claude72]

The problem is that the people that are doing the designing will not give the extra effort to make correct PDF's.

That's normal: making a PDF is not a designer's job! and they often do simply what they can or what they believe that the printer needs...
... so the less ignorant use the Adobe's or Quark's "Export PDF" with the "Press" job-option, which outputs a quite good PDF that will not give problem to the printer if he has a good up-to-date RIP... but will be an "adventure" (as you said before) for people like me with old RIPs...
... some use the PDF printer, which outputs good (and flatened) PDFs, but that's now finished with OS X.6...
... and worst "designers" just click on any "Make PDF" button in any (non-adapted for DTP) software, believing that it will output a correct PDF... and it is a nightmare for every printers!!!


Remember some years ago, before PDF: we had to deal with horrific native files, not made to be printable, and we had to fix almost everything... because often designers are not pre-press nor press technicians, and most of them didn't know how to make a perfect native file to match exactly with press needings...

Making a good PDF for a press job, and being able to deal correctly with bleeds, mark's offset, support size, resolutions and other icc profiles or fonts embedding is not far away from a pre-press job, and is definitely not a designer job...
... but now, we (printers), even being conscious that most designers have shown their lacks of competence in basic pre-press technics and in making good native files, however we ask them to go further in pre-press technics to transform their native files into PDF!!!

But PDF is not a wizard-stick !!! Before PDF they were pre-press technicians, they were not able to make a good native file...
... and now in the PDF era they still are not pre-press technicians, they still don't know how to make the native files, and, more, they don't know how to make a PDF...
... and poor native files + poor PDFization methods will surely not give good PDFs!!!

Oh yeah, trying to edit images from a flattened PDF that is broken up into many pieces is another joy from flattening.

Oh, yes... that's why I'm finally not so angry that most designers simply export their PDF from Indy (or "Save as" from Illustrator) using the defaut "Press" option: it makes 1.4 PDF with live transparencies, that I can flaten myself, with my own settings and it sometimes lowers the problems...

claude72, give Inp02 from Dynagram a look if you need a new impo app.

Oh yes, thanks for the advice: I already had some looks to imposition softwares, and I pre-selected Quite Imposing and Inp02... both are in the same price range...
I made some tests with Quite Imposing, it's very powerful and works fine, but it's a little bit disconcerning and quite difficult to understand the way it works...
I also saw that RTI also sells Inp02 in association with the Harlequin RIP... and I plan to buy an Harlequin when I will absolutely need a new RIP... so i'll do a test of Inp02 when this project will become more concrete!

(althought I actually use Agfa RIPs, I don't want to upgrade to a brand new Agfa RIP: I think that Agfa RIPs are good RIPs, but only in second-hand AND at (very) low price...)


Edit:

I've been very impressed with it over the last couple of weeks of playing around with it.

I'm not sure, but there are 2 versions of Inp02, or a basic version with some plug-ins or add-on... the basic version alone is in the same price range than Quite Imposing, but the plug-ins highly raise the price and the possibilities...

... so, did you see the basic version or the "full" version ???

 

[Joe]

That's normal: making a PDF is not a designer's job! and they often do simply what they can or what they believe that the printer needs...

And therein lies one of the problems of the current process. I'm not sure how long you have been doing this so you may remember when design professionals left actual page assembly to professionals (I actually used to do that job at a service bureau) to do this kind of thing correctly. Somewhere along the way they decided it was an unnecessary expense and they took it upon themselves to do their own page layout in Quark, PageMaker, InDesign and now even MS Publisher and Word. Then they decided it was an unnecessary expense to pay the printer to fix their native files so most now want to send, and I say this with a smirk on my face, "camera ready" PDF's. None even know what "camera ready" even means but they heard it at some point and they like the sound of it. Most of the former service bureau people are now doing prepress at printing companies or flipping burgers at the fast food joint.

 

[Joe]

I'm not sure, but there are 2 versions of Inp02, or a basic version with some plug-ins or add-on... the basic version alone is in the same price range than Quite Imposing, but the plug-ins highly raise the price and the possibilities...

... so, did you see the basic version or the "full" version ???

I believe it is the full version with:

Wizard: Basic 6-step wizard interface. Sold through OEM only

Layout Editor: Customization and fine-tuning options through inpO2 Light Table

Assembly Planner: Different approaches to build imposition assemblies in inpO2.

Optimization: Automated ganging for flat work

Automation: Hot folders-based imposition for automated workflow

JDF Export: JDF Export for layout and finishing

 

[claude72]

I'm not sure how long you have been doing this so you may remember when design professionals left actual page assembly to professionals (I actually used to do that job at a service bureau) to do this kind of thing correctly.

Yes, I remember... in french we call them "exé", which is the abbreviation (and a kind of nickname) for "exécutant"... (my dictionnary gives "executer", "producer" or "performer" as an english translation): they are the technicians who "execute" the job and "produce" the files according to designer's specifications and models... and that's also a part of my job!

(I'm in the press-jobs since about 27-28 years first in servicing (mechanic and electricity), then as press-man + manual-stripping and plate copy, and in pre-press + exé since 17 years)

None even know what "camera ready" even means but they heard it at some point and they like the sound of it.

I feel a big irony in your words... and I see the sad reality behind the irony, the same reality as mine

In France, they say either "PDF prêt à flasher" = "PDF ready to image"
(to image on an imagesetter, of course)...

... or "PDF HD"... HD stands for "High Definition"... and I "like" p) this "HD" that in fact means nothing explicit but also means everything you want: means "using the good-resolution-that-match-with-the-job-to-do", and for many people means "I absolutely don't know what it is, but you are the printer and you should know what to do"!!! ... and it's often a good indication of competence: when a customer says that he will give me a "PDF HD", I'm sure that it will be terrific and I prepare for the worst

I believe it is the full version with:

OK! I'm not sure, but I believe that the "light table" feature (letting you strip the pages as one stripped the films on a mounting foil on a light table) is part of the full version... and the price is also full!!! and far away from my possibilities (or I have to win at loto )
But the basic version which cost less than 1000 euros has a already a good efficiency... probably less efficient than Quite ImposingPlus, but surely easier to use... (I still work with films... so I can still strip films manually on a mounting foil if the job is beyond the possibilities of a cheap imposition software)

 

[hansman]

PDF s are for for $%&*
Give me the native files any day of the week.
We waste more non-chargeable time telling our clients to re-save it this way or don't forget to do this blah blah......
Don't get me wrong in the hands of a professional a good pdf is the way to go.
I remember hearing back when they came out they were going to be the end of the need for good prepress people!!!!!

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

If you wanted some real world example

If you wanted some real world example

I got this file today. It has some real world example of a Photosho file. some text is correctly exported as vector another part contains faux bold and is therefore rasterised at 300ppi.
Screen dumps are from Apogee viewing at 1 dpi on output plates = pixel on screen. (don't know if we get distortion as i link this to the forum though)
vector text (apparently not 100% black )
faux in one word causes the whole text area to be rasterised.

 

[claude72]

Screen dumps are from Apogee viewing at 1 dpi on output plates = pixel on screen.

Yeah... got exactly the same result than me with the 300 ppi rasterized texts of my "AB5" tests in the Viper!!!


If you have the native PSD file (and some free times), it should be interesting to over-sample your file at 1200 ppi: the "vector" text should then be re-rasterized at the new resolution using the real vector datas of the text-layer (just check the picture to be sure! ), then export as PDF, and make a new screen dump from your Apogee to see if the higher résolution does or doesn't change the look of the rasterized faux-bold text ???