Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

[leonardr]

I'm doing some research into usage of Acrobat Distiller and the Adobe PDF Printer on Mac OS X. Feel free to post a response here or email me directly ([email protected]).

If you use the Adobe PDF Printer for creating your PDFs (eg. you choose File->Print and then pick Adobe PDF), can you please tell me why you use this method instead of either direct export from an application like Adobe Creative Suite or the Mac's built-in PDF creation facility? What application(s) do you use this most with?

If you still use the stand-alone Distiller application, can you give me some details about what specific features of it you use? Do you just need to convert Postscript/EPS to PDF? Do you use Watched Folders? Do you use the queue features? Other?

Thanks,
Leonard Rosenthol
Adobe Systems

 

[zoran]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

I am still using Distiller with watched folders and I will probably for a while.
Mostly it's for older file inspection and for Quark PS files.
If Quark ever introduces direct PDF export with transparency intact, I might use that but that is to be seen.
I've read couple of Quark 8 reviews and nobody is mentioning PDF export which leads me to believe it's still the same.

From Indesign and Illustrator I export/save PDF directly.

Good luck with your research Leonard.

Edited by: Zoran on Jul 8, 2008 8:33 PM

 

[frailer]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

-If coming out of Quark; Export for Later Distilling..a la Don Isbell's method...(I should have thanked him before this...)...into a Watched Folder. I then dump the .ps and use the PDFs.
-If in InDes CS2 or CS3; direct Export. (have had some odd problems with CS3 Exported PDFs, but mainly ones from clients, not in-house generated...I "work around" these with the usual tricks).
-Illustrator: Save As PDF. Check Illy editing capabilities.Include bleed and trims as desired.

We are on an 18 month old Celebra RIP. Very few problems. We have 2 impo apps; PREPS and Dynastrip. The op using PREPS .ps's into and out of PREPS. Op concerned, I think, .ps's everything unless there is a problem with that. Old habits die hard, I suspect.

I use Dynastrip, going PDF In>PDF Out. Works a charm *most* of the time.

Do not know yet when we are likely to move to XMF/Print Engine.

 

[CHM]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

We always use export out of the native applications.
We gave 2 WF systems, Nexus for packaging and Odystar for publications.

Most of the files we deliver in the packaging stay with transparencies if the Printer or Toolmaker can work with it, if not we flatten in our WF to pdf 1.3 , in extreme cases to postscript. But the original files here stay with full transparencies.

For publications the files stay in transparencies in our WF, but deliveries have to be don in 1.3 pdf (pdf/X) files.
Will change in the future (waiting on GWG:=)

 

[almaink]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

I use export for everything including Quark. The only time I ever use distiller anymore is for old Pagemaker files that have to be converted to PDF, and for those "problem" files in InDesign that won't export to PDF. Since I use a PDF trap engine I prefer to keep all transparency live.

 

[Shawn]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Hi Leonard

It really depends on what the PDFs will be used for.

For production we use direct export for all the CS2 & 3 apps. For other apps, we print to postscript and either use a Watched folder or drag onto Distiller. We use Distiller instead of the Adobe PDF print driver because (at least in past versions) it seemed to work faster and give us more feedback if there were any problems. We set all our clients up to generate PDFs the same way.

For non-production PDFs -- for things like saving receipts or other records, or sending something through email -- we use the OS X built in PDF creation. Mostly because it's quick and easy.

Shawn

 

[richielj]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Hi Leonard

I work for a catalog company with eight designers. We use the Adobe PDF printer for our PDFx-1a files from Quark 7.31 mainly because we have a script that automates this for the thousands of catalog pages we create each year. I know it's old fashioned to use Distiller, but Brown Printing Co insists on PDFx-1a files and this method is rock solid as all files are funneled to the "postscripting" workstation. We use a watched folder for the PS files out of Quark.

I have been lobbying for many years to switch to InDesign and 2009 may be the year management goes along with me, especially considering the issues that we've had with Quark this year. If we make the switch the PDF files may be exported directly from indd.

Rich

 

[Joe]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Export all the way except if I have a PDF that won't RIP usually postscripting and distilling will fix it and let it RIP.

 

[doubting_thomas]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

We Save As or Export to PDF with all Adobe applications. We Print To Adobe PDF
with all our Microsoft applications on PC (mostly because they're old, and Publisher 2007
seems to add some transparency element with the Publish to PDF function that
won't work with our rip). We Print To .ps with Quark 6.52 on Mac, but that is the
latest version we support. We don't support MS Office on Mac.

We basically only use Distiller to convert .ps or .eps files to PDF.

 

[J.Graham]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

We use Distiller for creating pdf files for jobs built in Quark XPress. I generally just save the Quark page as an eps then drag the file over to the Distiller icon on my dock. For jobs built with Adobe applications, we just export a pdf.

For soft proofs, we throw our final eps files onto a Quark page, and then we'll use PDF Printer to create the pdf. The only reason I do this rather than use the Mac's built in capabilities is because that's the way they were doing it when I started working here. Why mess with success? ;-)

 

[Earendil]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Hi Leonard. First, I am using a Xenith Xitron Extreme PDF workflow.

I always export directly out of InDesign to PDF, leaving transparency intact. I use a modified Press Quality preset. The only modification I make to that preset is to take the Compatibility up to Acrobat 8 and turn Color Conversion off and I love the results. The only problem I see regularly is when someone uses transparency (like a drop shadow) over a block of spot color that is converting to CMYK either with PitStop or my RIP. In this case, it will knock the spot color out where it intersects with the image. The only fix I've found is to convert spot to process in the InDesign Swatch Pallet.

I also Export directly out of Quark as long as it's v6+.

The only time I print to Adobe PDF virtual printer is on the PC, with older programs like Pagemaker or non-standard programs like Publisher and Word.

Other than that, I don't use Postscript unless it's a last ditch effort to get something that someone has done strangely to work in which case saving to PS out of Acrobat and re-frying through Distiller serves as a reliable normalizer. This is the only time I even open Distiller and it's rare. Export from InDesign is a beautiful thing.

 

[vniehaus]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

What's Up! Leonard

First up, I use PDF\X-1a files for all production use and vision I will be for a couple more years probably. Any takers on that?

For Quark I print PS and use drag and drop into Distiller although, never experienced problems with Quarks Direct to PDF functions. Just trust Distiller more.

ID direct to PDF of course with a little bit of apple scripting to make it AWESOME.

But if I need a quick PDF like a copy of a receipt or invoice etc... Apple's PDF capabilities work great.

Oh Yeah!

Microsoft Office files I use the Adobe PDF printer to create .prn files which are dragged and dropped into open Distiller window.

Keep up the PDF work Leonard. They have really made my job easier IMO, Even with "Smallest File Size" created customer supplied PDF's.

Vincent Niehaus

 

[michaelejahn]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

@ Vincent;

you wrote "First up, I use PDF\X-1a files for all production use and vision I will be for a couple more years probably. Any takers on that?"

Okay, well this is an adobe survey for Leonard, so we should not pollute that will a protracted discussion about if we will (or if we should continue for even 30 more seconds) on creating PDF/X-1a files, but I will say NO, no a thousand times no - not in many cases - where I expect to use your files in a search-able archive, make them 508 compliant - and several other reasons related to not crushing transparent objects too soon and making the file much larger than they need to be when exchanged between two parties...

Stop SPDFS

Stop The Transparencide

http://michaelejahn.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-spdfs-stop-transparencide.html

Edited by: Michael Jahn on Jul 15, 2008 1:37 AM

 

[jonkovach]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

I actually print everything to PS then distill everything to PDF 1.3.

Is this a bad, bad, bad workflow? Or is it simply adding an unnecessary (printing to a PS file)?

Thanks,
Jon

 

[bluskool]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

I use the PDF print engine from Quark because I believe it is quicker than postscript and distill from quark.
CS3 apps, I direct export except with Photoshop (EPS and Distill from that). Quark does strange things with PDF's direct from Photoshop.
I use distiller for making pdf's from old EPS files we have that were created in Multi-Ad Creator because InDesign does strange things with those eps files.
Some poorly made PDF's (mostly publisher PDF's) have to be rasterized in Photoshop, saved as an EPS and distilled.
I don't use Mac's native PDF creator because it makes RGB PDF's and you don't have much control.

I hope you are not considering getting rid of the pdf engine or distiller. I fully support moving completely away from postscript, but we are gonna need those tools for a while to come. If anything, I'd like to see the print engine expanded. Make it a scriptable application or give it the ability to make single page PDF's. That would be fan-freakin-tastic. End rant.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Just to make sure we are clear on terminology here ...

When we discuss products with the +Adobe PDF Print Engine+, we are referring to products that are directly RIPing existing PDF, preferably directly created from layout and illustration software.

The "PDF Print Engine" referred to by +bluskool+ has nothing to do with the +Adobe PDF Print Engine+, but rather, is Quark's description of software they license from Global Graphics that converts PostScript output by QuarkXPress into PDF in a manner similar to the way Adobe's Acrobat Distiller converts PostScript to PDF. QuarkXPress does +not currently+ directly "export" PDF in the same sense that InDesign directly exports PDF without any intermediary PostScript to ruin transparency and color management.

Another topic touched upon ... If you have a "poorly made PDF" whether from Publisher or whatever, rasterization in Photoshop is the best way to ruin it further! If Photoshop can rasterize it, then any current Adobe product should be able to open it and the Adobe RIP-based products (whether CPSI or Adobe PDF Print Engine) should be able to RIP it. The components used in Photoshop are really no different than what is used in the rest of Adobe's products. And even then, if you want to create a PDF file from Photoshop, Adobe recommends that you directly save as PDF from Photoshop. There is no good reason to create PostScript and distill it in this case. What are you afraid of?

- Dov

 

[bluskool]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

> {quote:title=Dov Isaacs wrote:}{quote}
> Just to make sure we are clear on terminology here ...
>
> When we discuss products with the +Adobe PDF Print Engine+, we are referring to products that are directly RIPing existing PDF, preferably directly created from layout and illustration software.
>
> The "PDF Print Engine" referred to by +bluskool+ has nothing to do with the +Adobe PDF Print Engine+, but rather, is Quark's description of software they license from Global Graphics that converts PostScript output by QuarkXPress into PDF in a manner similar to the way Adobe's Acrobat Distiller converts PostScript to PDF.

That is not at all what I was referring to. I am referring to the PDF printer that comes with Creative Suite 3. I print from quark using "Adobe PDF 8.0" as the printer to get my PDF's. I am not referring to the JAWS engine as you said.

> Another topic touched upon ... If you have a "poorly made PDF" whether from Publisher or whatever, rasterization in Photoshop is the best way to ruin it further!

This is what gets us frustrated in the printing world. Just yesterday I needed to convert a poorly made PDF from RGB to CMYK. I did it first in Acrobat and ended up with big blocks of patterns around all of the Letters on the cover. I opened it in Photoshop (at a resolution of 900 which keeps it from being ruined as you have said), converted the colors, saved as EPS and distilled. A directly made PDF was over 200MB. The PDF I got via the EPS and distill method was under 1MB.

> If Photoshop can rasterize it, then any current Adobe product should be able to open it and the Adobe RIP-based products (whether CPSI or Adobe PDF Print Engine) should be able to RIP it. The components used in Photoshop are really no different than what is used in the rest of Adobe's products.

This is incorrect as I have pointed out. Acrobat failed to do what Photoshop could.

>And even then, if you want to create a PDF file from Photoshop, Adobe recommends that you directly save as PDF from Photoshop. There is no good reason to create PostScript and distill it in this case. What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of waiting for an hour to upload a file to the printers server when it could take 30 seconds. The real question is "is there any good reason to directly export it?" What is the good reason for wanting a 200MB file, when all that is needed is a 1MB file? Why does Photoshop include so much unnecessary information in the PDF's it produces? I have shed over 50MB from a PDF directly exported from Photoshop just by removing application data and metadata from the file.

You guys have got to realize that your ambition is exceeding practicality right now. I fully support moving entirely away from postscript. I love the fact that you guys are creating technology that moves us away from postscript and gives us a better, more reliable way to predict the final outcome, but the technology is not there yet.
Why was Photoshop able to "fix" that PDF I was referring to when I could not fix it in Acrobat? I would be glad to send the file to you. It is just one of countless examples. As far as I know, opening it in Photoshop was the only way to get the colors to convert to CMYK without damaging the appearance of the document. If there is a another, better way that you know about, please demonstrate. Just saying that Photoshop will render PDF's the same as every other CS3 app does not make it so.

Dan R.

PS don't take this the wrong way. I am little annoyed, but I still have mad love for Adobe products. In fact if everyone in the print world only used CS3 apps, the problems I am discussing would not exist. The problem is that we have to deal with graphics created in other programs.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

With regards to two problems you mention, if at all possible, I'd love to see examples and try to handle them here at Adobe.

I don't know how you converted RGB to CMYK in Acrobat, but Acrobat's own color conversions don't create "big blocks of patterns" - all it does is convert colors. Any patterns must have been in the original PDF file.

In terms of "save as PDF" versus "distillation of PostScript," there is no way you could have gotten that big a difference in file sizes unless you effectively specified +no+ downsampling and +no+ image compression (including non-lossy ZIP compression) when performing "save as PDF" but specifed downsampling and signficant compression, possibly lossy, as part of your distillation joboptions.

What versions of Acrobat and Photoshop are you using?

Again, I'd love to see the samples. If there are problems comparable to what you describe, we'll fix them. If there was "operator error" we'll find that out as well.

- Dov

 

[WharfRat]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

I gotta agree with Dov on this one.
From reading here ...
it sounds as if you do not have a good handle on what is going on with your file handling.

MSD

 

[bluskool]

Re: Survey about use of Acrobat on the Mac

Where do I send the file?