Recent posts, such as
>
> The main reason I use Distiller is because I've been advised by Nick
> Hodge
> of Adobe, that it gives a better pdf file than one exported directly
> from
> ID. Other reasons:
> 1. Generally, much smaller files - making it easier to email material
> to
> printers.
> 2. In the past, publishers and service providers I've dealt with have
> had
> problems with exported files and had greater success with distilled pdf
> files.
> 3. Some printers and film houses have their own Acrobat job options
> files
> for Distiller so using them gives (almost) guaranteed results.
> Having said that, it's much more convenient exporting from ID, so I'm
> tempted to try this method again. However, having spent much of the
> beginning of this year fighting the entrenched Quark brigade and
> having now
> got to the point where, in general, things are working well, I'm a bit
> reluctant to start rocking the boat again!
>

indicate that pdf generation from InDesign is still problematical.
Sometime ago I raised this issue and Dov Isaacs replied to it with the
assurance that InDesign pdfs were equivalent in quality to those
created in Acrobat and that any problems were the result of
inadequacies in the work flows and postscript interpreters of printers
and printing houses. This appears, from the above, not quite to be the
case. If InDesign created pdfs are in some way hobbled (file size) and
really require Acrobat for results of the highest quality, Adobe should
say so. And if this is the case, the lack of an OS X version of Acrobat
is a serious disservice to users. On the other hand, if InDesign pdfs
are fully adequate, Adobe should say so and support this feature in
InDesign as the premier way of creating pdfs from InDesign documents.
Distiller should be totally unnecessary.

It would be kind if Adobe spokesmen Isaacs and Hodge could again
clarify Adobe's position in this matter.

-David Oliver


----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>

One thing I would like to see in this context would be a possibility to
import all settings from a joboptions file you get from a printer (or
elsewhere for a specific workflow), and not having to recreate settings,
setting per setting yourself. If that would be possible, the need to use
Distiller would decrease when working with InDesign (you still need it
for other softwares though).
--
nini ;-)
____________________________________________________
Nini Tjder ______ nini.tjader@[Protected] ______ http://www.dd.se

On mndag 14 oktober 2002 12.36, David Oliver <daoliver@[Protected]>
wrote:
>Recent posts, such as
>>
>> The main reason I use Distiller is because I've been advised by Nick

>> Hodge
>> of Adobe, that it gives a better pdf file than one exported directly

>> from
>> ID. Other reasons:
>> 1. Generally, much smaller files - making it easier to email
material
>> to
>> printers.
>> 2. In the past, publishers and service providers I've dealt with
have
>> had
>> problems with exported files and had greater success with distilled
pdf
>> files.
>> 3. Some printers and film houses have their own Acrobat job options
>> files
>> for Distiller so using them gives (almost) guaranteed results.
>> Having said that, it's much more convenient exporting from ID, so
I'm
>> tempted to try this method again. However, having spent much of the
>> beginning of this year fighting the entrenched Quark brigade and
>> having now
>> got to the point where, in general, things are working well, I'm a
bit
>> reluctant to start rocking the boat again!
>>
>
>indicate that pdf generation from InDesign is still problematical.
>Sometime ago I raised this issue and Dov Isaacs replied to it with
the
>assurance that InDesign pdfs were equivalent in quality to those
>created in Acrobat and that any problems were the result of
>inadequacies in the work flows and postscript interpreters of printers

>and printing houses. This appears, from the above, not quite to be the

>case. If InDesign created pdfs are in some way hobbled (file size)
and
>really require Acrobat for results of the highest quality, Adobe
should
>say so. And if this is the case, the lack of an OS X version of
Acrobat
>is a serious disservice to users. On the other hand, if InDesign pdfs
>are fully adequate, Adobe should say so and support this feature in
>InDesign as the premier way of creating pdfs from InDesign documents.
>Distiller should be totally unnecessary.
>
>It would be kind if Adobe spokesmen Isaacs and Hodge could again
>clarify Adobe's position in this matter.
>
>-David Oliver



----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>

I'll just throw my $0.02 in here. I've used the export to PDF quite a few
times with ID 2.0 with files using transparency, feathering, and drop
shadows. I haven't had so much as hiccup with any one of them.

Just for the record I'm using ID 2.0.1 on a Win2K SP3 box.

Bob



----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>

Distiller or Export PDFs?

Firstly, there is nothing technically wrong with Exported PDFs from
InDesign. At all. I (personally) have had great success with exported
PDFs from InDesign RIPping to Prinergy and various other
imagesetters/platesetters in production in the field.

In either workflow, you will get a high quality PDF that will generate
great output.

However, I do recommend using a Print to Postscript-Distill workflow in
the following situations:

1. where you are sending a PDF "blind".

In other words, where you are not sure of the
provenance/age/version/vendor of your printer's RIP -- they will more
than likely have determined an internal workflow for Distiller-made
PDFs. They will have .joboptions available for your use, and have
tested Distiller made PDFs from QuarkXpress, InDesign and other sources.
If they use tools like Pitstop, they probably have created preflight
checks based on Distiller-made PDFs.

This is especially the case if you are sending advertisements, sending
files to remote countries or doing work for a client where your client
nominates a printer (its not your choice). In these style workflows,
there is a blind handoff


2. your printer is using Harlequin < 5.3

This is the CID font encoding issue. As you probably know by now,
InDesign to accurately represent glyphs like ligatures, InDesign encodes
the text in its PDFs in a form known as "CID".

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG, TRICKY, HIDDEN OR EVIL about CID font encoding.
It's a valid part of the PDF specification that certain vendors had not
implemented in their software. By Print to Postscript-Distill, there is
no CID font encoding, whereas exported PDFs do. Well build (that is: to
specification) RIPs/Imagesetters work successfully with CID font
encoding.

A large InDesign customer here in Australia have a *very* old Harlequin
RIP which is integral in their workflow. This forces the
Distiller-route PDF generation: which works flawlessly, day in and day
out.

Again, if you do not worry, understand or even care what your printer is
using: the Distiller is a common



3. your printer/publisher is conservative, and provides a
Distiller-workflow option.

OK, so your printer accepts PDFs and provides a series of steps and a
Distiller 4/5 .joboptions file. In this case, I sometimes recommend
people export a PDF from InDesign to see if it works successfully
(prepare to be surprised!) -- however, to make life easier and have less
Prepress technical people getting hot under the collar, use the Print to
Postscript-Distill route.


All of this said, Exporting PDFs is a better option. Why?

1. Its quicker
2. There are less translations (InDesign->Postscript->PDF, vs.
InDesign->PDF)
3. Once there are more RIPs with InRIP flattening (next revision of
Prinergy, Fujifilm etc) are out there, we get even faster output to
Acrobat 5 (PDF 1.4). A sight to behold, people!

Therefore, if you have the chance to test Exported PDFs with your
workflow, please do.

Please note that Australia is far, far along the High Quality PDF path.
PDF is the industry standard here in Australia (independent study) with
a majority of printers getting a majority of their work in as PDF. This
involves a plethora of RIPs, workflow software, imposition tools etc.
Therefore in Australia, Distiller is a consistent known entity, and why
we pragmatically recommend Print to Distiller PDF generation for our
InDesign customers here.


David, I hope this clears things up.


Nick


> Recent posts, such as
> >
> > The main reason I use Distiller is because I've been advised by Nick
> > Hodge
> > of Adobe, that it gives a better pdf file than one exported
> directly
> > from
> > ID. Other reasons:
> > 1. Generally, much smaller files - making it easier to
> email material
> > to
> > printers.
> > 2. In the past, publishers and service providers I've dealt
> with have
> > had
> > problems with exported files and had greater success with
> distilled pdf
> > files.
> > 3. Some printers and film houses have their own Acrobat job options
> > files
> > for Distiller so using them gives (almost) guaranteed results.
> > Having said that, it's much more convenient exporting from
> ID, so I'm
> > tempted to try this method again. However, having spent much of the
> > beginning of this year fighting the entrenched Quark brigade and
> > having now
> > got to the point where, in general, things are working
> well, I'm a bit
> > reluctant to start rocking the boat again!
> >
>
> indicate that pdf generation from InDesign is still problematical.
> Sometime ago I raised this issue and Dov Isaacs replied to
> it with the
> assurance that InDesign pdfs were equivalent in quality to those
> created in Acrobat and that any problems were the result of
> inadequacies in the work flows and postscript interpreters of
> printers
> and printing houses. This appears, from the above, not quite
> to be the
> case. If InDesign created pdfs are in some way hobbled (file
> size) and
> really require Acrobat for results of the highest quality,
> Adobe should
> say so. And if this is the case, the lack of an OS X version
> of Acrobat
> is a serious disservice to users. On the other hand, if InDesign pdfs
> are fully adequate, Adobe should say so and support this feature in
> InDesign as the premier way of creating pdfs from InDesign documents.
> Distiller should be totally unnecessary.
>
> It would be kind if Adobe spokesmen Isaacs and Hodge could again
> clarify Adobe's position in this matter.
>


----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>

on 10/14/02 5:38 PM, Nick Hodge at nhodge@[Protected] wrote:

> 3. Once there are more RIPs with InRIP flattening (next revision of
> Prinergy, Fujifilm etc) are out there, we get even faster output to
> Acrobat 5 (PDF 1.4). A sight to behold, people!

will this be Prinergy 2.1? currently we are 2.0.7


----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>

Nick,

I tought that Prinergy was already supporting PDF 1.4 by now??

> All of this said, Exporting PDFs is a better option. Why?
>
> 1. Its quicker
> 2. There are less translations (InDesign->Postscript->PDF, vs.
> InDesign->PDF)
> 3. Once there are more RIPs with InRIP flattening (next revision of
> Prinergy, Fujifilm etc) are out there, we get even faster output to
> Acrobat 5 (PDF 1.4). A sight to behold, people!
>
> Nick


Regards,

Roger Breton
Laval, Canada
graxx@[Protected]


----------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:indesign-admin@[Protected]>
List Help: <http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/lists/indesign.html>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:indesign-off@[Protected]>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/indesigntalk.lasso>