InDesign Creating PDFs: Print as PDF vs. Export PDF vs. Distiller.

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

So it seems there are a couple of ways to create a PDF in Illustrator and InDesign.

1. Save/Export as a pdf

2. Save as an EPS then drop in Adobe Distiller

Seems pretty reliable and a good way to save those presets.

3. Print as PDF 7.0

Files done this way come out 10 - 20% smaller than an export to PDF. It also creates a log like when I use Distiller. Is is using Distiller? Am I missing something?

Can anybody elaborate on this more and/or share some professional insights into this subject?

[Mynock]

There are pretty much the same as far as I know. Each have the same PDF settings that you can go into. They might get to end result differently, but they all get there. Sometimes you have to use one of the others if one isn't working. Rickself is the PDF guru here, and jimking knows some stuff as he's reading this thread.

[steve2112]

Creating a PDF from indesign using export presets will not use distiller. I believe all adobe apps from cs and up have distiller built in. The best most solid way to make a pdf from indesign is using the export or one of the presets. Creating a .ps or .eps file and distilling will create a large more complicated PDF. Printing to a pdf will use distiller but abode still recommends not doing that and using a export function for the more flexibility and consistancy. At least that is what people have told me and I have been doing it that way for years.

steve

[Mynock]

Distiller has settings also. You can set change your settings there also. You can create a small file with distiller.

[jimking]

I always export to pdf out of Indesign, never print to pdf. You could distill a Indy ps file, but I've never seen a difference in pdfs, however, one could be larger. The only time I'll use distiller is because of issues with transparency for example. QuarkXpress is a program I always use distiller without fail and that includes the recent versions.

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

Distiller has settings also. You can set change your settings there also. You can create a small file with distiller.

In Indesign.
If I use the built in Distiller (print as) and create an x-1a PDF it always comes out much smaller than the exact same settings done on an export to pdf.

Does anyone know why?...

[jimking]

I've had some bad experience printing to pdf opposed to export. You can export as pdf x-1a also. It could be smaller because most likely the resolution is lower which in my field is a no no. And it was resolution issues I was having when printing to pdf. What you can do to test this is to make 2 pdfs-one export one print to pdf. Use the "touch up Item" tool in Acrobat pro and check your graphic's resolution.

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

I've had some bad experience printing to pdf opposed to export. You can export as pdf x-1a also. It could be smaller because most likely the resolution is lower which in my field is a no no. And it was resolution issues I was having when printing to pdf.

With print as: It opens a dialog box. And there is even more settings you can change if you hit the printer button at the bottom. It has resolution up to 4000 dpi.

I've done about 50% of my projects with the print as function and 50% with the export function with no returned work from a printer. I wanted to find out which one was better and why, but I'm not finding too many experts on the subject.

[jimking]

http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/index.html

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/index.html

Thanks I'm gonna explore their forums....

["Technical" Terry]

3. Print as PDF 7.0

Files done this way come out 10 - 20% smaller than an export to PDF.

Just for clarification, I hope that by smaller you are referring to file data size, and not physical size such as inches. If you are having physical size problems then check your print settings, specifically "scale" and "scale to fit".

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

Just for clarification, I hope that by smaller you are referring to file data size, and not physical size such as inches. If you are having physical size problems then check your print settings, specifically "scale" and "scale to fit".

Yeah thanks for checking up.

I did mean data size.

Since I originally started this thread, I have done more research and have come up with some more info on why the file is smaller. It actually uses the distiller and it flattens the pdf. This can be a really good thing because a lot printers work best with this (in large part because they have dated RIP software and because these files have worked well for them in the past so they hang on to this format).

I would print to PDF if I didn't know the printer or was sending the file international.

I would export to PDF if I knew my printer was OK with this, this was a job I'd have the time to properly oversee, and I already cleared it with my printer.

[steve2112]

I usually always export a pdf x1a anyways to double check a bunch of things. I also change the font embedding so the complete font is embedded too when i send to print.

steve

[Gregory]

I would print to PDF if I didn't know the printer or was sending the file international.

I would export to PDF if I knew my printer was OK with this, this was a job I'd have the time to properly oversee, and I already cleared it with my printer.

I think this is a wise approach.

Nonetheless, I just had some random thoughts in favor of providing exported pdfs. First, it seems to me that as long as the printer at least has Acrobat Pro, they ought to be able to flatten any transparency in the pdf themselves if they don't like the exported pdf you provide. Or even, heaven forbid, redistill your pdf, if their RIP is just too old. I guess what I mean is, an unflattened pdf gives the printer more to work with. They should be able to "dumb it down" if they need to.

[steve2112]

I don't want the printer flattening anything. I make a pdf x1a it flattens the transparency. I open the pdf on my end and review it. Then I send it. Sometimes the transparency will get messed up and i will fix it. I don't want someone not involved in the craetion process trying to fix anything. Solid pdf x1a's with all the fonts embedded are great way to send jobs. Also i work in a print shop as well and constantly have to edit old files because customers don't want to go back to the designer for old edits. If i just send the printer a pdf then they will either have to do work arounds or something else to get it to work. They cant rearrange, resize or repurpose what i did.

steve

[Gregory]

Sorry if I'm getting this too off topic, but I guess the distilling vs exporting discussion gets us into the whole question of where transparency flattening should occur: at the designer or at the printer. PDF/X1-a puts the responsibility on the designer. Maybe that's because when the standard was developed, printers (and their RIPs) were still having problems dealing with transparency. At any rate, that wasn't where we were having problems at my last job. I think it's good if you want to take responsibility for flattening your artwork correctly. But, it takes away the device-independent potential of your pdfs. By keeping the transparency live, ideally, your printer will optimize the flattening process depending on the output.

There's another aspect to this that's maybe a little more obscure: Some printers may be using true pdf workflows for trapping. In this case, a file with transparency is often much simpler to process than one that has been flattened.

[HappyFriday]

The good old PDF question. Which is correct? Both.

Old method is slower and export is faster. Don't guess, take the time and communicate with your printer, request for their PDF settings and preference. If they don't care how you submit you files, you probably want to find a printer that does.

1) Create a PS file > Distiller route still works and proven. Although you'll likely hear a lot of Adobe insiders claiming there is no need to use distiller to create PDF anymore. I beg to differ, why would Adobe continue to include Distiller as a separate RIP if it's no longer require? Until it's removed from it's product line, this is still my prefer method of creating a press-ready PDF. We are using both Quark and Indesign, this method proves to be reliable for our various domestic printers as well as oversea.

2) Export to PDF is what you'll start hearing more and more from Adobe prepress people. They claimed it creates same quality files, smaller and saves time without clicking through print screen options to generate PS files. Remember, prepress people like fast. This doesn't translate to better files in my dictionary.
Keep in mind the biggest reason for exporting from within Adobe product line is to retain live transparency and layers. More importantly, PDF file version makes a bigger difference than how a file is created. Submitting a PDF v1.3 (flatten) is not the same as the latest v1.7. If your printer's software and hardware can't handle transparency and layer files yet, sending them a v1.7 is begging for trouble.

Lastly, if you don't have an in-house prepress person then communication with your printer's prepress becomes very important, invest that time.

[urstwile]

HappyFriday, I submit a lot of PDFX-1a's to different magazines, where I have no control or knowledge of the printer and their issues. Your post underscores the possibility that perhaps it is in fact best to distill rather than export PDF's in those kind of situations. I had a conversation with one publication in particular that insisted that they had problems with PDF's that had been exported rather than distilled via a Postscript file. I believe this particular publication uses Quark to import the PDF's into for the magazine.

[HappyFriday]

Don't get caught up with PDF/X-1 ~ X-4 jargons. As I have learned, these are just PDF preset settings, each of them uses JPEG compression and downsampling.

You can easy create X-1 ~ X-4 compliant settings without downsampling your images and using JPEG compresion, which will certainly give you poorer quality printed piece. There are other options you need to look into if you work with HRZ files. Magazines tends to have lower acceptance when it comes to Ad quality, their Ad staff only cares if it prints or not and how fast. Therefore, many magazines have no problem accepting compressed JPG and downsample PDF. This doesn't make the default X-1 ~ X-4 good nor acceptable. It just translates to "yes, the ad will print".

[Paj]

in my experience ive never had a problem using the export to PDF function using Adobe software. Sometimes I use Distiller if a publication has very rigorous PDF guidelines that need to be followed to the letter, otherwise export t PDF works fine.

However I always use Distiller when mkaing PDFs from non-Adobe software, such as Coreldraw. Corel has a built in PDF function but its kinda dodgy and best used for proofs only. Lets not get started on publisher files......

[steve2112]

As far as the export feature from quark, you have to avoid it like the freaking plague. I went to a client compujter with quark 7 and export a large document as a pdf. First the export menus are just plain retarded and when i made it, and i usually know what i am doing, i brought it back to my print shop and as son as i ran it through Pitstop i was get some weird errors and it was crashing. Since it wasn't anything major of a job I decided to see how it rips and while it ripped to the presses fine the pdf was garbage.

As far as compression and all those feature then yes you can easily make a pdf with no compression and flatten transparency and fonts embedded and then save it as you own preset.

When should the transpancy be flattened i would think depends on if the Designer knows how to handle it. If they are familiar with how it gets flattened and all that then they should do it and if not let the print shop professionsals do it.

steve

["Technical" Terry]

I think that Quark 7(.3) is super surprisingly superior to previous versions in its export to pdf abilities. I still won't use it for layout. If I get some art in that was made with Quark, I export to pdf with no hyperlinks, no compression, no color converion, etc.... Then import pdf into Indy. RIPs great every time.

[steve2112]

Of no doubt this version of quark is better but i would never ever use it for anything. Indesign is just a better deal on many levels, functionality and price. Quark still make a bloated pdf. I just don't why they have a hard time doing it. I give our customers a link to a free pdf creator for them to use from word and what not and those PDF tend to have less problems then quark. While i maybe exaggerating a little bit , its only a little a bit.


steve

["Technical" Terry]

What's the link to the pdf creator?

[jimking]

http://www.pdfonline.com/

[Eggles1]

It [printing to PDF] actually uses the distiller and it flattens the pdf. This can be a really good thing because a lot printers work best with this (in large part because they have dated RIP software and because these files have worked well for them in the past so they hang on to this format).

I would print to PDF if I didn't know the printer or was sending the file international.

Exporting to PDF/X-1a also flattens the file.

As you have worked out, this is the best approach if sending your PDF to a printer (or magazine) where you don't know how up-to-date their RIP is.

So both printing to PDF and exporting to PDF/X-1a end up in the same place, but the export route is faster.

[steve2112]

i use primopdf creator at www.primopdf.com. It gives you only 3 choices and thats it. I tell them choose prepress and boom. I always tweak it with pitstop but if you work with pdf and dont have pitstop then i feel bad for yu.

steve