NOTE: These questions have to do with producing PDFs for offset printing 
(PDF/X-3:2002).

A correspondent (a Mac OSX user) on another list writes:

"The way I understand it is this: InDesign's Export to PDF uses the 
Adobe PDF Library rather than Acrobat Distiller. Adobe claims that these 
exported pdfs are just fine now, and they're probably right, but in 
early versions of Indy, this feature wasn't always quite right for 
high-end output (I don't know the details; I made the switch from Quark 
about a year ago). A lot of service bureaus and pre-press departments 
have, ever since, stated that they want their pdfs produced using 
Distiller."

She has requested that I seek clarification here.

Three questions:

1. Is she correct? That is, is this a distinction with a difference, or 
does Distiller use the same PDF Library that Distiller uses, in the same 
way? (My own observation that prompted the above was that all the same 
controls and options seem to be available in both interfaces. Am I 
missing something?)

2. Were there in fact problems with early versions of ID PDF Export that 
have been resolved, or is this a myth circulating in the printing trade?

3. Is the situation the same on the Windows platform?

And a bonus question:

4. Is there ever a reason to abide by a printer's request to use the PPD 
for their output device rather than the AdobePS PPD (meaning printing to 
file using the requested PPD and then distilling)?

Dick Margulis <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:

>1. Is she correct? That is, is this a distinction with a difference, or 
>does Distiller use the same PDF Library that Distiller uses, in the same 
>way? (My own observation that prompted the above was that all the same 
>controls and options seem to be available in both interfaces. Am I 
>missing something?)

Yes, they are different methods, carefully crafted to offer very
similar user interfaces. It should not matter.
>
>2. Were there in fact problems with early versions of ID PDF Export that 
>have been resolved, or is this a myth circulating in the printing trade?

Not that I know of. But there IS a particular situation that some
shops have RIPs that are old and buggy, and seem more likely to fail
on exported PDFs because they use more advanced font technology. Many
shops refuse to fix or upgrade their RIPs, which is OK, and blame the
problem on something else, which really isn't OK.
>
>3. Is the situation the same on the Windows platform?

Yes.
>
>4. Is there ever a reason to abide by a printer's request to use the PPD 
>for their output device rather than the AdobePS PPD (meaning printing to 
>file using the requested PPD and then distilling)?

This is almost never recommended, and I'd challenge any printer to be
able to tell the difference. It is based on an understandable
misunderstanding of what PPDs are for.

----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

Aandi Inston wrote:


Thanks for your prompt reply, Aandi. I'll pass the information on.

Regards,

Dick