Distiller settings in InDesign?

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

I'm trying to create a PDF of my InDesign book that conforms to my publisher's specs. I know that InDesign allows you to change its presets, but it doesn't offer as many options as Distiller, and the publisher sent me screenshots of the Distiller options it wants. I created a joboptions file in Distiller that conforms to the publisher's specs, but I can't figure out how to create the PDF using this joboptions file. I can't open an .INDD (InDesign) file in Distiller. And InDesign doesn't seem to "find" my new Distiller preset.

Help! How can I create a PDF from within InDesign, using a .jopoptions file defined in Distiller? Is the only solution to approximate the specs using InDesign's apparently incomplete version of the Distiller options?

[Guy_Smiley@adobeforums.com]

In the InDesign print dialog, select "PostScript File" as the printer,
and select "Adobe PDF" (if you have Acrobat 6) or "Adobe Acrobat
Printer" (if you have Acrobat 5 or below). Then open the resulting
PostScript file with Distiller, using the job options specified by your
printer.

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

Ah, that worked like a charm. Does that two-step process -- first creating a .ps file, then a .pdf file -- also occur when I'm using the "Export to PDF" option in InDesign? Or is it adding an extra step that might somehow degrade the quality of my product?

[Bob_Levine]

No. Exporting a PDF is done completely within ID and has quite a few
benefits over distilling; among other things, the ability to keep
transparency in the PDF.

Bob

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

So if I can satisfy the publisher by using ID to establish its settings (principally embedded fonts, with no subsets), should I do it that way rather than converting to .ps and then using Distiller to make the PDF?

[JohnO@adobeforums.com]

I don't do transparency nor any of the other "high-end" functions, so the
PDF two-step works just fine for me.

Check your proof carefully, just in case.

-John O

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, John. What should I be checking for? Funny characers, glitches in fonts, that sort of thing?

[JohnO@adobeforums.com]

Yes, check all the standard stuff.

If you can satisfy the printer with a PDF direct from ID, it's sure easier
than messing with ps files. Chances are their settings are nothing special,
just making sure you don't send a screen-res PDF.

-John O

[Peggy_Coquet@adobeforums.com]

<Grotius@adobeforums.com> wrote in message
news:3bb519ea.3@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> So if I can satisfy the publisher by using ID to establish its settings

(principally embedded fonts, with no subsets), should I do it that way
rather than converting to .ps and then using Distiller to make the PDF?

If you want to work with this printer over the long term, do it his way. The
ps-2-step (what a great term!) isn't that hard, and IME keeping a good
printer happy to be working with you is worth a little extra effort.

Just my US$0.02.
Peggy

[Guy_Smiley@adobeforums.com]

[email]Grotius@adobeforums.com[/email] wrote in news:3bb519ea.3@webx.la2eafNXanI:

> So if I can satisfy the publisher by using ID to establish its
> settings (principally embedded fonts, with no subsets), should I
> do it that way rather than converting to .ps and then using
> Distiller to make the PDF?

One possible issue with exported PDFs is that the fonts will be encoded
as "CID" (whatever the heck that means). The relevance is that some
non-PostScript or PostScript-clone RIPs choke on fonts with CID
encoding.

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

Hmm, you're right, exported PDFs are encoded as CID. Glad you mentioned this. I guess I am leaning toward the .ps-to-PDF two-step.

[Bob_Levine]

Any modern printer with up to date equipment can handle exported PDFs.

Bob

[Guy_Smiley@adobeforums.com]

Bob_Levine wrote in news:3bb519ea.10@webx.la2eafNXanI:

> Any modern printer with up to date equipment can handle exported
> PDFs.

True. Unfortunately, some of us are required for one reason or another
to work with not-up-to-date equipment, and thus must rely on this
workaround.

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

Certainly all my office printers have no trouble with it, Bob. But my publisher/printer is using rather old equipment, I suspect. I have the sense they've been doing things the same way for decades. Also, the goal here is to prepare the file for direct imagesetting or platesetting. So I guess I want to try to honor the publisher's specs as closely as possible, even though I do find it frustrating that I apparently can't just hit the ol' "Export to PDF" button in InDesign.

[Bob_Levine]

The point I should have made was to call the printer and ask. I still
use the 2 step process when submitting ads. I just use PDF X/1-a and
haven't had a problem, yet.

I did get a call last week from one newspaper that assured me PDF was
fine. Well once they got the ad they called to tell me that they were
concerred that the text wouldn't print well. I told the person that the
only way it wouldn't print well is if they rasterized in Photoshop.
There was dead silence on the end. When she finally realized she needed
to say something she that that was their normal workflow since most
people don't know how to create a PDF.

In fairness she did call first, but I wound up on the phone for about a
half hour answering all of her questions on PDF workflows and convinced
her to just place the PDF in their Quark layout and that it would be fine.

I'm mighty curious to see how this thing prints.

Bob

[Grotius@adobeforums.com]

Hehe, Bob, I've also found myself educating some people at my publisher's office, and I'm a newb. :)

[Marilyn_Langfeld@adobeforums.com]

I now add X1a to the name of any pdf I create with X/1a settings in InDesign and also note that it is a standard pdf X/1a file in accompanying communications. I haven't yet had a printer say they can't use one. In fact, I think it reassures them that they can use it, so they try, even if they normally don't accept pdf.