Underlines in linked EPS exporting to PDF incorrectly (breaking parts of line into thicker chunks)

Forum|Forum|1 day ago
June 11, 2026
3 replies
21 views

I’ve encountered an issue where text underlines that were vectorized (pages having been exported to EPS) do not print correctly after being linked in another InDesign file and exported to PDF. Here’s the process below:

Doc A pages exported as individual EPS files → EPS files linked into objects in Doc B → Doc B exported as a single PDF to be printed.

The underlines appear in chunks of thicks and thins in both the PDF export and in print, but do not look this way in InDesign. This is not a local display issue that can be resolved by changes to preferences in Acrobat such as Smooth line art and Enhance thin lines, since it affects the printed document.

The PDF export uses Standard: None and Compatibility: Acrobat 4 (PDF1.3).

I’ve discovered that removing the Directional Feather effect on the containing object eliminates the “chunky” underline problem. However, that effect is sort of inherited from a previous volume and ideally would be kept.

Any insights as to why this effect is interacting with the linked EPS files would be appreciated!

Screenshots attached are from PDF exports viewed in Acrobat. The top frame has the Directional Feather effect present in both screenshots, whereas you can see the difference below when the FX is removed from the bottom frame.

Brad @ Roaring Mouse

Community Expert

There’s a lot of “yah, no” going on here.

First off. Don’t use EPS. Saving PDF of these pages and placing those is the much superior (and correct) way to do this. Save your pages as PDF-X/4.

“vectorized”. What do you mean? EPS will store whatever objects you have whether they are raster images or live text/vector objects. It doesn’t “vectorize” anything. However, if you actually mean you’ve outlined your text, that’s a different issue.

If your text is still live text, unless you’ve specifically spec’d your EPS export to include fonts, there are only references to the fonts and they will be picked up later if properly available in your system. Underlines are a design element of the font itself in this case and can vary between different fonts and different styles.

Final export as PDF 1.3 is inappropriate. Why are you using this? It will flatten objects in your file and could be doing so randomly with text object and underline strokes and messing up your transparency effects.

I would have to see examples of your files to give you a better idea of what is going wrong.

G

Gord@APL

Inspiring

A lot of Printers (in the UK, at least) still insist on PDF 1.3 specifically because it ensures the artwork is flattened. Not sure if it’s a holdover from the early days of File-to-Plate, but any transparencies left in the PDF would not function properly.

BobLevine

Community Expert

Why are you introducing EPS into this workflow? Why are you using a PDF standard that is closing in on 30 years old?

Archaic is the word that comes to mind right now.

Mike Witherell

Community Expert

Hi Artufex,

Did you know that EPS files cannot interact with transparency effects, including feathering?

Encapsulated PostScript can only proceed to a print device. It cannot interact in the InDesign layout using opacity nor transparency effects.

There is little to no reason to export anything as EPS files, the oldest filetype in existence. In fact, they should be avoided in your workflow.

Instead of EPS, why not use and place PDF files? If it is coming from another InDesign document, you might consider placing the InDesign document directly into the B InDesign document. In that case, the InDesign A acts like a placed image in InDesign B.

Further, why use the oldest, most-cooked-down PDF standard (PDF1.3)?

Mike Witherell

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded