Changes to Same as Source Printing - CS4

Report · Jul 06, 2009

Hello Everyone,

I'm in the process of testing CS4 for deployment to a large print production environment and I'm seeing some interesting behavoir in so far as it's handling of color management is concerned, specifically with Same as Source printing from Acrobat.

I currently have CS2 deployed, and we're using InDesign for page composition. We primarily accept Adobe RGB (1998) and US Web Coated (SWOP) artwork. PDFs are created from InDesign via File > Export, and we have it configured for "No Color Conversion" and "Include all Profiles." As such, our PDFs contain both RGB and CMYK artwork, all of which is tagged with an ICC profile.

In Acrobat 7, we submit these files "Same as Source" to our RIPs (Fiery and Wasatch) in order to preserve the embedded profiles. All of our color management is handled at the RIP. This works quite nicely. We have tested the submissions and the RGB and CMYK builds (color numbers) come through dead on.

With Acrobat 9 Same as Source submissions, we are seeing that the builds are changing, and that we are getting a conversion to CMYK.

-Original PDF file

Raster RGB - 191,45,47

Here are the numbers that are submitted by Acrobat, captured by our RIP:

-Acrobat 7 Same As Source

Raster RGB - 191,45,47

-Acrobat 7 Printer/Postscript Color Management

Raster CMYK- 0,244,245,0

-Acrobat 9 Same As Source

Raster CMYK - 0,242,251,0

-Acrobat 9 Printer/Postscript Color Management

Raster CMYK - 0,242,251,0

-Acrobat 9 Acrobat Color Management

Raster CMYK - 17,248,245,1

So the question is: What changes have been made in Acrobat 9 to cause for it to handle Same as Source print submissions differently? Why is it that our builds are changing when Same as Source has always been how we get "pass through" color from Acrobat?

Has anyone else run into this? From the perspective of a RIP-driven, color managed workflow, this is a serious issue, no?

Matt

Report · Jul 08, 2009

John,

Everything I have been hearing from Adobe suggests that Exporting to PDF is by far and away the suggested route, especially if you are dealing with a modern RIPing environment. The RIP we are working with does not process PDFs natively (although, we can't say this for sure as it is very difficult to get any information from them at all). As such, it's my understanding that the PDFs are converted to PS at submission. My guess is that the ICC profiles aren't making their way to CSAs is the PS.

Might anyone know about PS2 vs PS3? Perhaps this RIP is running PS2 and it is not capable of accepting the ICCs as CSAs? (I can't even get them to tell us what PS version they are running).

I'll be sure to update everyone as our investigation continues.

Note: Adobe is being very, very helpful and is going out of their way to bring additional engineers on to help us understand what is happening. I must admit that I am quite pleased with their response.

Matt

Report · Jul 08, 2009

I was using Wasatch 5 which was a Postscript 3 RIP, if that is what you mean by PS3 vs. PS2. Postscript 2 was phased out a long time ago, I'd say at least 8 years, if not 10. Remember, I told you I RIP'd native PDF's using Wasatch v5. Those PDF's were generated via Distiller. I'm not sure I agree with Exporting over Distilling. But, that was my workflow and it worked.

Report · Jul 09, 2009

Regarding exporting vs printing vs distilling:

1. Exporting - one step, produces a PDF you can open and evaluate, smaller file size than PS file, and can have transparency. Disadvantage - the interpreting device might not be able to process transparency, which means you have to flatten. This adds to output time, and results in visual flattening artifacts on-screen (white lines and such). Disadvantage - you have no control over device print parameters, such as orientation, media size, scaling, etc. This option is very popular, especially if you have a RIP that handles transparency.

2. Printing - one step, produces a PS file which is purged by system after printing. If you use a device PPD, you can determine orientation, media, scaling of page, etc. Disadvantage - you can't check your output on-screen. If your printout is wrong, you've wasted paper and ink

3. Print and distill - two steps. PS is always flat, no transparency. But print and distill is often regarded as the "safest" process, since it is (sort of) a combination of 1 and 2.

John, would you agree with the above statements? Let me know if I've missed something...

Report · Jul 09, 2009

Thanks for your reply John. I'm glad to hear that you found a process that worked well for you using Wasatch 5.

Matt