Skip to main content
December 20, 2011
Answered

Is there really no way to export PDFs as separate pages?

  • December 20, 2011
  • 14 replies
  • 77906 views

When delivering pdfs for print most of the time they want every page as a separate document.

I know that I can export the entire document as one pdf and then use Acrobat to split the document into separate pages.

But I just can't wrap my head around the fact that InDesign by the end of 2011 still won't let me achieve the same result without having to go through Acrobat (or some other app).

Can this really be the case? Or is there some way to achieve this?

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer Colin Flashman

    The second reply to this thread establishes that this topic is discussed frequently, and there are several scripts and other software addressing this need. That makes it clear to me that there are users out there who would like to have this feature and whose workflows would benefit from this feature (as in: it would make things simpler for them to just check a checkbox in InDesign than using other software to achieve the same results). Are there enough of them to meet your definition of many? I don't know, and ultimately I don't even care.

    The fact that there are users out there who see no need for the feature, or who'd rather see the world change than to see InDesign change, isn't reason enough not to implement this very simple feature on Adobe's end. InDesign (and other Adobe apps as well) is full of stuff that was way harder to implement on Adobe's end, yet caters only to subsets of users, so why not cater to these users as well? Clutter? Hardly. One checkbox would suffice. And because some users feel that the feature would make it harder to change the world into a better one? Well, Adobe isn't an ideological organization, if there's demand they should just cater to it. The feature has been in Adobe Acrobat for ages, so as far as software goes I see no reason not to implement it in InDesign as well.

    I applaud anyone who takes a stand against bad workflows, or unsound methods of any kind, and I'm one of those who can't wait for a global all-out RGB/LAB workflow on hardware-calibrated screens with a single unified icc-RGB/LAB icc-profile for delivery of all print jobs, using one pdf per job regardless of the number or shapes of pages, inserts, spot colors and so forth, where it's then up to the printers to make sure their printing processes matches the unified icc-profile as closely as possible. There are few technological hurdles to achieve this today (though plenty of economical ones), and I'd love to live in that world … but unfortunately I don't. And until I do, I want Adobe to cater to the needs I have today.

    And for you to suggest that my level of experience has anything to do with this only shows a limited understanding of how people and the world works. And that's not me taking a stab against you or ideology at large, just your suggestion that people who don't feel the same way as you are somehow lesser than you. The fact that I don't see it as my job to educate printers, and change the errors of their ways, doesn't make me inexperienced. In fact, in my experience, there are plenty of experienced designers out there who aren't willing to spend any of their time arguing with printers or struggling with changing the way printers work – many, if not most, of the designers I know tend to spend their time doing design instead.

    What geographical market do you work in?

    I've only worked in Europe, but I've worked all over the spectrum … sometimes with low end printers for cost effiency (and man oh man, the stories I could tell you, the horrors of their beliefs is truly astonishing), but also with huge modern highly-automized magazine plants with optical scanners automatically correcting colors in the press and automized processes for continually delivering up-to-date icc-profiles for all products, but usually I've worked somewhere in the middle. One thing that's very common over here though, which I suspect to be true all over the world too, is "pseudo-printers" – companies that negotiate lower prices with several printers by aggregating lots of clients/print jobs and then subcontracting them to these printers. It's good for the economy (except maybe for the printers, though it makes it easier for some of them to run near full-capacity which is of course good for them too), but it more often than not means catering to the weakest link – that the specifications are dumbed down to fit the worst printing plant in the mix, even though many others work in more modern ways.

    It's hard for me to fathom a printer who can't use Acrobat's feature to split the document, even if they do in fact need per-page PDFs, which they shoudn't.

    It's hard for me to fathom a printer who doesn't make it their job to know a hell of a lot more about catering to the needs of designers than most designers do, but rest assured there's enough of them to go around. And it's hard for me to fathom a designer who've had extensive contacts with many a printer who wouldn't also know this to be true. But maybe you've just been very lucky in who you get to work with … and I don't mean that as in “coincidence”, but that you are lucky to be able to work only with non-backwards printers. In the recent economy few companies that I've worked with are willing to pay anything extra for expertise – increasingly, everyone's just looking to save a buck.

    And anyway, the issue here isn't whether the printer can  or should achieve this themselves or not, it's about Adobe not catering to users need to quickly and simply meet the printers specifications. I'm a designer. People pay me to do design for them and deliver files for print – they don't pay me to argue with printers. So I deliver files according to specifications. If this somehow makes me inexperienced, or even stupid, in your eyes, then so be it.

    While I've more or less given up in trying to change how others work, what I occasionally do attempt, in order to make my world a little better, is to contact software makers and suggest to them ways to make my life easier through changes and additions to their software. But before I do I like to make sure I haven't just missed something. That's why I came to these forums with this. To probe whether there's really still no way to perform this simple task in InDesign, not to probe what others think of me for wanting a checkbox that would eliminate one slight annoyance from my life.


    I work for an offset printer as a prepress operator, and i'd NEVER ask for single page/file PDFs unless i wanted to preflight dozens/hundreds/thousands of individual files at a time (e.g. 64pp book comes in, i can either check 1x64pp file; or 64x1pp files... know what i'd rather do!). I completely agree with John Hawkinson and Bob Levine that it's counter productive.

    Similarly, in the 15 years that i've been in prepress here and overseas, i've only ever had one client supply files as single file/page PDFs, and it was another printer who had imposed the art first using a method similar to this method, before running out of time themselves to print the artwork and gave us the artwork to print.

    However I have read the OP's post above (post no.12) and take the point that it is irrelevant which provider will or will not want single page/file PDFs; but the fact that the dialog box for making single page/file PDFs doesn't exist except through scripting or third party.

    Apart from suggesting the PEU exporter from scott zanelli (many other posters here have suggested the same thing) if the OP really wants to see this feature in future versions of indesign, go to the indesign wishlist and ask for this feature.

    14 replies

    Participant
    July 31, 2016

    I realize this thread will never die, but I need to pipe in and say that I work for a newspaper manufacturer, and we have a workflow that requires separate pdf files for each page in order to drop into the ripping program.  Just because none of you personally have come across a vender that requires separate page pdf files, doesn't mean they don't exist.  Newspapers have some pages complete in advance before others, and we need to process, say the comics section, way sooner than the frontpage.  This requires a workflow where separate pdf files are paramount. 

    Weather or not this is an "ideal" workflow or not, if InDesign had the option to export pages into separate pdf files, it would save our company a LOT of time.  Thankfully Acrobat does this and we don't have to click file>export>page range for each and every page.

    I'd like to think that if a program had more options for several variations of workflow, it would be a moot point if some of those workflows were allegedly less than ideal.  Corporations are cheap, and will not upgrade their software until it breaks the system and is economical for the company budget.  Meaning that the more diverse our modern software becomes, the more we can compensate for 'bad workflows' out there in the world.  Being just one little pee-on in my company, there's not a chance in hell I would be able to go up to my boss's boss and say "Erm, excuse me sir, but your workflow needs to be changed and we need to update all of these computers and software, and we need a completely new system because I'm not able to export a multipage pdf in InDesign." 

    I'll give you one guess who'd be cleaning out their desk that evening. 

    rob day
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    July 31, 2016

    Thankfully Acrobat does this and we don't have to click file>export>page range for each and every page.

    Right, it's very easy to do it from the print production side—the designer shouldn't be required to solve an imposition workflow problem. Single page PDF export scripts are free and easy to get, but i still don't want to provide 32 PDFs to my printer for 32 page document.

    KeithHopkin
    Inspiring
    October 26, 2013

    I came here for an answer to this question and reading the responses is naking my eyes bleed. I'm gonna have a beer instead.

    Colin Flashman
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    October 26, 2013

    This thread is admittedly... complicated. Ultimately the answer is yes, but involves solutions that aren't standard in InDesign; and the actual reason for doing so is disputed amongst users (including me) but nevertheless it can be done. Have a read of this post http://colecandoo.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do-indesign-files-into-individual-pdfs-that-is/ for the actual how-tos.

    If the answer wasn't in my post, perhaps it might be on my blog at colecandoo!
    Colin Flashman
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    July 12, 2015

    Years on, there is now an answer that is ALMOST in sight. In fact, it DOES WORK, PROVIDED you don't mind an error message at the end (the error infers that "there are no more records to go but I think there are"). See this post on the Adobe Scripting Forum: ID CC2015 (MacOSX 10.9.5) Data Merge splitting script - "Data is out of range"... for the first 99 records?

    If the answer wasn't in my post, perhaps it might be on my blog at colecandoo!
    Participant
    June 20, 2013

    I've been doing print design on Macs for over 20 years and deal with a large variety of printers regularly. Currently, I design a 132-page monthly magazine for a non-profit. The printer we use requires individual page-pdfs for their online, fairly advanced, proofing and largely-automated imposition system. They do require individual page pdfs, so I'd love to see that functionality built into InDesign, rather than the annoying workflow that's currently required.

    At present, the magazine is built in three different files (cover, non-feature departments, feature-well). This is largely to accommodate the offsite editors who work on the issues via InCopy through our central "dropbox" server. Doing them all in one file means that layout changes can be slow in syncing, resulting in "conflicting" copies or other Dropbox burps.

    Regardless, I end up with three multi-page pdfs, that must be then split via Acrobat and then batch renamed via Bridge.

    Being able to just merge the InDesign documents and then output per-page would be quite helpful.

    rob day
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    June 20, 2013

    that must be then split via Acrobat and then batch renamed via Bridge.

    You can skip the Acrobat step with this script:

    http://www.zenodesign.com/forum/BatchSinglePagePDFs.zip

    Participant
    June 26, 2013

    Single Page PDFs are requested on a regular basis by the nation's largest printers. This was a simple check-off feature of Quark Xpress - and used to be a simple check off in Adobe Distiller itself. For some reason Adobe dropped it.

    Willi Adelberger
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    June 20, 2013

    Only once a printer asked me to send single page pdfs. It was not a Quark-Imposing or InDesign-Imposing workflow.

    I used Acrobat Pro. The command Tools > Pages > Extract >… with the option "extract as single pages" does exactly this. It is a one-step command for a once had requirement. I don't see any need for scripting, if someone has Acrobat Pro.

    Community Expert
    June 20, 2013

    Hi, Willi.
    I disagree ;-)

    A bit.

    Kevin is spot-on with his reason for having such a workflow.
    And Loic Aigon did a script that fits his needs. Except there is a bug handling anchored text frames, as it seems.


    I would not see this feature a demand for the general feature set of InDesign.
    Thanks to 3rd party developers this can be solved…

    Using Acrobat Pro is a valid possibility. Though, depending on the workflow, it might be tedious to rename hundreds of single PDFs other than "001-name.pdf", "002-name.pdf" etc.

    If one can extract a unique valuable name out of text on a page, fine: use Loic's script…

    Uwe

    Community Expert
    June 20, 2013

    You can use Adobe Bridge to batch rename a folder of files

    http://www.adobe.com/designcenter-archive/video_workshop/html/vid0097.html

    Although - a script helps too.

    June 20, 2013

    Hello m.kellerman,

    First off thank you for asking this question.

    I found this site useful in fixing this problem

    http://www.loicaigon.com/en/pdf-exports-properly-named/#comment-475

    Although as you can see from the notes at the bottom I was having problems with the script and am at present waiting on a reply on possible fixes.

    On another note: I can never understand why people bother to say "why would you ever" or "this is not a normal work flow"

    Some people seem to think cause what someone wants to do is not excactly like they do it themselves its a wrong way to do the job.

    I know of a few reasons why this work flow would be handy.

    ie: If you where doing up multi different flyers for client with standard template but different details and needed to save them as pdf's for upload to web or digital printout at various times then having the files named different to each other would be most helpful.

    Thanks again kellerman, this option will be great in my workflow!

    Kevin

    John Hawkinson
    Inspiring
    June 20, 2013

    Kevin,

    On another note: I can never understand why people bother to say "why would you ever" or "this is not a normal work flow"

    Some people seem to think cause what someone wants to do is not excactly like they do it themselves its a wrong way to do the job.

    It is a good question to ask when the request gives the appearance of being a very hard way to do something that should be easy.

    It is somewhat common, as you might have gathered, that individual page PDFs are desired because it is thought that that is an easier way to impose when using some tools. It's not a good idea to encourage that, because there are better ways to impose.

    Please don't interpret "Why would you want to do that?" as "YOU ARE WRONG! STOP IMMEDIATELY! WE HATE YOU!" Instead, please take it at face value, as a request for more information about your intentions, motivated by a desire to help.

    Colin Flashman
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    June 20, 2013

    In my earlier post (post 44 of this thread) I provided a link to another thread where the OP's question's answer may possibly lie. Rather than dig through those threads, I will put the answer in this one:

    There is an indesign script you can try and it is written by Loic Aigon: go to http://www.loicaigon.com/en/pdf-exports-properly-named/ read the article and see if it is appropriate for you.

    There is another indesign script you can try but it is in german. See the adobe forum post http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1014766 for more information.

    There is an acrobat script that was written within the forum itself, but found it was the hardest of all three options: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5159865#5159865

    All have different means to the same end: to produce unique PDFs for each record of a database within a Data Merge, with unique and easily identifiable filenames.

    Colly

    If the answer wasn't in my post, perhaps it might be on my blog at colecandoo!
    Participant
    June 19, 2013

    So here's my situation: I'm using InDesign to manage 200+ pages of tech sheets for a company.  Each tech sheet must be exported separately as PDFs because they're delivered as separate PDFs, not as a complete library.  The obvious benefit of using InDesign and having all the tech sheets in a single file is because then I can edit and update Master Pages and have the changes reflected in all of the tech sheets.  The major downside though is that when exporting the PDFs either using PEU5 or manually, the file name must be specified manually for each tech sheet.  I'm trying to figure out a way to pull the TS # from each page and using that as the filename (using a hacked version of PEU5), but thus far have been unsuccessful.  It seems like a simple enough task, but InDesign seems to have no way to name Pages or to specify certain fields in a way that would allow them to be easily grabbed by my customized PEU5 script.

    Anyone have a good solution?  Thanks.

    Peter Spier
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    June 19, 2013

    It's almost certainly scriptable. Ask inthe scripting forum: InDesign Scripting

    Peter Spier
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    March 12, 2013

    You can also export normally, then use Acrobat Pro to extract the pages to separate files....

    December 21, 2011

    I don't think i will ever understand the attitude of some that set there way of doing things in cement.

    There are more different workflows out there that have been working for more years then most of the people that say this or that workflow is not the way to do it, you should do it our way.

    In this forum it should be a question asked how to do something and then someone giving that answer, not mocking the way someone has setup there workflow.

    Suggestion on what they consider a better way, but not to mock someone.

    Keep in mind the people that ask questions in here are the silly buggers that have to work for a living and that have to get a job done on a deadline and answer to higher powers that may or may not be set in the way they do things.

    Ideas are great but take time to implement. My workflow is changing all the time but I also have to take everyone else & the machinery in the office along for the ride and just can't go around changing everything for the sake of a better workflow. (pitty but true)

    Saying you don't trust a printer because they do not do everything the same as everyone else is a waste of typing.

    The printer can be a very honest fellow and usually are, supplying their customers with the best price they can leads to limits to upgrading.

    And from what I have heard of late Adobe has made that just that much more expensive.

    BobLevine
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    December 21, 2011

    Nobody’s mocking anyone. Simply pointing out that this isn’t a recommended way of doing things.

    To propose that Adobe spend its limited resources (contrary to popular belief and the constant comparison to Apple or Microsoft, Adobe is not that large a company) on things that really shouldn’t be done in a standard workflow when perfectly acceptable workarounds exist is what I don’t understand.

    There are scripts and Acrobat features that do this. The likelihood of it being any kind of a priority at Adobe is very, very small, IMO.

    Bob

    December 21, 2011

    Nobody’s mocking anyone.

    Well, let's just chalk that up to a matter of opinion, shall we? I for one wasn't entirely comfortable with the following statement pretty much out of the gate:

    If there's one thing this discussion has shown, it is that the experienced InDesign users here in fact do not see a use for or need for such a feature.

    What would be the reason for this statement? I'm not attacking anyone in this forum when I'm stating that there are users who would like to be able to export pdfs as separate documents. If there was no such desire there wouldn't be recurring discussions on the subject, and probably not third party solutions for it either. And I'm not implying that people who are fine without this feature, and happy about using workarounds, are somehow lesser than me. So why am I rewarded with this type of attitude then?

    At the very least this statement implies that I, or people that might feel the same way about a feature like this, must be less experienced than those who don't share my opinion. It either pushes non "members of the club” down, or elevates "members of the club", or both. And there's no call for that.

    This is an Adobe InDesign thread, and I'm asking for a way to achieve a very simple thing using Adobe InDesign rather than third-party or external solutions, as that would simplify my work somewhat. And then the thread quickly turned into a thread of some people making sure I and everyone else knows that doing what I want to do is b.a.d. … bad! What's the purpose of that? I get several statements questioning the truthfulness of my statement that this is actually something a lot of printers still require. And when I say, sure guys I'm sorry about doing it in a way that you despise, but I'm just trying to deliver files according to specs, and I'd like to do it a bit more conveniently … does it die down? Not so much no. In fact just looking at two of the last few posts they still contain traces of bad attitude. I'm sure you guys mean well, given that you're not jumping up and down on me or anything and are in fact presenting new information as well, but …

    Simply pointing out that this isn’t a recommended way of doing things.

    Well, first of all that's really beside the point, but furthermore that isn't really the whole truth now is it? The printers that tell designers to deliver their files that way, are in fact not only recommending it but demanding it. If you have issues with their workflows and their recommendations, that's fine but it's not me you should be bugging about it. I'm just looking for a more convenient way of delivering according to specs, and I've given up on trying to change how the printers work.

    To propose that Adobe spend its limited resources … on things that really shouldn’t be done in a standard workflow when perfectly acceptable workarounds exist is what I don’t understand.

    Well, given that it's my job to deliver files according to specs rather than trying to change the specs it's of little comfort to me that this isn't the way it's supposed to be done. And ultimately I guess I'm just not as big a fan of workarounds as you are then. I prefer not to be relying on scripts, plugins, or other third-party solutions. There was a time when I loved pimping my workhorses, but as the workhorses got better at doing their jobs themselves (over the years), I've changed my stance to trying to stay as far away as possible from all that. I don't like relying on extra solutions that may not be around next time I upgrade or even update, and I don't feel much like waiting around to upgrade just to make sure all extra bits and pieces will still fit into the puzzle, and also I want a clean install to be as simple and smooth as possible. In short: not a fan of the extras. And there really aren't that many new features I'd really like to see from either Photoshop (which is the app I spend most of my time in) or InDesign. Not counting bugs or instability issues, there's like maybe a handfull of things for each app I'd like to see added or ironed out, none of which is bells and whistles kind of stuff but just stuff that would help me in my everyday work. No one is a bigger supporter of pulling a "Snow Leopard" and just modernizing and optimizing code, dumping legacy code, and ironing out bugs and refining what's already there than I am. I can't imagine any new bells and whistles features that would make me more motivated to upgrade than just leaner meaner versions of what's already there and more consistent interfaces, behavior and functionality across the Creative Suite. And most of the usability feature requests I've had have fortunately been adressed over the years, but there are a few remaining annoyances that I'd like to see squished too. And if spending a day or two on adding something as simple as a checkbox saying exported files should be saved as separate pages, is too much for you because the same thing can be achieved using scripting or other apps, well … then our priorities are just not the same. Happens regularly on the web. So what I don't get is your need to shoot down this simple wish simply because you don't want it yourself. Clearly few users see a need for every function in complex apps as these – most users use but a fraction of all of the functionality in a CS app in their regular use. And as far as resource management goes, this particular functionality is already in InDesign, the eport is already there, and JPEGs are always exported page by page (for natural reasons), so just reuse the page counter code from the JPEG export funtion and adapt it to the PDF export function and let a single little checkbox fill the simple need of being able to export a given document as separate pages.

    Also i already gave you other examples of when the feature might come in handy, but you either skipped those or bundled them in with the things that just shouldn't be done. Here's another example: say you're doing business cards for some company, and say it's for 250 different persons, and you want to put them all in one InDesign file so that it's just one file to keep track of rather than 250 indd-files and so that any changes to masters or styles are instantly reflected in all business cards, and then some of the cards are sent to the printers every now and then and never all of them at the same time … then it might be rather convenient to be able to export all separate 250 pdfs at once using that one little checkbox (and man oh man would it have been great if each of those separate files could also be named using say the text in one paragraph style, but that's a different story). And sure, if you like scripts, you could use one of those (maybe even modify it somehow to cull and apply those names – if you're fluent enough to pull that off), or simply use Acrobat or some other app, but as far as I'm concerned that's just nonsense – the same could have been said for any number of features in the CS apps, and if it had been the policy of Adobe to not include stuff that could be done using other software there wouldn't even have been an InDesign app to begin with.

    And jumping to another recent quote:

    The answer was given—use a script. The scripting engine is comprehensive and it exists to extend the program when a feature is not universally desired as is the case here.

    While I appreciate the fact that scripting can be used, and fairly easily adapted to single users particular needs, I fail to see the need to once again end by pointing out that this feature is a less desirable one. I am absolutely positive that there is plenty of other implemented functionality in InDesign that took far more work and time to implement than this feature would, yet has no more mass appeal than this feature would have. And what's more, I'm pretty sure anyone who think about would have to agree (what with the staggering amount of functions in an app like InDesign, and how few of them that gets regularly used by any single user).

    Let's take all of this from the top shall we:

    Q I'd like to see functionality X in InDesign because of Y, but can't find it anywhere in the app, so I'm relying on other solutions for now.

    Do you guys know if there's a way to achieve this in InDesign, or do I need to stick with workarounds?

    A Nope, sorry, you're stuck with workarounds so far. You can try Z instead of what you're using now, here's a link or some info or whatever.

    Q Aww, that's too bad, given how quick and easy such a small thing could be fixed.

    A Yeah, but most people are ok with one of the workarounds, and it's not a highly requested feature so that's probably that.

    See the difference? If not, then so be it.

    Much as I've personally given up on trying to get printers (and such) to move along into, if not the future, then perhaps at least the present (or something resembling it), I am now surrendering this thread for much the same reasons. ;-) Or more pressingly, the need to finish some actual work before christmas.

    Evening! (And sincere thanks for the actual info and suggestions.)

    And well, merry christmas and so on and so forth!

    December 21, 2011

    For those of you focusing on whether this is good practice or not, consider other situations where it might come in handy.

    For me it might make sense to do multiple itersations of the same single-page artwork in the same InDesign file, or if I'm doing many different comps for a one-sheet artwork I might want them all in the same InDesign file as well, as there may be several components I might want to reuse and still be able to change simultaneously for all iterations/comps/versions.

    And since you can now use different page sizes in a document some might prefer to ease up on the clutter by putting a cd booklet together with a cd inlay and a cd label in one InDesign file, again to allow them to easily change color schemes or simply affect multiple instances of certain elements. Granted the label might still need to be exported separately because it rarely uses the same the icc-profile as the booklet+inlay, but whatever.

    I can easily think of scenarios where it would make sense to put several separate items in one InDesign file, and still prefer to easily export to separate pages, whether that is because of printers specs, or client needs, or my own personal needs.

    Why wouldn't I prefer having 20 comps of a poster in one single InDesign-file for convenience? And why wouldn't I sometimes need to export those as separate files? It might clutter up the desktop more, but sometimes the client wants to be able to share or email single comps rather than a pdf containing multiple comps. Sometimes it comes down to being able to simply narrow a selection process down by trashing single pages or using file labels to highlight which pages/comps have priority or something like that.

    As far as all this goes, I'm just looking for one single extra checkbox that would help me achieve something a little simpler and faster, without requiring much new code at all on Adobe's end since all the actual exporting functionality is already present in the app.

    I've now filed my feature request with Adobe, and hope they'll fix this. ;-)

    Cheers!

    Peter Spier
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    December 21, 2011

    I'm just a little curious why you find a script to be less desirable in this instance than a menu command or option in the export dialog? Attaching a shortcut to the script would make it essentially a one-step execution. I'm sure, too, atha tht existing scripts could be modified to use whatever PDF settings you like, or to give you the ability to choose.

    December 21, 2011

    I'd like to be able to save the setting along with the rest of the export settings, so that when I work on a certain project I can just make sure the correct PDF Preset is in use, and I'm set to go.

    In a different thread I'm a little pissed that the Ink Manager's “All spots to process” checkbox is saved as part of the PDF Preset but then not actually honored, as it only remembers the spot colors present when the PDF Preset was saved, and not any other ones. That checkbox is acting like a button and not a checkbox, and should be changed into a button, with a checkbox that acts like a checkbox and makes sure that all spot colors are in fact always converted to process colors when that PDF Preset is in use.

    And the only reason I'm summarizing that here, is that while I'm not too keen on installing a script to split multi-page pdfs into single-page pdfs (I believe I might just as well keep splitting them with Acrobat, we'll see, maybe I'll make the switch), I might very well consider using a script that brings up the PDF Export, makes sure a certain PDF Preset is in use and then goes into Ink Manager and makes sure the “All sport to process” checkbutton is in fact checked (and not delselected or dashed). But then if I'm going there, I might as well just go with a standard script that permanently sets any spot swatches to process swatches in the swatches palette, I suppose. Hmm… ;-)

    If only Adobe would add that missing checkbox and make the other checkbox actually work like a checkbox none of this would even be happening, and I might actually get some work done before christmas. ;-)

    Peter Spier
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    December 21, 2011

    I'm going to try to stay out of the merits of the argument -- I agree that it's an odd flow, but that you also need to provide what the specs say. What worries me here is that one very likely reason for requiring single page flattened PDF is that the printer simply cannot handle a true PDF workflow and is imposing the document by placing the individual pages into Quark Xpress. This was pretty common even ten years ago, but it can be a real disaster for the the type of complex PDF that current versions of ID produce (hence the requirement for version 1.3 files). I have no idea what happens with this workflow using recent versions of Quark, but I'd be that anyone still working this way hasn't made a hardware or software upgrade in years, and that's why the price is so low.

    With that in the back of my head, I surely would be circumspect about using transparency, and I wouldn't necessarily expect any sort of color fidelity. Make sure you get a contract proof.

    December 21, 2011

    Like I've said, I couldn't agree more. I'm not supporting backwards printers. As far as I'm concerned it's just about honoring the specs and moving on, as quickly as possible, and I'd like InDesign to better help me achieve that.

    I've heard one printer mention that their workflow is (was? they had some presentation a few months back introducing changes in their workflow, but I couldn't make it.) based on InDesign, presumably using third-party add-ons.

    But it was years ago that I gave up even caring about the printers processes. I'm set on delivering the best design I can, according to specs, and being a free-lance designer I very rarely have much say on which printers are used. Then it's the printers job to make sure the end result is great and matches my original files as best as possible.

    And as far as quality prints go, I've seen some of the highest quality prints I've ever seen come from printers that were using what by most would have to be considered highly outdated equipment. But those guys really knew what they were doing, and simply put great care into their craft. So even though I'm sure they barely had a digital workflow, they produced some fo the finest products I've ever encountered. That was an old Asian printing plant, though, and I've unfortunately never printed there myself. I did however print numerous luxury Digipak dvds at the Dutch printing plant that invented the original Digipak product line, and even though those guys didn't have much implemented in the ways of modern colorproofing back then, their prints rocked compared to most others. The film company changed printers to cut costs, and the product quality took a serious hit because of that. Then again in the end the film company has to ask themselves how many end consumers would even notice the drop in quality when comparing dvds printed at the two places, and as prices drop everywhere I suppose it may not even matter if consumers notice the quality drop … if you can cut production costs by as much as 30–50 % many companies simply wouldn't even factor in the loss in quality.