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

[Guest]

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?

[myDwayneSmith]

I use scripts for all my PDF exporting — a couple of double-clicks is all it takes — actually quicker than 'normal' exporting.

The one I use ALL the time in a publishing workflow exports specified pages as separate PDFS — you can see part of the explanation for it and download a copy here.

I've adapted that script to download every page as a separate PDF — which you can download here.

The only thing you'd need to do is first open it in Script Editor (found in applications > applescript) and change the first line to your version of InDesign.

Save it in your scripts panel folder and off you go. It creates a subfolder in the same location as the InDesign file and lets you know when it's finished.

The beauty of Applescript is that you could have a look at it and immediately see some of the things you might like to change (like the name of the folder the PDFs are saved in, or how the PDFs are named)

In its current form, this one truncates the name to the first space, then appends the page number (so "This File Of Mine.indd" exports to "This_1.pdf", "This_2.pdf", etc)

Maybe that will help someone.

m.

[Peter Spier]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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]

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.

[Guest]

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. 😉

[BobLevine]

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.

I'm not familiar with that issue but on the surface it sounds like a bug. Have you reported it?

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Bob

[Guest]

I hadn't reported it, because I wanted to hear what people in these forums had to say first. But now I have. The problem is that the checkbox works like Adobe intended it to work, they've clearly choosen to design it this way – changing the typical behavior of a checkbox for this one. So, I doubt they'd see it as a bug. But it's just bad or at least unnecessarily confusing/unclear interface design. But as far as I'm concerned it's more of a bug than a feature request so I filed it as such.

Any spot colors present when you check the “All spots to process” checkbox are in fact (soft)converted. Just like if you had hit a button doing the same thing. But then the checkbox stops acting like a checkbox (as far as conversions go), and just works as an indicator. So as long as no new spot colors have been introduced, the checkbox shows it's checked. But if you add new/different spot colors and go into Ink Manager you'll see the checkbox changed into a dashed checkbox (still selected in highlight color) indicating that only some spot colors are set to be converted (easily confirmed in the list above). So the only way to make sure that all spots are in fact converted at any given time is to go into Ink Manager and check, and making sure that checkbox is properly checked (just click it until it's right) … and if you have to do that every time you export, it totally defeats the purpose of having that function as a checkbox. Then it would make much more sense to change the checkbox into a button, preferrably labelling it “All current spots to process” – that way there would be no confusion.

Adobe might argue that the Ink Manager is separate from the PDF export settings and the PDF Preset, but since it's presented right there in the export settings I think it should act it's part and be saved along with the rest of the settings, and if it's part of the PDF Preset that checkbox should remain properly checked during all exports using the PDF Preset – always changing all spots to process.

[Guest]

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]

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

[Guest]

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!

[Laubender]

m.kellerman wrote:

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),

@m.kellerman:
You can get this functionality with PDFExportCropper.jsxbin, a script by Loic Aigon.
See:

http://www.loicaigon.com/blog/?p=876

Don't miss the comments at the end of the blog.

Merry christmas!
Uwe

[Guest]

@Laubender

NICE!!

[Peter Spier]

m.kellerman wrote:

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.

In a case like this, the best you can hope for is workarounds for the present, and a possible new feature added to a future version (and make a strong use case) by filling out the feature request form: Adobe - Feature Request/Bug Report Form

New features are added based on, among other things, the cost/benefit ratio and the number of users who might benefit.

[Peter Spier]

Forgot to add don't expect instant gratification. I think it took 4 versions for Illustrator style panels to finally make the grade.

[rob day]

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.

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.

There are a lot of free export scripts out there and it isn't a problem to include a preset list dialog. If you are using OSX I can post an Applescript that has one.

[winterm]

mckayk_777, thumbs up!

thank you for telling this loud and clear, I couldn't do better due to my not-so-good English.

If you don't mind, I sign under your text too.

to Bob:

Yes, my printer CAN manage all-in-one pdf's, but printer guys asked me to supply separate pages for that particular job (frankly, I don't care so much, why), so why not? Usually my printers see no difference here. It can be done with Acrobat, I decided to use a script. The prints are still fine, no imposition mistakes, prices are acceptable to client. If I refuse to do it for the sake of "better" workflow, I'm not sure client will change the printer. They can decide to change the designer... Clients usually have no clue about any prepress workflows, modern or obsolete. Even more, they're happy not having any… So we must have both guns loaded and ready to use.

Peace and Merry Christmas to everyone

[Peter Spier]

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

[johnnydanger79]

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]

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

[rob day]

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.

I have an AppleScript that exports individual pages with the page number as a prefix—let me know if you want it.

There's also the Script Label panel which lets you assign a script label to any object. The label is accessible to the scripting engine, so you could have a text field with the sheet's title with a script label assigned, something like "sheettitle". The script could then use the contents of the labeled text field rather than the page number as the file prefix.

[Jeffrey_Smith]

Are you on Mac or Windows? I use a Mac utility called "A Better Finder Rename", which rename files from spreadsheets or text files. I export a multipage PDF, then use Acrobat to extract to single page PDFs, then use the utility to custom rename all of individual PDFs.

[jsteinert_pb2]

Windows. There are many options after Indesign, but that is somewhat my point.

[ScreenNamesUnavailable]

G'day johnnydanger79

Not sure if you ended up finding a solution. But there's a scripting lesson at macgrunt that specifically addresses a workflow like yours. There are a couple of other lessons there too that show alternative naming options. These are all Applescript, so they only work on a Mac.

m.

[Guest]

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