Publisher 2: Misprinted proof from Flyeralarm due to a flattening issue

[SpotColour]

I’m having trouble exporting a PDF because following the instructions from Flyeralarm led to a misprint. Here’s what happened:

Last week, I ordered proof prints for contour cut stickers from Flyeralarm. Unfortunately, each sticker on that proof shows a white, rounded rectangle that shouldn’t be there. This rectangle is on all sides approx. 2mm smaller than the cut contour shape (magenta).

[EDIT: I corrected the diagram. Now, it shows the cut contour line on top, as it should.]

The sticker design is 100% vector and consists of coloured backgrounds with a white logo on top. All magenta lines form a single path; this is the cut contour for the stickers.

I contacted Flyeralarm, and they informed me that something went wrong during flattening and advised me to do the following:

1. Save my document as one layer.
2. Add the cutting contour paths.
3. Export as PDF/X-4:2010.

When I asked what they meant with the first instruction, they wrote I should either rasterise my document as a high-quality JPEG or make a ‘PDF with a single layer’. Then, continue with steps 2 and 3.

Fair enough, let’s try them both. I’m going to order two additional proof prints. Here's what I have in mind (I really hope there is a better solution):

Proof print A: Rasterise the entire design (except the cut contour path)

1. Choose the export preset PDF(flatten) with PDF/X-4 compatibility.
2. Rasterise everything with an exceptionally high resolution to retain the crispness of the fine print (7pt). Flyeralarm agreed with using a high resolution, but didn’t specify the optimal ppi for tiny print. I intend to use at least 1200 ppi.*
3. Place the rasterised pdf into a new file.
4. Add the cut contours.
5. Export as PDF/X-4, as required by Flyeralarm.

* Because of this high resolution, I can’t rasterise the images directly from the layers panel or through the Photo persona, as 400 ppi is the maximum setting in the Document Setup panel.

Proof print B: Flatten the design while retaining vector shapes.

Publisher 2.2.1 doesn’t seem to have an option to flatten a design while preserving vector shapes. Manually flattening the design is also tricky. For instance, I can’t join all logos into a single path with Boolean operations (or using Layer > Geometry > Merge Curves). These tools grey out when you select two placed .afdesign files.

So here’s what I think would be feasible: 

Option 1:

1. Use Designer to flatten the logo + brand name (letter contours) into a single path using Boolean add operations to reduce complexity.
2. Back in Publisher, update the layout from the Resource Manager panel.
3. Export the vector graphics as PDF/X-3 because this standard supposedly doesn’t support transparencies (is that correct?).
   Note: I got a warning about transparencies when uploading the document (see below under Additional Information).
4. Create a new file.
5. Place the PDF in passthrough mode (does Publisher retain the PDF/X-3 standard during export, or re-render the placed PDF as PDF/X-4 ?)
6. Add the cut contour path.
7. Export the whole as PDF/X-4.

Option B:

1. Instead of placing the logo in Publisher, I could copy/paste it in. Then, I can use a Boolean divide operation to cut out each logo from its coloured background. That way, I’ll end up with a single, coloured path (the negative shape of the logo).
2. Take the same steps (c–g) from option A.

That’s the plan, but I don’t know if it makes sense. Again, I’m trying to jump through all these hoops because following FlyerAlarm’s instructions led to a misprint.

I sincerely hope there's a simple solution that I completely overlooked. Any help is appreciated!

Additional information

• These are the export settings I used for the misprint:
  

• And here are Flyeralarm's general instructions for exporting a PDF (These are in German):

https://www.flyeralarm.com/blog/de/affinity-publisher-tutorial-druckfaehige-pdfs-erstellen

The last time I sent a Publisher-generated PDF to Flyeralarm with these settings, it went smoothly. And it contained more complex shapes, such as an image clipped by a path. So, I guess the problem concerns PDF/X-4 or the transparency warning (see below).

• This is the instruction sheet for the contour-cut stickers, they require PDF/X-4:

https://www.flyeralarm.com/sheets/en/etikett_bogen_cut.pdf

• I used Flyeralarm’s automated premium file check service to check my PDF. It generated a JPEG preview that looked immaculate, but the checker also warned me about transparencies:

Note: transparencies are used
We automatically convert transparencies for you. Under certain circumstances, conversion can lead to undesirable effects. Please use PDF/X-3:2002.

Flyeralarm assured me the PDF was okay and that I shouldn’t worry about this. I could ignore the PDF/X-3 suggestion. So, the PDF went in print production without any changes.

Also, all paths and shapes in my document are fully opaque. So I don't quite understand why I got that warning.

• The unwanted rectangles are approximately 2 mm smaller (on all sides) than the contour paths and have rounded corners. These rounded corners gave me the idea that a shape somewhere in my design causes trouble. So I’ve checked my files three times over, but I can assure you, that shape is not there.
   
• Note that a small part of the logo is visible on each sticker. Possibly, the logo renders correctly under the white rectangle.
   
• Flyeralarm mentioned that my file contains layers, but whether they meant layers in the document or PDF layers (Optional Content Group or OCG) is unclear.
  
  My .afpub file contains no actual layer (the kind you'll get when you click ‘Add Layer’ in the layers panel). Instead, it's just paths and (nested) groups. When I open the exported PDF in the latest version of Acrobat Reader, it doesn’t show any layers. However, when I add an actual layer, it does. That’s why I think the exported PDF doesn’t contain OCG layers.
   
• Then, there’s a suggestion from forum user @lacerto in a different thread: during export, you can select PDF/X-4 and then change the PDF version to 1.6. That way, you can turn off the Layers option in the export panel. But as I said above, I haven’t used any ‘real’ layers in this design, only groups. So, I'm not sure if this is relevant:
   
• The cut contour path is a spot colour with overprint (CMYK 0 100 0 0).
• I'm using version 2.2.1 of all apps on macOS 13.6.1

Edited November 30, 2023 by SpotColour
I corrected the diagram. Now, it shows the cut contour line on top, as it should.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, SpotColour said:

Unfortunately, each sticker on that proof shows a white, rounded rectangle that shouldn’t be there. This rectangle is on all sides approx. 2mm smaller than the cut contour shape (magenta).

The sticker design is 100% vector and consists of coloured backgrounds with a white logo on top. 

Does any object in your layout have the shape of the unexpected white rectangle? And/or is a blend mode, adjustment, effect or filter involved (e.g. to create the white colour for a placed logo file?) that might need rasterization but gets suppressed / does not match the actually used process at flyeralarm? [The mentioned magenta cut contour seems to be not causing the issue since it has a different shape (corner radius)]

Their requirements are a little ambiguous. Although the PDF for labels requests PDF/X-4 their website explicitly requests "generally X-3" and allows X-4 "exceptional for textile prints" only:

Quote

Schritt 5: Um Ihr Layout nun als PDF auszugeben, klicken Sie auf Datei und Exportieren. Sie gelangen nun zum Fenster Exporteinstellungen. Wählen Sie hier PDF aus und legen Sie bei der Vorgabe PDF/X-3 oder PDF/X-4 an. Grundsätzlich verlangt FLYERALARM für alle Drucksachen PDF/X-3. Einzige Ausnahme sind Textilien, hier wird PDF/X-4 benötigt.

[lacerto]

Please check two things in your design:

1) If the logo(s) is (are) PDFs and placed to be passed through (the default), they, too, must have been created using PDF/X method, since if you export using a PDF/X method (no matter which version number), the placed PDFs will [though not always] be rasterized (using your document DPI) in Affinity apps, if they have been produced using a non-PDF/X method.

If the logo is an RGB PDF and placed to be passed through, it will be retained in RGB color format when exported, which basically should be ok when exporting to PDF/X-3 or PDF/X-4 (which both allow mixed color modes), but might cause these kinds of issues when processed.

If the logo is a PDF file and you let Affinity interpret it instead of passing it through, please make sure that either the placed PDF has an embedded profile that is ISO Coated v2 300%, or that the CMYK profile under Preferences > Color is ISO Coated v2 300%, since a CMYK file without a profile will get the profile specified in the Preferences as its assigned color profile at the time it is placed in the document (and not the CMYK profile of the document). [But with just pure white objects, this is not likely an issue.]

If the logo is originally a CMYK bitmap, please check that it does not have an embedded color profile, or if it does, it matches your document CMYK profile (which is ISO Coated v2 300%) (if it does not have an embedded CMYK profile, it will be assigned with the document CMYK profile so its original color values will be retained); otherwise its color values will be converted at export time, which might potentially cause problems. [But again, with just pure white objects, this is not likely to happen.]

2) As the cutting line seems to be broken (and because your unwanted rectangle has rounded edges, implying that the cutting line could have been used to determine the shape of the knockout object), please ensure that it has been created as specified: using M100 that is made a spot color and given overprint attribute, and named as required, and the line itself is a center-aligned stroke (and has the recommended width).

[thomaso]

6 hours ago, lacerto said:

2) As the cutting line seems to be broken (and because your unwanted rectangle has rounded edges, implying that the cutting line could have been used to determine the shape of the knockout object)

I'm wondering if the break at the bottom of the cutting contour is caused by the logo file being placed above in the layer stack hierarchy... while the corner radius of the outline and the white rectangle are different.

[lacerto]

26 minutes ago, thomaso said:

I'm wondering if the break at the bottom of the cutting contour is caused by the logo file being placed above in the layer stack hierarchy... while the corner radius of the outline and the white rectangle are different.

Might be, though it is odd that the printer did not mention about a broken cut line.

The following clip demonstrates a situation where a non-PDF/X-based PDF placed to be passed through will be rasterized when exporting using a PDF/X-based export method, and creates a transparency. This, combined with e.g. outside or inside aligned stroke (causing an expanded fill, instead of a stroke), could explain miscellaneous cutting job errors, including unexpected knockouts when ripping the job.

 

The "layer" thing might be related to something like opening the resulting PDF in e.g. Illustrator, and seeing object groups, instead of having everything flattened to the root layer..  

[SpotColour]

Sorry @thomaso and @lacerto, my head was full after typing this post, so I overlooked a mistake. Here’s the correct diagram:

The cut contour worked like a charm. I merged all these contours into a single path to ensure Flyeralarm’s laser cutter would find them all. That went fine, so that's not the problem.

@thomaso mentioned that the white rectangle’s corner radius differs from the cut contour line radius. That is correct, and I have been looking for a stray element in my design, but it’s not there. Even in Wireframe modus, there’s nothing like it. The graphic designer at Flyeralarm also didn't find this shape in the PDF.

I’m going to try your other suggestions and report back! Thank you!

[thomaso]

44 minutes ago, lacerto said:

it is odd that the printer did not mention about a broken cut line

EDIT: cross post with the OP, so this got irrelevant: [… Maybe because they didn't comment more specific than "they informed me that something went wrong during flattening" and might mean also the cut line or not. Or maybe because this proof print didn't consider / focus on the cut line and got produced without the step of cutting … while the overprinting issue became obvious already. ]

Just in case, there might be one more workflow option if a flattened output gets used (and assuming cmyk print, not spot colours):

1. Hide the cut contour in the layers panel.
2. Export all design as JPG. (cmyk, document profile = export profile)
3. Place that above all layout items.
4. Place the cut line on top.
5. Export as PDF.

If the design gets rasterized anyway, this could make it easier / doesn't need to care that much for various colour spaces, profiles and PDF versions, in particular if the logo contains white only.

Edited November 30, 2023 by thomaso

[thomaso]

14 minutes ago, SpotColour said:

I have been looking for a stray element in my design, but it’s not there. Even in Wireframe modus, there’s nothing like it.

Assuming the "print proof" wasn't physically but digital only, output as PDF and with the white rectangle rasterized (not vector): What PDF version + file creator app is noted in the proof PDF?

However, since there are various ways to achieve a correct PDF for print, so the investigation for the culprit is not really required … but interesting anyway. It seems that the initial setup + placed file type of the logo matters (is it Affinity, PNG, TIFF, SVG, EPS, …?). If wanted, you could create an Affinity document / exported PDF for a forum upload that contains another design for the (secret) logo but with identical setup.

[lacerto]

7 hours ago, SpotColour said:

@thomaso mentioned that the white rectangle’s corner radius differs from the cut contour line radius. That is correct, and I have been looking for a stray element in my design, but it’s not there.

Perhaps there is one, but without an attribute. The cutting line might have been created by using a defining line with an outside aligning stroke, as the kind of shape that got clipped out (the white rounded rectangle), when using certain rounded corner angle, creates pretty closely a shape where the outer edge defines the cutting line.

What actually happened, is not clear, but knowing that Affinity apps will auto-expand non-center-aligned strokes could easily result in multiple cutting lines, once merged shapes get separated. Perhaps something like this happened during processing, even if visual appearance of the design seemed to be ok.

 

 

[SpotColour]

Thanks for all the feedback! I haven’t had time yet to test every suggestion, but here’s the story so far:

16 hours ago, lacerto said:

1) If the logo(s) is (are) PDFs and placed to be passed through (the default), they, too, must have been created using PDF/X method, since if you export using a PDF/X method (no matter which version number), the placed PDFs will [though not always] be rasterized (using your document DPI) in Affinity apps, if they have been produced using a non-PDF/X method.

If the logo is an RGB PDF and placed to be passed through, it will be retained in RGB color format when exported, which basically should be ok when exporting to PDF/X-3 or PDF/X-4 (which both allow mixed color modes), but might cause these kinds of issues when processed.

If the logo is a PDF file and you let Affinity interpret it instead of passing it through, please make sure that either the placed PDF has an embedded profile that is ISO Coated v2 300%, or that the CMYK profile under Preferences > Color is ISO Coated v2 300%, since a CMYK file without a profile will get the profile specified in the Preferences as its assigned color profile at the time it is placed in the document (and not the CMYK profile of the document). [But with just pure white objects, this is not likely an issue.]

If the logo is originally a CMYK bitmap, please check that it does not have an embedded color profile, or if it does, it matches your document CMYK profile (which is ISO Coated v2 300%) (if it does not have an embedded CMYK profile, it will be assigned with the document CMYK profile so its original color values will be retained); otherwise its color values will be converted at export time, which might potentially cause problems. [But again, with just pure white objects, this is not likely to happen.]

None of these. The logo is a .afdesign document which only contains vectors. I placed it in the Publisher layout (not copied/pasted). But today, I discovered that including a .afdesign or .pdf file in the Publisher layout triggers Flyeralarm’s transparency warning (see below).

 

16 hours ago, lacerto said:

please ensure that it has been created as specified: using M100 that is made a spot color and given overprint attribute, and named as required, and the line itself is a center-aligned stroke (and has the recommended width).

These are the settings I used, which came from Flyeralarm’s info sheet. I also named the path ‘Cutkontur’, although not required.

 

18 hours ago, thomaso said:

Does any object in your layout have the shape of the unexpected white rectangle? And/or is a blend mode, adjustment, effect or filter involved (e.g. to create the white colour for a placed logo file?)

No, I’m pretty sure this shape is non-existent. I also don’t think there’s a ‘special effect’ somewhere, as I never really use these. The logo should consist of paths in solid CMYK 0 0 0 0. But I will check all the files to make sure.

 

7 hours ago, thomaso said:

Assuming the "print proof" wasn't physically but digital only, output as PDF and with the white rectangle rasterized (not vector): What PDF version + file creator app is noted in the proof PDF?

No, it was a physical proof. I received the actual stickers in the post.

 

Flyeralarm's automated check

Today, I’ve been running tests with the exported PDF/X-4 against Flyeralarm’s automated check. Here’s what I found so far:
All tests include the cut contour path:

• A solid yellow background: Valid PDF, no warning
• Placed TIFF graphic: Valid PDF, no warning
   
• The sticker design copy/pasted in from Designer: Valid PDF, no warning
• The sticker design placed from Designer: Valid PDF, but transparency warning
   
• A placed PDF/X-4, which was fully rasterised using the flatten(PDF) export preset with PDF/X-4 compatibility: Valid PDF, but transparency warning
• A placed PDF/X-4 flattened as above, but with a solid colour: Valid PDF, but transparency warning

So, as soon as I place a .afpub or .pdf file, Flyeralarm issues a transparency warning. That’s most peculiar. But this might explain why the last print job I sent to Flyeralarm went through without hiccups. It had the vectors pasted in, not placed. For that job, I had to deliver a PDF/X-3 file. I’ll be running some more tests to see if I can find out why placing these file types triggers a warning.

I’ll keep you posted!

 

[SpotColour]

To rule out any side effects, I created a new .afdesign and .afpub document containing as few elements as possible and ran the following tests:

Test 1 (Fail)
Place the test .afdesign document (see below) into the Publisher layout, add the cut contour path, export as PDF/X-4, and upload to Flyeralarm:

Translation:

Note: transparencies are used
We automatically convert transparencies for you. Under certain circumstances, conversion can lead to undesirable effects. Please use PDF/X-3:2002.

(Please not that Flyeralarm requires the use of PDF/X-4 for this print job, they told me to ignore the instruction to use PDF/X-3)

Test 2 (Success)
Copy and paste the yellow circle from the same .afdesign document (see below) into the Publisher layout, add the cut contour path, export as PDF/X-4, and upload to Flyeralarm:

Could you please have a look at these two PDFs @lacerto? I noticed in your video that you used Acrobat Pro to inspect an element in the design. I would love to know if the yellow circles in these PDFs differ. If they do, we found the root of the problem.

Conclusion
Placing a .afdesign document triggers the transparency warning, whereas copying and pasting the contents of that document does not.

I also ran these tests without the cut contour path. Leaving out the path triggered some expected warnings, but other than that, the results were the same. So, the contour path is not causing the transparency warning.

About the Designer document
The test .afdesign document is CMYK and contains a single yellow ellipse with 100% opacity.

It doesn't matter whether or not the option 'Transparent background' is active in the Document Setup panel. Both settings trigger the transparency warning.

About the Publisher document
The test .afpub document is CMYK and contains three elements:

• A dummy cut contour path (although later I found out that this path is not relevant for the transparency warning issue; see conclusion)
• The placed .afdesign document.
• The copied and pasted yellow circle from the same .afdesign document.

To create the PDFs, I hid one yellow circle, exported the document, and did the same with the other circle hidden. The PDFs are exported using the PDF/X-4 preset in Publisher 2.2.1 (without changing these default settings).

Workaround
I will redesign my original document so that it doesn't contain any imported graphics. Instead, I will copy/paste the logo from Designer. Then, send it off to Flyeralarm as soon as possible. Hopefully, that resolves the issue with the unwanted white rectangles.

Further action
If @lacerto finds a difference between the two PDFs, I'll file a bug report. I don't know if Flyeralarm's raster image processor or Affinity's PDF/X-4 export is at fault here, but being unable to place .afdesign documents in Publisher when working with Flyeralarm is a big issue for European designers.

 

 

 

Test with copied-pasted circle.pdf Test with placed circle.pdf

[lacerto]

The way Designer document is embedded does technically create a transparency group that the preflight software detects as a possible issue (and obviously also a factual one, if it results in an erroneous flattening and knockout, even if it is nominally marked as a non-knockout, i.e. overprinting, group):

My experience is that Affinity documents should never be embedded in print jobs, they have complexities that do not show in PDF previews but can cause problems at print time when the job gets processed and flattened (rasterized). It is kind of a theoretical question "who's to blame" (whether a document is correctly created and just erroneously interpreted and processed), so to avoid problems, it is a good idea to keep things simple and avoid embedding of documents that can cause confusion, or more generally, anything that requires print-time resolutions (at least if ripped proofs are not available). 

[thomaso]

FWIW, in my 'ancient' Acrobat 10 a preflight check for PDF/X-4 conformity reports no issue – while the general preflight marks transparency with the ellipse. If I open both PDF in Affinity the "placed" ellipse gets opened within a Group layer – while the "copy-pasted" doesn't.

However, it is unclear to me what in your labels caused the rounded shape + the white filled area around your logo. Also I wonder what the preflight of Flyeralarm is based on (X-4 or X-3?), which reminds me to the conflict in their requirements (as pointed out in this earlier post). According to the PDF specifications in PDF/X-4 transparency is allowed and should neither cause a warning nor a print issue here, while Flyeralarm seems to use X-3, (according to their general requirement but different to their explicit requirement pdf for labels) … as also their warning literally refers to PDF/X-3.

Apart from any compatibility issue it appears interesting what exactly is causing the type of mask for the ellipse if it gets placed as .afdesign resource.

[thomaso]

On 11/30/2023 at 8:36 PM, lacerto said:

The cutting line might have been created by using a defining line with an outside aligning stroke, as the kind of shape that got clipped out (the white rounded rectangle), when using certain rounded corner angle, creates pretty closely a shape where the outer edge defines the cutting line.

Interesting idea and result, which leads to a different corner radius than in my test with downscaling the cutting contour as curve object.

Unfortunately we couldn't see the according layout document or its Layers Panel yet and can guess only – but hopefully the OP would have mentioned such a special construction of the cutting contour (while it would require one more object as in your video to reduce (mask/clip) the width of the cutting line, right?).

However, even if the layout uses such a setup: wouldn't that also appear as curve element in the print PDF at the edge of the rounded white rectangle?

[thomaso]

25 minutes ago, lacerto said:

The way Designer document is embedded does technically create a transparency group

Do you have an idea what exactly may be causing this? … Why for the ellipse in particular … but not for the rounded rectangle or the entire page size?

20 minutes ago, lacerto said:

It is kind of a theoretical question "who's to blame" (whether a document is correctly created and just erroneously interpreted and processed), so to avoid problems, it is a good idea to keep things simple and avoid embedding of documents that can cause confusion, or more generally, anything that requires print-time resolutions (at least if ripped proofs are not available). 

Good advice to keep things simple … while users (or even Serif) might not expect to add in-compatibility to their layouts if they place 'native' Affinity documents, e.g. for a 'simple workflow' with linked layouts … instead of copy-paste or extra exports which may be recommended but appear 'less simple' in various aspects.

For a possible "blaming" question between the OP and Flyeralarm: It seems harmful misleading if the print provider recommends or requires PDF/X-4 in their communication … but uses X-3 for preflight and production … while/if the latter leads to print issues.

[thomaso]

@SpotColour, if I place in V1 an .afpub (4 shapes, 2 rotated) and export as PDF/X-3 (!) then I don't get any transparency reported in Acrobat's check for X-3 conformity. This makes me more curious how you had setup the logo .afdesign in detail?

[lacerto]

On 12/2/2023 at 4:46 AM, thomaso said:

Good advice to keep things simple … while users (or even Serif) might not expect to add in-compatibility to their layouts if they place 'native' Affinity documents, e.g. for a 'simple workflow' with linked layouts … instead of copy-paste or extra exports which may be recommended but appear 'less simple' in various aspects.

Yes, it is a bit paradoxical that techniques that are meant to make our lives easier (like developing PDF/X-3 that allows mixed color modes and does transparency flattening, or PDF/X-4 which allows both mixed color modes and live transparencies) actually often make it harder. I suppose part of this can be explained by the fact that transparency flattening is often done manually, or using routines that assume certain workflows and production tools.

On 12/2/2023 at 4:46 AM, thomaso said:

For a possible "blaming" question between the OP and Flyeralarm: It seems harmful misleading if the print provider recommends or requires PDF/X-4 in their communication … but uses X-3 for preflight and production … while/if the latter leads to print issues.

Yes, I suppose they suggested PDF/X-3 because their transparency flattening failed (however done). I assume that exporting using PDF/X-3 would remove the ambiguous "non-knocking" transparency group thing without rasterizing anything -- at least it did so when opening the PDF (with placed Designer object) that OP posted in Publisher and exporting it using PDF/X-3. 

[lacerto]

16 hours ago, thomaso said:

Do you have an idea what exactly may be causing this? … Why for the ellipse in particular … but not for the rounded rectangle or the entire page size?

A placed Designer document (logo) will cause all objects of the parent document become non-knockout transparency groups, when exporting without transparency flattening (e.g. using PDF/X-4). Hiding the Designer object, or exporting to PDF/X-3 removes the ambiguous transparency groups. A transparency group is introduced also when placing a PDF logo, but it may be limited to just the placed logo and does not necessarily contaminate all objects in the document.

There are no issues with verification routines so the files seem to be technically valid. But I suppose they are similarly confusing as mixed mode transparency blending spaces are, and can potentially cause flawed print outs. 

So there's that "who's to blame" thing that does not much help. As said, printshops might use routines that assume that print PDFs have been produced in certain ways. Just for a comparison, here is how Publisher and InDesign handle the same job, placing a PDF logo produced using PDF 1.7 and exporting it using PDF/X-4.
I know that I exaggerated this, just to make a point, as having a non-PDF/X based PDF placed in Publisher for pass through, and exporting it using a PDF/X based export method will rasterize the logo. But as for ambiguous transparency groups, they are there all over the place. Even when exporting using PDF 1.7, the logo itself constitutes a transparency group. InDesign does the same thing very clean, without any transparency groups, and there are no "compatibility" rules.

 pdfx4_from_apub.pdf

pdf17_from_apub.pdf

pdfx4_from_id.pdf

stickers_logo_test.pdf

[SpotColour]

On 12/2/2023 at 3:03 AM, lacerto said:

My experience is that Affinity documents should never be embedded in print jobs, they have complexities that do not show in PDF previews but can cause problems at print time when the job gets processed and flattened (rasterized). It is kind of a theoretical question "who's to blame" (whether a document is correctly created and just erroneously interpreted and processed), so to avoid problems, it is a good idea to keep things simple and avoid embedding of documents that can cause confusion, or more generally, anything that requires print-time resolutions (at least if ripped proofs are not available). 

It would never have occurred to me that this was an issue, but you're right. The tests show that importing a .afdesign file is enough to trigger the transparency warning—with PDF/X-4. It's most inconvenient, as updating images is much harder with pasted graphics, but alas. However, placing TIFFs is no problem, so placed .eps or .svg files might still work. I forgot to test that.

On 12/2/2023 at 3:08 AM, thomaso said:

Also I wonder what the preflight of Flyeralarm is based on (X-4 or X-3?), which reminds me to the conflict in their requirements (as pointed out in this earlier post). According to the PDF specifications in PDF/X-4 transparency is allowed and should neither cause a warning nor a print issue here, while Flyeralarm seems to use X-3, (according to their general requirement but different to their explicit requirement pdf for labels) … as also their warning literally refers to PDF/X-3.

On 12/2/2023 at 4:35 AM, thomaso said:

@SpotColour, if I place in V1 an .afpub (4 shapes, 2 rotated) and export as PDF/X-3 (!) then I don't get any transparency reported in Acrobat's check for X-3 conformity.

Flyeralarm's instructions can be confusing indeed, sometimes even contradicting.* But you mentioned two interesting things here: They might use PDF/X-3 internally, and the transparency groups vanish when exporting to PDF/X-3. So, I repeated the yellow-circle test, this time with PDF/X-3 files. Lo and behold, that didn't trigger Flyeralarm's transparency warning!

Therefore, I ordered the following three print proofs:

1. The document as it was, but exported as PDF/X-3.

To keep this test as close to the original as possible, I deliberately left the .afdesign imports in and didn't merge the logo's elements into a single path. That is, except for one placed logo, which is a .afdesign document which has the logo merged into a path. That way, I can test two ideas at once.

2. The document rasterised to 600 ppi, except the cut contour.

To be safe, I intended to export at 1200 ppi as the document contains tiny letters. However, exporting resolutions above 600 ppi in Publisher leads to another curious effect; the placed TIFF file no longer exports as a single image. Instead, Publisher exports it as 'scan lines' like an old-fashioned TV, with one image for every horizontal line. I noticed this odd behaviour in Acrobat Reader, where you can select a single line of the graphic and copy/paste it elsewhere. As I didn't feel like opening yet another can of worms, I decided to settle with a resolution of 600 ppi.

3. The document with the logos pasted in instead of imported.

This test is the most interesting, as it will hopefully solve the main issue!

On 12/2/2023 at 4:35 AM, thomaso said:

This makes me more curious how you had setup the logo .afdesign in detail?

Here's how I created the entire design:

On 12/2/2023 at 3:21 AM, thomaso said:

Unfortunately we couldn't see the according layout document or its Layers Panel yet and can guess only – but hopefully the OP would have mentioned such a special construction of the cutting contour (while it would require one more object as in your video to reduce (mask/clip) the width of the cutting line, right?).

I drew these contours in Publisher. They started out as rounded rectangles (using an absolute corner radius of 3mm). They have no fill. I set the stroke to use the spot colour, with a thickness of 0.28pt and aligned to the centre (see screenshots in one of my previous replies). To make sure their laser cutter would detect all cut contours, not just one, I joined these into a single path using the Layer > Geometry > Merge Curves command. I hope that clarifies!

All three proofs are in print production right now, this time hopefully with better results. Of course, I will tell you the outcome when they come in. But for now, thank you for all your help and insights, I learned a lot!

* Here's a tip: switch to another language. For instance, the Dutch product information sheet for these stickers says the press-ready PDF may only contain a single (closed) cut contour, even though the image clearly shows multiple contours. However, the English information sheet gives the correct information: you can only use a single spot colour.