PDF/X-1a:2001 (PDF 1.3)

[TMay]

As PDF/X-1a:2001 (PDF 1.3) is still specified in Pass4Press which is used by much of the UK magazine industry why isn't it possible to export to this standard in Publisher?

I know I can export to PDF/X-1a:2003 but it's PDF 1.4. I know there are few practical differences but I am trying to move from an InDesign to a Publisher workflow and my artwork is usually for UK magazine advertising. I don't want artwork rejected because it is not PDF 1.3 when checked by the magazine pre-press people. 

If Serif wants customers to move from InDesign I would have thought it would be a very good idea to support PDF/X-1a:2001 (PDF 1.3)

Is anyone on here successfully submitting PDF/X-1a:2003 files to UK magazines that specify Pass4Press? 

I can't be the only person with this problem. I have seen workrounds but they either involve paying for Acrobat or importing the PDF from Publisher into Scribus and exporting again which is far from ideal.  In InDesign its easy and foolproof.

Thanks

[mopperle]

1 hour ago, TMay said:

I don't want artwork rejected because it is not PDF 1.3 when checked by the magazine pre-press people.

As PDF/X-1a: 2001 (1.3) is not available and IMHO will not be available shortterm, have you ever asked your pre-press people about accepting PDF/X-1a: 2003 (1.4)?

At least here in Germany I never had a problem with 1.4, even when being asked for 1.3.

[TMay]

51 minutes ago, mopperle said:

As PDF/X-1a: 2001 (1.3) is not available and IMHO will not be available shortterm, have you ever asked your pre-press people about accepting PDF/X-1a: 2003 (1.4)?

At least here in Germany I never had a problem with 1.4, even when being asked for 1.3.

Thank you Otto. Not yet, I have a client who advertises in a lot of different publications so several different organisations and pre-press people. My next step was to contact one or two but some of my contacts are not technical so I expect I wouldn't get an answer from those ones until an actual file was accepted or rejected by a preflight check (or RIP?)   

I'm not producing artwork every month so the choice for me is either switching my InDesign subscription on and off or moving to Affinity - which I was hoping would be an easier option.

[lacerto]

It might be useful for anyone coming from Adobe ecosystem to understand that Affinity specific PDF "rules" result in any non-PDF/X-based placed PDF to become rasterized when exported to any PDF/X-based preset, as well as later PDF version content becoming rasterized when exported to lower PDF version, so if you are going to export to PDF/X-1a:2003, not only non-PDF/X-based content but also any placed PDF/X-3 or PDF/X-4 content will be rasterized.

Basically the most versatile export method within Affinity apps is the default PDF (Press ready), which is 1.7. It will accept practically all PDF versions without rasterization, but can also be problematic for many printers because it does not flatten transparencies, and can cause issues by allowing mixed color spaces with ICCs rather than producing DeviceCMYK output.

Also, it is good to know that Affinity apps always flatten transparencies by rasterization, which can give inconsistent results (part of an object having been rasterized and showing jaggies, while the remaining non-flattened part has stayed in vector format).

There is an important difference to InDesign that can produce whatever is requested and convert placed content as needed without compromises. Whether this difference is important or not, depends on many factors, but If you have advertizers or any need to place third-party professional PDF content, this is going to be pretty limiting.

[TMay]

8 hours ago, lacerto said:

...but If you have advertizers or any need to place third-party professional PDF content, this is going to be pretty limiting.

Thanks, that's all useful to know.

I'm producing single page advertisements on behalf of an advertiser. They are submitted to various magazines. I'm not producing the magazines so I am not placing PDF content. 
 

The magazines specify PDF/X-1a:2001, hence my question. 

[lacerto]

I see. Yes, this still sometimes pops up. As far as I know there should not be any critical difference between PDF/X-1a:2001 and PDF/X-1a:2003. I guess sticking to 1.3 (and specifically the 2001 version) is much a residue of the 2001 version being based on v1.3 which by definition always flattens transparencies, while 1.4 (on which X-1a:2003 is based) as a mere version number does not imply this, even if PDF/X-1a always of course does. 

So if you get PDF/X-1a:2003  accepted, your only concern would be seeing that you do not have other than PDF/X-1a format PDF placed in (if ever needing to place 3rd party PDF content like logos, etc.) -- as that results in not just rasterization but often also inadvertent change of color values -- and that  transparency flattening (= rasterization) does not cause uneven edges. 

And additionally, that the production file is correctly targeted (as you are producing DeviceCMYK content) -- within Affinity apps you cannot make slight retargeting and change color profile by assigning a production profile at export time ("preserving numbers") but need to do it from within File > Document Setup > Assign (or in Photo, selecting Document > Assign ICC Profile command). And whenever you convert from one CMYK profile to another, you cannot keep K100 untouched so you need to make sure that you convert black that has "inadvertently" changed from K values to rich black, back to K values.

To illustrate the issues involved, here is a PDF/X-1a:2003 file (showing uneven edges because of transparency flattening done with rasterization), a PDF/X-4 file (all vectors and ICC based, transparencies unflattened) and the PDF/X-4 file placed and exported to PDF/X-1a (all rasterized, and color values recalculated).

pdfx1a_2003.pdf

pdfx4.pdf

pdfx4_in_pdfx1.pdf

[lacerto]

It just occurred to me that one possible cause for requiring specifically for PDF/X-1a:2001 could possibly be the kind of "incompatibility" issue shown by Affinity apps, regarding mixing PDF version numbers. This is just conjecturing, but assuming that the RIP is based on 1.3, it possibly would automatically fall back to rasterizing (disorderly, causing e.g. color changes) everything beyond 1.3, even if there is basically nothing in a later version that it could not handle. I do not know anything about image processors and how common it still is that processing is based on level 1.3 (and how ridiculously expensive upgrading RIPs is), but this could explain the requirement which seems obsolete. Or, that press personnel might need to preprocess files not meeting the preferred specs using e.g. Acrobat Pro or other prepress tool before passing it for RIP, requiring extra work and risk of changing something in the process.