Export: PDF 1.3 (Acrobat 4) compatibility?

[Steps]

My printer Saal Digital asks for a PDF 1.3 compatible document.

Is that something that i likely to be added later or is this a thing
InDesign will also drop support for and my printer has to accept
higher compatibility levels?

Will it really make a big difference or cause problems taking 1.4?

[mac_heibu]

Yes. PDF 1.4 may contain transparencies, what isn‘t allowed in this case.

Use PDF X-1a or X-3 instead. This is PDF 1.3 compatible.

[MikeW]

The PDF/X-1a:2003 that Affinity applications use is 1.4 compatible. 

[Steps]

2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The PDF/X-1a:2003 that Affinity applications use is 1.4 compatible. 

Thanks. So X-3 is my best option to prevent problems at printing?

[MikeW]

3 hours ago, Steps said:

Thanks. So X-3 is my best option to prevent problems at printing?

As always, the best option is what the print establishment says it is. If in doubt whether they would accept a higher revision of the specification, contact them.

Affinity applications cannot produce a PDF with 1.3 compatibility no matter the flavor of PDF.

[cailo]

On 12/15/2018 at 8:45 PM, MikeW said:

As always, the best option is what the print establishment says it is. If in doubt whether they would accept a higher revision of the specification, contact them.

Affinity applications cannot produce a PDF with 1.3 compatibility no matter the flavor of PDF.

Why do Affinity can't produce PDF 1.3?

[mac_heibu]

 Because it uses an extern library, which doesn‘t include this specification.

[cailo]

You mean it’s not possible right now or it will never be possible?

Most of the graphic enterprises that I work with uses this specification. 

[000]

I have been using X3 for print files for more than ten years (it's very well established) now and it always works fine. Don't worry too much, just ask your printers to check the file before printing it. Sometimes people even confuse PDF 1.3 with PDF X3 ... as said, don't worry.

[mac_heibu]

Puh! Let’s start from the beginning without talking too much about PDF versions:

• Print companies – of course – want to make sure, that PDF documents are printable.
• To achieve this, it is necessary, that certain standards are guaranteed.
• Most companies want PDFs, wich contain (a) only CMYK (and/or Spot) colours, and (b) documents, which don’t contain (semi)transparent elements, because those elements aren’t printable (printing machines only can print CMYK data, and aren’t able to print (semi)transparent objects; printing ink is quite binary: It is there or not..

Now, there are existing different PDF versions, which support different features (CMYK images, spot colours, transparency, hyperlinks, comments, interactive elements, forms, and, and, and. Most of these features are not necessary or even contra productive for printing reasons.

• For printing purposes, we have the PDF/X variants, which define the standards for print ready PDF documents. Many print companies want PDF documents, based on PDF Version 1.3, because this format avoids tons of possible problems regarding colours and transparency: Colours are CMYK  and transparent elements are not allowed, so they have to be „flattened“, before creating such a PDF (flattening = transparent regions of the document are re-interpreted and in different ways „merged“ into the background).

If you use Affinity Publisher’s PDF output option „PDF/X-1a: 2003", RGB images will be converted to the specified CMYK profile and all transparencies will be flattened. This means: The document will be „print ready".

If you use the output option „PDF/X-1a: 2003“, the document is definitely compatible to PDF/X-3 formats. Such a document (like the attached one) passes every relevant Acrobat Pro Preflight test, and the print company shouldn’t find a problem at all.

A growing number of print companies in the meanwhile accept PDF/X-4, because they are equipped with compatible hard- and software (RIPs)

Besides the PDF document, I attached an image showing the output differences between PDF/X1a and PDF/X/4. You can see, that the „PDF/X-1a" version flattens transparent regions (I dragged these regions apart for better visualisation), the „PDF/X-4" version maintains transparency (and relies on a RIP which does the job afterwards).

testchart_1_PDF:X-1a.pdf

[mac_heibu]

1 hour ago, Jens Krebs said:

I have been using X3 for print files for more than ten years (it's very well established) now and it always works fine. Don't worry too much, just ask your printers to check the file before printing it. Sometimes people even confuse PDF 1.3 with PDF X3 ... as said, don't worry.

Sure, @Jens Krebs, but you have to be aware, that RGB images aren’t converted to CMYK in this case – what means, you can run into troubles …

[fde101]

1 hour ago, mac_heibu said:

that RGB images aren’t converted to CMYK in this case – what means, you can run into troubles

This assumes that the printing company needs them to be converted in advance.

Because of the fact that the RGB spectrum includes a larger color gamut it can represent colors that cannot be expressed consistently in CMYK.

If the publisher is not set up to handle RGB (or handles it poorly) in the PDF, then flattening the color space to CMYK can obviously help to avoid issues.

However, some types of printers/presses can use more than just CMYK or spot color inks - the HP Indigo series for example can do up to a 7-color process color print, which has a larger color gamut than CMYK.  Since flattening the PDF to CMYK would lose any colors that can be expressed in RGB but not in CMYK, doing this in advance would prevent you from gaining any benefit from those added ink colors.

If the printer is set up to handle RGB well, then leaving photos and other similar elements in RGB space means being able to leverage those added ink colors to produce a wider spectrum of colors than is possible with CMYK alone.

However, if transparency is involved and needs to be flattened for the benefit of the printer, you could run into problems because of RGB and CMYK being handled differently by the RIP: if you have elements overlapping that use a mixture of RGB and CMYK, then the flattening process will need to convert to one or the other.  If the RIP applies different tweaks to RGB vs. CMYK elements in the document, then the flattened item if flattened to RGB would have its CMYK elements not matching the other CMYK elements in the document, and similarly if flattened to CMYK would have its RGB elements not matching other RGB elements in the document (not to mention throwing away some potential colors if the printer can handle them).

Thus with a modern printing setup in an environment where the printer may potentially be using more than just the CMYK process colors, a PDF format that can mix RGB and CMYK elements and which retains transparency information can produce the best results.

However, not all printers have caught up with this yet.  A flattened CMYK-only PDF provides something that will work consistently for a larger number of printers with their frequently outdated tool set, but throws away the benefits that can be had when the printer is more up-to-date and using higher-end equipment.

[cailo]

The problem is, they have an online file check and the files are not accepted in the verification unless they are X-1a:2001 

[000]

Workaround idea if you need to go to the printers quickly: export a high res TIF or JPG image -- not ideal and not a long term solution but does the job when everything else fails and you're in a hurry.

Which online printers are you using?

[cailo]

I’m using 2 online services in Brazil:

www.graficadasgraficas.com.br

www.atualcard.com.br

[cailo]

15 hours ago, Jens Krebs said:

I have been using X3 for print files for more than ten years (it's very well established) now and it always works fine. Don't worry too much, just ask your printers to check the file before printing it. Sometimes people even confuse PDF 1.3 with PDF X3 ... as said, don't worry.

It it possible to save as x-1a:2003 and use some other software to convert to :2001?

[fde101]

22 minutes ago, cailo said:

It it possible to save as x-1a:2003 and use some other software to convert to :2001?

Ghostscript *might* be able to do that conversion if you can figure out how to ask it, not 100% sure.

Alternatively, this one is around $150 for the "you" (single-user) version and looks like it would work but I haven't tested it yet myself: https://www.enfocus.com/en/connect

[kenmcd]

21 hours ago, cailo said:

It it possible to save as x-1a:2003 and use some other software to convert to :2001?

I checked my various PDF printer drivers to see if any supported settings for X-1a:2001.
The PDF printer included with PixelPlanet PdfGrabber has this as an option.
They sell just the PDF printer separately for $19. Has a free trial version.
https://www.pixelplanet.com/pdfprinter/
 

[cailo]

I have a Mac!

But thank you anyway!

[Steps]

I just figured out that this was requested a year before my thread:

TL;DR: Real PDF 1.3 support is still missing. My "PDF/X-1a:2003" pdf export resulted in a bad print from my printer (meinspiel.de).
Tsupport send me a preflight report clearly stating that the document is PDF 1.4 compatible.

[ashf]

I seems that PDFlib which Affinity use for PDF export  does not support PDF/X-1a:2001.
That's the reason why PDF/X-1a:2001 profile is missing
 

 

[ashf]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:21 PM, cailo said:

I have a Mac!

But thank you anyway!

You can use PDF Checkpoint.
http://zevrix.com/pdfcheckpoint.php