Exporting to PDF Loses Outer Shadows

[Mark M. (bigmountainstudio]

Here is an example of an outer shadow and its settings applied to this arrow:

Here is what it looks like after I export it:

Maybe there's a PDF export setting that is removing it? Here are my PDF export settings:

[MikeW]

Try changing the Rasterize: Nothing setting. shadows are a raster effect.

[mac_heibu]

@MikeW: This is true, with PDF 1.3, but PDF 1.7 supports transparencies. So there should be no need to rasterize a shadow effect, if Publisher is told to rasterize „nothing". Normally the shadow will be converted to a (semi)transparent element during output. This is the way, InDesign handles it.

[MikeW]

29 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

... but PDF 1.7 supports transparencies. So there should be no need to rasterize a shadow effect, if Publisher is told to rasterize „nothing". Normally the shadow will be converted to a (semi)transparent element during output. This is the way, InDesign handles it.

Actually, transparency is in pdf level 1.5 and higher.

Nope. ID doesn't give one a choice like Affinity applications do regarding Rasterize: X. ID's bitmap-type effects (which is what drop shadows are)are always raster in output no matter the pdf level. As far as I am aware, there is no application that can output effects like glow, drop shadows, etc, as vector, which would be the only other alternative.

[mac_heibu]

That is not the point. The shadow elements ARE raster images, of course, but if you export to PDF1.3, they are merged into the background and thus the background, if any, is rasterized together with the shadow. In PDF 1.4 and higher the shadow „layer“ remains a (semi) transparent raster image behind the element, to which it belongs, and is not merged into the background. (This may be done in Adobe‘s PDF Print Engine, if needed and necessary).

Since the OP uses PDF 1.7 output, there should be no need to rasterise and/or remove the shadow (which already is a pixel object), when he chooses the command „Rasterize: Nothing“.

[walt.farrell]

10 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

Since the OP uses PDF 1.7 output, there should be no need to rasterise and/or remove the shadow (which already is a pixel object), when he chooses the command „Rasterize: Nothing“.

Publisher just followed Mark's instructions. Since the shadow can only be maintained if rasterized, and Mark said not to rasterize, Publisher deleted the shadow.

Perhaps the more appropriate choice would have been "Rasterize Unsupported Properties" or "Rasterize Everything", to keep everything in the output file.

[MikeW]

Just now, mac_heibu said:

That is not the point. The shadow elements ARE raster images, of course, but if you export to PDF1.3, they are merged into the background and thus the background, if any, is rasterized together with the shadow. In PDF 1.4 and higher the shadow „layer“ remains a (semi) transparent raster image behind the element, to which it belongs, and is not merged into the background. (This may be done in Adobe‘s PDF Print Engine, if needed and necessary).

Since the OP uses PDF 1.7 output, there should be no need to rasterise and/or remove the shadow (which already is a pixel object), when he chooses the command „Rasterize: Nothing“.

I believe you are missing the point...

APub can/does have a separate bitmap object in a pdf if Rasterize: Unsupported properties is set as you say. This is a pdf from APub where I have separated/moved the drop shadow object in Acrobat and as can be seen, nothing was flattened in the process as long as the pdf level is 1.5 and above or pdf/x-4 is used..

But to the point: The Rasterize: Nothing setting does exactly as it says. Nothing is rasterized in the pdf output and no image effects are exported.

We may argue about the terminology Serif uses. We may even argue that there shouldn't even be this option available--it is not available in, well nothing else I use. But it is there and if one wishes drop shadows et al to export to pdf, that setting cannot be set as per how the OP has it set.

[mac_heibu]

Ok. I think, I am dealing with an issue of terminology.

To make clear, what I meant:

In my understanding shadows already are raster (= no vector) elements, and therefore no (extra) rasterizing is necessary, when exported to PDF 1.4+. In this sense „Rasterizing: Nothing“ shouldn‘t affect these elements at all.

(Re-)Rasterizing of shadows would be necessary in PDF 1.3-, when these shadows have to be merged into an eventually background (= “flattening“). In this sense „Rasterizing: None“ would cause raster effects and other transparency effects to be deleted.

So. in essence, we have the same view on the subject. The problem was terminology.

[MikeW]

Except I would say as regards 1.3 that the shadow because there is transparency has to be flattened and in that process it is merged to any object that is below it ... it is raster either way.

[walt.farrell]

34 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

In my understanding shadows already are raster (= no vector) elements, and therefore no (extra) rasterizing is necessary, when exported to PDF 1.4+. In this sense „Rasterizing: Nothing“ shouldn‘t affect these elements at all.

Yes, it's some form of terminology issue, but its different from that.

Until they are exported the shadows are vector. However, they cannot be exported to PDF and remain vector; they must be either rasterized or omitted.

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

Until they are exported the shadows are vector...

No, I don't believe this is true. If they were, they could be exported as vector. I don't know the internal workings in Affinity software, but if I were to guess, they are at best simply a scalable effect contained within a vector object. 

[walt.farrell]

14 minutes ago, MikeW said:

No, I don't believe this is true. If they were, they could be exported as vector. I don't know the internal workings in Affinity software, but if I were to guess, they are at best simply a scalable effect contained within a vector object. 

Same thing, really, to me. If they're an effect within a vector then they are not raster objects themselves. Therefore it is still in the process of producing a PDF that they need to become either rasterized or omitted.

[MikeW]

11 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Same thing, really, to me. If they're an effect within a vector then they are not raster objects themselves. Therefore it is still in the process of producing a PDF that they need to become either rasterized or omitted.

Really? Then consider the pdf. It too contains the bitmap effect clipped in a vector shape. So does that mean the bitmap shadow, because an effect within a vector then they are not raster objects themselves?

[walt.farrell]

Good point, Mike. Thanks.

(Does not change the fact that they are not rasterized in the native Affinity format. Perhaps it's best to consider them neither vector nor raster there. Nor does it change the fact that they must be either rasterized or omitted to produce the PDF, and the user has control over that via the Export options.)

[MikeW]

rasterized ≠ raster.

Raster is a raster object no matter the container type. Rasterized is what happens during input, during output or, ultimately, during printing no matter the source of the object.

I'll leave this alone now...

[Dazmondo77]

This is a known bug with 1.7.2 when exporting to PDF in fact it also effects live effects so currently a workaround is to copy groups which use live filters and effect and rasterise before Pdf stage - hopefully they'll fix this for the next update - I've not yet tested the latest beta so not sure wether all is well yet

[gw_westdale]

Also messes up transparency  for me exporting to PDF 1.7  - fixed using rasterising - which was OK as it was a background layer - I have yet to see what happens with transparency in a top layer