Color Management in Acrobat Standard

[jpgentry]

I can't seem to figure out how to use a icc color profile when printing from Acrobat Standard. Anyone out there care to help?

Thanks!

[Scott Martin]

I can't seem to figure out how to use a icc color profile when printing from Acrobat Standard. Anyone out there care to help?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Acrobat Pro let's you select a profile in the advanced print dialog that Acrobat Standard lacks. Sorry, this is one of the differences between Standard and Pro. You might consider opening a PDF in Photoshop (in the appropriate colorspace) and print from there instead.

[neil snape]

I'm getting the strange feeling that CM in Photoshop is different than in InDesign , and Acrobat Pro
(all CS3) from what I've been doing recently.

I really wonder if one doesn't have to make a profile for Photoshop , then one for ID, Acrobat.

Could it be that ID and Acrobat prefer CMYK or device numbers whereas Photoshop handles everything well?

Or is it that ID and Acrobat have a hard time with printing CMYK files to rgb profiles without BPC?

[digitaldog]

I'm getting the strange feeling that CM in Photoshop is different than in InDesign , and Acrobat Pro
(all CS3) from what I've been doing recently.

I really wonder if one doesn't have to make a profile for Photoshop , then one for ID, Acrobat.

Could it be that ID and Acrobat prefer CMYK or device numbers whereas Photoshop handles everything well?

Or is it that ID and Acrobat have a hard time with printing CMYK files to rgb profiles without BPC?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well there's no question there's a disconnect in the print path between at least InDesign, Photoshop and Lightroom. IOW, the suite doesn't handle the data to the printer (and presumably to PDF) identically.

[neil snape]

Well there's no question there's a disconnect in the print path between at least InDesign, Photoshop and Lightroom. IOW, the suite doesn't handle the data to the printer (and presumably to PDF) identically.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So as convinient it is to proof through Photoshop , the same proof will not be the same from ID, Acrobat, or possibly ILLY.

Too bad in a way as I am very happy with the rgb output simulating offset. I even measured a Fogra MW2 and the dE is within range for a simulation but not contract proof. From Acrobat it is way too dark and saturated compared to the same from Photoshop.

Many too many years wasted testing rips, makes me not want to go back to that again, yet I can see the reason why for overall workflow there are merits.

Are you using a (any)  rip (s) Andrew?

[digitaldog]

I'm no longer using Rips and rarely use Acrobat.

The proof might be the same in all the Adobe suites but there's no question that there are bugs/issues that come up whereby you find two or more Adobe app's not providing the same results from the same RGB numbers. I know for a fact, the code bases for various applications are not identical but they output "should be" (the key here is should). I suspect by the CS4 suite, all this may be worked out. Then there's the finger pointing between the printer manufacturers, the application manufactures and the OS vendors.

[Scott Martin]

I really wonder if one doesn't have to make a profile for Photoshop , then one for ID, Acrobat.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've found I need to make one RGB profile for PS,Ill, and Acrobat and another just for InDesign.  Lightroom is also different and I'm not sure what the best solution is there.

Could it be that ID and Acrobat prefer CMYK or device numbers whereas Photoshop handles everything well?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For designers the problem is specifically RGB printing from InDesign. Profiles for CMYK managed devices work just fine across these applications.

Many too many years wasted testing rips, makes me not want to go back to that again, yet I can see the reason why for overall workflow there are merits.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Boy, do I hear you! I've been encouraging designers and fine art photographers for years to consider the possibility of a RIP free workflow and until CS3, had felt like we were just about there. InDesign CS3's RGB printing problems are a major step in the wrong direction and I'm seeing a lot of people being affected by it. Adobe's lack of response and responsibility in the matter is shocking.

As for RIPs I'm still using nearly all of them via my clients. ColorBurst has proved to be a simple, fast and cost efficient solution for a variety of markets (fine art, designers, ad agencies, reprographics, etc). Various flavors of EFI's RIPs have gotten quote good, are much easier to work with, and are still very popular on color lasers. GMG is the color geeks RIP for prepress. StudioPrint is also excellent for fine art work although, like ImagePrint, the need has been diminishing for a while.

Getting back to InDesign, RGB printing has always had it's challenges, especially when it comes to transparency. Designers often don't have the patience to wrap their heads around it so putting a RIP like ColorBurst between ID and the printer does simplify things greatly.

[SeanPuckett]

I have no success getting colour managed output from Acrobat Pro.  At least with RGB documents on raster devices, selecting a profile in the Advanced printing dialogue doesn't alter the output to print correctly according to the profile.

My solution was to render the PDF pages to PNG files and then run them through Q-Image.  Not at all convenient, and I do wonder if I'm missing something, or if this is just something Acrobat can't do.

[Scott Martin]

I have no success getting colour managed output from Acrobat Pro.  At least with RGB documents on raster devices, selecting a profile in the Advanced printing dialogue doesn't alter the output to print correctly according to the profile.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's odd as a lot of designers, prepress and signage professionals do it that way. Perhaps you need to reinstall? I personally feel more confident rendering PDFs in Photoshop one page at a time and printing them from there.

[neil snape]

I have no success getting colour managed output from Acrobat Pro.  At least with RGB documents on raster devices, selecting a profile in the Advanced printing dialogue doesn't alter the output to print correctly according to the profile.

My solution was to render the PDF pages to PNG files and then run them through Q-Image.  Not at all convenient, and I do wonder if I'm missing something, or if this is just something Acrobat can't do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Preview can handle a sort of flattened PDF rendering pretty well on a Mac. Yet it isn't a solution if you are on Windows.

[Scott Martin]

Preview can handle a sort of flattened PDF rendering pretty well on a Mac. Yet it isn't a solution if you are on Windows.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ona  related note, I'm impressed with how good OS X has become at making PDFs via the print dialog. Without direct access to all of the 'job options' I don't completely trust it but I have so say it hasn't let me down when I've used it.

I was at a print shop once and was dealing with a very complex file from a big design agency and we spent several hours making PDFs with Distiller via a variety of job options/PDF settings and couldn't get a few items to render correctly no matter what we tried. Printed to a PDF via the OS X print dialog and it was perfect all the way to press. I haven't sen the need to do that again but it's nice to have options to fall back on for those occasional tough jobs.

[SeanPuckett]

Scott, I suspect the difference is the output chain for those jobs/shops includes PostScript and/or CMYK.  Running a job from Acrobat Pro to a desktop printer, there is no effect I can discern when choosing an output profile -- there's not even a way to change rendering intent.  I'll probably poke at it again when I need to run off more catalogues.

[Scott Martin]

Running a job from Acrobat Pro to a desktop printer, there is no effect I can discern when choosing an output profile -- there's not even a way to change rendering intent. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree the lack of intent and other options is annoying - that's why I prefer to print from Photoshop instead. Have you unchecked the "Output intent overrides working spaces" checkbox in the cm preferences? If not, it may be overriding your output profile.

[ternst]

I found out that when printing from InDesign if I check the "Print As Bitmap" in the Advanced tab of the print dialogue box it will print just fine - does anyone know if this same "Print As Bitmap" is available anywhere in Acrobat Pro? I'm trying to print proofs from pdf files directly out of Acrobat Pro (not having to cycle through Photoshop) and I can't get good output. Thanks...

[neil snape]

I found out that when printing from InDesign if I check the "Print As Bitmap" in the Advanced tab of the print dialogue box it will print just fine - does anyone know if this same "Print As Bitmap" is available anywhere in Acrobat Pro? I'm trying to print proofs from pdf files directly out of Acrobat Pro (not having to cycle through Photoshop) and I can't get good output. Thanks...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes the option to "Print as image"  is in the Advanced button window in Pro as is Reader. I'm not sure how well the Color management would be handled considering if the PDF has per object color. It is less complicated than rasterising it all and hoping the results are the same as the objects in other creation programs.

[ternst]

Thanks Neil. I stumbled onto that checkbox in the middle of the night and was able to get everything printed. Funny how screwed up Adobe is these days with these major programs of theirs, especially being part of their SUITE - what a joke! And certainly a step backwards for all of us...

Tim Ernst in Arkansas