How do I get a high resolution pdf version of my pages document?

If all the images in your Pages document are 300 dpi, the pdf output from Pages will be at 300 dpi. There is nothing complicated to this point, and that is what you originally asked about.

The complication arises because you feel a need to convert the pdf to jpg. (I don't understand why, since the pdf should be a smaller file and all the vector elements in it will be of much better quality than in a jpg, but if that's what you need, fine.) Several solutions for doing this have been mentioned by other posters.

> I'm trying to create a 300 DPI jpeg.

If you convert type (vector objects), tone and tint boxes (vector objects), and photographic images (raster objects) into 300DPI JPEG the application is likely to apply the following implicit logic unless you take actions yourself to explicitly declare what you intend -

1. There is one and only one colourant format possible, so probably all objects should get converted to RGB by default.

2. There is one and only one colourimetry space possible, so probably all should get converted to Generic RGB Profile by default (unless you assign another ICC profile in the UI of the conversion software).

3. You would probably want to check how transparencies are flattened / rendered in your chosen process.

Try saving out your JPEG 300DPI from the converter of your choice, open in Apple Preview, and check the resolution and the ICC profile in the Get Info dialogue. Preview will provide this information for raster files (e.g. JPEG), but not for mixed raster and vector files (e.g. PDF).

/hh

I think we're getting complicated again

people send their head shots at many different resolutions. I'll be checking their res before importing from now on and change the resolution, if necessary, in Preview.

I do use shadows. they are necessary to the style of the ad. it has never affected the outcome befofe.

I've been using Preview to convert to JPEG for quite some time. it's only recently that I've tried to change the resolution and didn't know there was a way in Preview. I know how to do that now, thanks to Jeff.

Jeff, you don't have to understand. it's what I need and I've been doing it for years. the PDFs do seem to get larger when you have many layers. the JPEG flatens those layers

we always go to RGB because we started as an online only magazine. the ONLY question was resolution. that was it. the printer converts to CMYK and it comes out fine.

the question was answered and I have a game plan for the next issue. thank you all for your input. I never expected to get so much help. I really appreciate it

> people send their head shots at many different resolutions. I'll be checking their res before importing from now on and change the resolution, if necessary, in Preview.

Not quite: If Henrik were to send you a photograph in 72DPI, you would have to ask Henrik to send you the same photograph in 300DPI. Apple Preview can't add the detail that was cut away, so changing the resolution from 72DPI to 300DPI won't help. Principle of GIGO Garbage In, Garbage Out.

> the PDFs do seem to get larger when you have many layers. the JPEG flatens those layers

Not quite: The better way to do what you want is to send PDF 1.4 with live transparency and no layers or PDF 1.3 with flattened / rendered transparency and no layers from Pages / OS X. If your printer prefers JPEG, it sounds like it's a workaround to stop you posting unprintable page descriptions.

> we always go to RGB because we started as an online only magazine. the ONLY question was resolution. that was it. the printer converts to CMYK and it comes out fine.

There is a HUGE difference in the colour gamut of RGB captures, and indeed there is also a HUGE difference in the colour gamut of CMYK conversions. The colour gamut is not defined by the colourants, it's defined by the ICC profile cf the gamut comparison window in the ColorSync Utility.

There are various authors you might want to try reading. I believe some of Mattias Nyman's writing has been translated from Swedish into English. He won the Benjamin Franklin award for his first book on colour separation basics.

/hh

Henrick, it all sounds good and I've heard it all before. when you can show me how horrible my magazine is, then I'll listen. but, when it has been coming out fine for over four years, I have no problem continuing with my methods. I am a filmmaker and do this on the side. I don't really have time to be reading a bunch of stuff on something that doesn't really interest me. you're complicating it again. my simple methods work.

I really thought we were done with this.

I udnerstand the resolution thing, which is why I mentioned getting something that would interpolate, like photozoom, instead of using Preview. I'll be doing tests before the next issue to see what I need to do. I think photozoom is about $200. so, if I can get away with doing the free thing, I will. and if they have a 300 DPI image, I will definitely get that from them, which they really should have. we're talking about the Stand-Up Live comedy ad, and these are professionals. they should have hi res photos on hand.

usually we're trying to do things really fast because they send us stuff so late. such is the magazine business.

again, I really appreciate your help and input. I've been in photography, graphic design, printing and video for many years. worked for quickprint shops, book manufacturers and commercial shops after high school. I really do understand the resolution thing. I know things can get fuzzy or pixelated pretty quickly. and we do NOT llike that. so, like I said, I'll be doing some tests and see what I can get away with. but, we do put out a quality magazine. we won't be printing anything that doesn't measure up. there have been times that I sent something that wasn't quite there and our graphic designer sent it back. the printer will never see anything that won't look good in print.

also, I know about color gamut. but, somehow, it always looks great. and we've used different printers. only two in four years. but, things came out great at both places.

one more time, THANKS for all the time you put into answering my question. I think I've got it

ClothEars-2 wrote:

fruhilda and henrik,

Could you please both stop using the word "loose" when the word you should be using is "lose".

ClothEars

You should give the posters here a break, not being native English speakers.

fruhulda and henrik are Danish/Swedish and many others are American.

btw You misspelled fruhulda.

Peter

Oddly enough it was when I worked in the US that I first noticed this error. That was more than 20 years ago. Problem is that people copy each other. I did this myself when I worked at CERN - used some French words I thought existed (I'd heard them used by other English people) until my French office-colleaugue pointed out my error.

Meanwhile I'm trying to read as many posts as possible for clues to ColorSync, PDFs, shadow flattening, and related matters.

Peter wrote:

> You should give the posters here a break, not being native English speakers.

Not to worry.

On an aside, I posted development a while ago that in ISO 19005 PDF/A 2005, 'colour' (UK English) and 'color' (US English) occur. Per ISO 19005 PDF/A 2005, the editor of the standard is required to use ISO 639 meta-information for unique language identification. As it happens, I only have the printed edition which is all that one can have through the library lending system, so I'm not sure ISO 19005 PDF/A 2005 in fact conforms to ISO 19005 PDF/A, because I can't inspect the XML tags in the data structures of the PDF page description -:)

Cheers for chilly Copenhagen, sun shining, snowflakes just stopped coming down.

Henrik

Henrik Holmegaard wrote:

For reasons best known to Adobe and Apple marketing in the 1998-2002 time frame, marketing of the message that the screen imaging system could support accessibility for colour information, character information and content information (on the relationship of the layout rendering order to the logical reading order) by supporting PostScript to PDF, and by not supporting extensions to PDF 1.4 such as XML, we all find ourselves in a pretty pickle.

If you want to pursue information on precisely where you are in the pickle, please use another passage into the Apple fora. For the information you want, go to lists.apple.com and sign up for the ColorSync Users List.

In terms of pickle, I'd say I'm one of probably many people who for the most part print stuff at home on a £100 or so printer and that works just fine. But, I volunteer for an organisation that from time to time wants a decent quality leaflet - 2000 copies. Let's say, three or four times a year. I can do the layout just fine in Pages, it's the printing step where we go wrong (or risk that, anyway). I know Peter has written a number of times that in this situation Pages is the wrong tool, and he's right, but I can't justify spending hundreds on InDesign, much as I might like to have the program. And I wouldn't become an overnight expert anyway.

Thanks for the ColorSync Users List hint. I'll lurk there for a while first.

> I can't justify spending hundreds on InDesign

For what it's worth, not a single one of the Apple iWork User Guides (Keynote, Pages, Numbers) was made with Apple system level services and Apple application software. None. They were all made with Adobe application software that uses no Apple system level services, except the ICC profile database for the display profile.

With the analoguous argument I brought about that Apple made ColorSync useable for high resolution printing in 2002 by changing the Generic CMYK Profile, so by the same argument there is no Apple office anywhere that is in a position to use Apple application software for Apple advertising / documentation.

All I can do is write, and in writing I can tell the educational market what it should understand. If writing changes anything, then that's good. If it does not, then I have done what I could. Digitalisation is not going to go away, it is here to stay. So is bad advertising.

Henrik

Henrik

Virtually on every single occassion where I can check the sources of Apple handiwork it has been not done with Apple software.

The plague of talking to many Apple Store staff is that aside from iOS apps they mostly don't use Apple products either.

When they showcase Apple software too often it is all theory, not practice. That ends up in way the software and the OS work/don't work.

Peter

For what it's worth, the Apple country manager for Denmark, who is Danish, previously worked as the Adobe world wide evangelist in the period 1998-2004. Similarly, EAC Graphics, a wholly owned and operated division of Østasiatisk Kompagni, was the world wide distributor for Heidelberger Druckmaschinen until 1994 in the Americas and until 1998 in Africa, Asia and Eurasia including Denmark - it was a Danish sales organisation that sold Adobe and Linotype fonts into the Danish market. Again, similarly, Kommunedata A/S, Danish Standards, the Danish National Language Council, and the Ministry of Culture and Nordic Co-operation blocked the universal character set for three years over the issue of encoding language in the character set, to the frustration of the Unicode people. It is widely believed, not least by Danes, that Denmark is at the cutting edge of digitalisation. Any study in the sociology of the information sciences will soon conclude that Danes, including Danes with university education, are no different from German, Frenchmen, Italians or indeed Americans in having not the slightest clue about computerised telecommunications ... -:)

/hh

Lucas

There is no such thing as 'Save as Adobe PDF'.

There is only Print to PDF and Export to PDF essentially the same thing. Export has 3 levels of Quality but none will improve transparency resolution.

Peter

I have Adobe Pro installed which lets you edit and modify the pdf once created.

Adobe Reader is pointless. You are double passing the pdf through Print in the mistaken belief that it still works like OS9 which created a postscript file before converting it to pdf.

In OS X the system starts with a pdf file.

Peter

Dear Peter,

I don't seem to get your point...

Are you suggesting one needs to have Adobe Acrobat Pro installed in order to save as Adobe PDF?

If I continue there is the opportunity to chose out of several options, which let you determine the quality.

With the highest settings I can't see the difference between a 4K picture and the "created" PDF file when zooming in and looking at details.

Lucas