In the meantime, let’s just say it’s semantic quibbling, involving what the meaning of “is” is. (Actually, it’s what the meaning of “flattening” is.) The important thing is that it’s happening in-RIP instead of in a blind pre-process, so it’s going to work better. Period.

I’d say that the laser dots on the platesetter are *neither* “transparent” nor “opaque” — and that hence no “flattening” takes place in any ultimate sense at that end of the raster imaging process. The concepts “transparent” and “opaque” simply don’t apply in this domain — just like, say, a *thought* can’t be “colored,” but that doesn’t mean you can say it’s “colorless”.

“Flattening” in this context refers to the conversion of transparent PDF objects into the flat, two dimensional, non-transparent Postscript model.

The PDF print engine doesn’t flatten the transparency in a PDF in order to calculate the raster data for a separation plate. It calculates the separation rasters directly from the unlfattened, live transparent object data from the PDF file.

There’s a big technical difference between this process and any other process that requires transparent object data to be flattened first into a Postscript model at some point in the workflow, even if it’s immediately prior to the generation of separations.

Similarly, all RIPs turn all our wonderful vector artwork into very high-res bitmapped images. That’s what a “raster image processor” does, after all. It converts everything into imagesetter/platesetter dots.

So, just as it makes sense to keep things as vector artwork until you print (and let the RIP convert it at the last moment before imaging), it makes sense to do the same thing for transparency… and often for color management, and other stuff.

There is no reason for the APPE to flatten transparency. That’s only necessary if you have to convert to PostScript.

As to whether flattening transparency with PDF/X-1a or X3 can be problematic, spend a little time on the Adobe User to User Forums, and count the number of transparency-flattening related issues brought up (thick type, missing drop shadows, stitching).

However, if it’s working for you, enjoy!

Most times –from a designer point of view– you DON’T want the printer to alter or modify your design –exception made for typos or such.

If the PDF Print Engine –as we could suspect– really ends up flattening transparency, then the whole point is: would you usually need to preserve it until the final slaughter on the RIP? I think many times, you don’t.

Could it be that Adobe want us to buy that new technology –which I think is essentially right, don’t get me wrong– and create an urge to make that transition faster when it is really no such a big need?

After all, is PDF-X1a or X3 really so problematic when printing?

There is no way I would’ve known that I needed to recheck that box in the Ink Manager. I was under the impression that once I have my PDF setting saved it would always be like that, but not so, new spot colours causes the check box be a filled box.

Example: Place a Logo into InDesign over a spot color, use Effects to create a Drop Shadow. Next, Export a PDF (1.3) with the spot inks. You send the PDF to your commercial printer.

They quoted the job as 4 color process, not 16 PMS inks so they convert the spot to process, but the Drop Shadow disappears.

Solution: Convert to process before creating a PDF, or use Unflattened PDF’s (1.4).

Another example why we find the PDF Print Engine to be a better choice than a PostScript workflow.

JW