pdf with sporadic bold text
Tim Arnold
I'm using pdflatex to create a pdf. Sporadically through my document, text
turns bold. After the pagebreak, it reverts back to normal--that's the only
thing that makes it revert.
The document prints the text as it should (no bolding).
I don't see a pattern on why it happens. I've seen it occur after:
an included png image,
a bold section title,
an itemized list that ended with a bold word
a bolded caption
at the beginning of a page (no bold text previous)
at the beginning of a chapter page.
The bold text is displayed by:
Adobe Reader 5.05 and 9.0 as well as Adobe Acrobat 8.0
But is not displayed by (i.e., the text appears as intended):
Multivalent 20051231
Sumatra PDF Beta 0.8.1
GhostView (gv 3.5.8)
Producer: pdfeTeX-1.304
CreationDate: Thu May 7 05:06:14 2009
Tagged: no
Pages: 218
Encrypted: no
Page size: 612 x 792 pts (letter)
File size: 1482295 bytes
Optimized: no
PDF version: 1.4
anyone seen this behavior before?
thanks,
--Tim Arnold
Guenter Milde
> I'm using pdflatex to create a pdf. Sporadically through my document, text
> turns bold. After the pagebreak, it reverts back to normal--that's the only
> thing that makes it revert.
> The document prints the text as it should (no bolding).
...
> The bold text is displayed by:
> Adobe Reader 5.05 and 9.0 as well as Adobe Acrobat 8.0
> But is not displayed by (i.e., the text appears as intended):
> Multivalent 20051231
> Sumatra PDF Beta 0.8.1
> GhostView (gv 3.5.8)
So it is an issue of the PDV-viewer and screen resolution.
What happens if you zoom into the document?
What font do you use?
What happens if you change the font?
Mayb you can also avoid this playing with some settings to acroread
(auto-hinting, antialias, ...)
Günter
Tim Arnold
news:76ir6bF...@mid.dfncis.de...
Zooming has no effect--the bolding is really there; it's not screen
resolution.
It is an issue with the pdf viewer, but since it's happening with Adobe,
it's likely that there's something in the pdf it understands (and that the
other viewers are ignoring).
I'm using Times font, with MathTimes Pro:
name type emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- ---------
VIKRYN+NimbusSanL-Bold Type 1 yes yes no 968 0
HIMRPI+NimbusRomNo9L-Medi Type 1 yes yes no 972 0
HXQIBG+NimbusRomNo9L-Regu Type 1 yes yes no 976 0
EDTVNF+NimbusSanL-Regu Type 1 yes yes no 1014 0
KNBSCN+NimbusSanL-ReguItal Type 1 yes yes no 1047 0
YHCJXD+Dingbats Type 1 yes yes no 1050 0
BHSKVZ+MT2SYT Type 1 yes yes no 1053 0
EBCCVG+NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal Type 1 yes yes no 1060 0
SFVPDA+NimbusMonL-Regu Type 1 yes yes no 1090 0
OCNADH+NimbusMonL-Bold Type 1 yes yes no 1094 0
HZODDQ+NimbusSanL-BoldItal Type 1 yes yes no 1501 0
PRNNKB+NimbusRomNo9L-MediItal Type 1 yes yes no 1820 0
I don't see any font-manipulation commands in Acrobat. I have optimized and
saved, but the bold text remains.
Switched to palatino and the bolding is still there.
name type emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- ---------
ZZIVUH+NimbusSanL-Bold Type 1 yes yes no 968 0
TODQHR+URWPalladioL-Bold Type 1 yes yes no 972 0
QXLDEB+URWPalladioL-Roma Type 1 yes yes no 976 0
ZATDBJ+NimbusSanL-Regu Type 1 yes yes no 1014 0
MHDYRD+NimbusSanL-ReguItal Type 1 yes yes no 1047 0
MFNQVU+Dingbats Type 1 yes yes no 1050 0
LHAXYF+MT2SYT Type 1 yes yes no 1053 0
UQPUIJ+URWPalladioL-Ital Type 1 yes yes no 1060 0
HACBKZ+NimbusMonL-Regu Type 1 yes yes no 1090 0
RHJHKV+NimbusMonL-Bold Type 1 yes yes no 1098 0
WEFOJC+NimbusSanL-BoldItal Type 1 yes yes no 1509 0
DKMDOV+URWPalladioL-BoldItal Type 1 yes yes no 1838 0
ZWCBLM+MT2MIS Type 1 yes yes no 2437 0
VWNDHL+MT2MIT Type 1 yes yes no 2448 0
RXDGPY+NimbusMonL-ReguObli Type 1 yes yes no 3119 0
Has this happened to anyone else?
--Tim
Tim Arnold
news:gtv1ke$l64$1...@foggy.unx.sas.com...
Well, at the risk of publicly having a conversation with myself ;-)
The problem seems to be the inclusion of a PNG graphic.
I've got the behavior down to this minimal example:
\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{graphicx,lipsum}
\begin{document}
\lipsum[1-2]
\includegraphics{final/fsintegration.png}
\lipsum[5-7]
\end{document}
I made a copy of the graphic and converted it to jpeg format and the bolding
went away. So there's something strange about the png file. It doesn't show
any weirdness from the imagemagick 'identify' command. So at least this has
nothing to do with any of my own macros!
pngcheck says the png file is ok:
File: fsintegration.png (49361 bytes)
OK: fsintegration.png (960x720, 32-bit RGB+alpha, non-interlaced, 98.2%).
I tried recompressing with pngcrush, but no luck, the bolded text is still
there.
Maybe the lesson is simply that including some PNG graphics can result in
text being bolded.
--Tim Arnold
buyoni...@bluebottle.com
> turns bold. After the pagebreak, it reverts back to normal--that's the
> only thing that makes it revert.
> The document prints the text as it should (no bolding).
> I don't see a pattern on why it happens...
I have contradictory reactions. If it renders correctly
(no sporadic bold characters) from Sumatra, that seems
to indicate that it is an Acrobat bug rather than a Latex
problem. The problem is that Acrobat is the "primary"
pdf viewer.
I recommend:
1. First verify that Sumatra renders the pdf correctly.
2. Verify that the _exact_ same pdf renders incorrectly
in Acrobat.
3. Upload the pdf to the internet, so that you can
provide its absolute link in forum threads.
4. Cross post the pdf-link + discussion to Acrobat &/or
generic pdf-viewer forums, as well as Acrobat support.
This may be a known bug, with a known work-around.
Jellby
> Well, at the risk of publicly having a conversation with myself ;-)
> The problem seems to be the inclusion of a PNG graphic.
>
> I've got the behavior down to this minimal example:
> \documentclass{book}
> \usepackage{graphicx,lipsum}
>
> \begin{document}
> \lipsum[1-2]
> \includegraphics{final/fsintegration.png}
> \lipsum[5-7]
> \end{document}
>
> I made a copy of the graphic and converted it to jpeg format and the
> bolding went away. So there's something strange about the png file. It
> doesn't show any weirdness from the imagemagick 'identify' command. So at
> least this has nothing to do with any of my own macros!
>
> pngcheck says the png file is ok:
> File: fsintegration.png (49361 bytes)
> OK: fsintegration.png (960x720, 32-bit RGB+alpha, non-interlaced, 98.2%).
It has transparency, or at least an alpha channel. I have seen wrong
rendering in Adobe Reader whenever transparency is involved, nothing as
drastic as bold fonts, but certainly wrong colours (or colour space) and
different anti-aliasing of font (or lack of it). As far as I remembre this
happened only in linux, not in Windows. Try removing the alpha channel...
--
Ignacio __ Fernï¿œndez Galvï¿œn
/ /\
Linux user / / \ PGP Pub Key
#289967 / / /\ \ 0x01A95F99
/ / /\ \ \
http://djelibeibi.unex.es
/________\ \ \
jellby \___________\/ yahoo.com
Tim Arnold
Thanks to those who responded. I have confirmed that Sumatra PDF and
Multivalent PDF readers render the text correctly. Only Adobe Reader 9 and
Acrobat 8 show the bolded text, and they truly do show the text as bolded,
it's not zoom-dependent. It happens with both the URW and the CMR fonts;
they're the only ones I tried.
here is an minimal example; I've posted a summary also on comp.text.pdf.
\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{graphicx,lipsum}
\begin{document}
\lipsum[1]
Surrounding text is NORMAL
\includegraphics{singleclickbutton2}
\lipsum[5]
\newpage
\lipsum[1]
Surround text is BOLD
\includegraphics{singleclickbutton3}
\lipsum[5]
\end{document}
The actual files are here:
http://www.jtartlabs.com/test/
the pdf is test.pdf
The source files: test.tex, singleclickbutton2.png, singleclickbutton3.png
please let me know if you have a clue as to what's going on. I haven't been
able to google a direct answer.
thanks,
--Tim Arnold
Joris
> "Tim Arnold" <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gu2017$v39$1...@foggy.unx.sas.com...
>
>
>
> > "Tim Arnold" <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote in message
Tim,
Bizarre. Both your posted pdf file and the one I get by compiling
your source show up without bold text in my acrobat reader version 8.0
(for linux).
Best,
J.
Tim Arnold
news:39ff584d-4318-494f...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 3:42 pm, "Tim Arnold" <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote:
> "Tim Arnold" <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote in message
>
Thanks for taking a look. I've sent the pdf around and when people view it
at large zoom levels, the effect is not very noticeable. If you look at it
where the page fits in the reader (around 40% zoom on my monitor), you can
see a noticeable difference between the two pages. If that still doesn't
exhibit the problem I guess it's either a difference between monitors or
between version 8 and 9.1.
One workaround I've been given is to change 'Rendering Smooth Text' setting,
but any setting except the one for LCD screens is so bad the 'bolded' effect
is lost.
I'm still trying to find a solution: I'm building PDFs for customers and the
effect (on my screen at least) using Adobe Reader 9.1 is unacceptable for
professional publishing.
thanks,
--Tim
Joris
Tim,
At 50% I see it, also. Aside from the transparency issue, the png
files are different in that one uses Adobe RGB and the other HP sRGB,
but given that you've noticed this problem arising in other
situations, that doesn't sound like the problem. I'm out of my depth
here.
Best,
J.
Dan Luecking
wrote:
But you said it wasn't dependent on the zoom!
I quote:
> Only Adobe Reader 9 and Acrobat 8 show the bolded text,
> and they truly do show the text as bolded, it's not zoom-dependent.
I have seen this many times. The text isn't bold, it is
simply darker, as if rendered with a different set of
rules. This is suggested by the fact that the effect IS
zoom dependent.
It seems to me that it started occuring when I got an LCD
monitor, but it could be that simply coincided with moving
up to AcroReader 8.0. I have a 7.x installed elsewhere. If
I have time, I'll look at it there.
I don't think there is any solution. I also don't think it
is related to pdfTeX, but I will see if I can find the
effect in non-TeX documents.
Dan
To reply by email, change LookInSig to luecking
Tim Arnold
news:16981590go6nu5q8l...@4ax.com...
Well, to my eyes, the effect is there no matter what the zoom level is, but
it's not that noticeable at large zoom levels. The thing is, I include the
graphic and I see the effect, include another graphic and I don't see it. I
don't see it on mac's preview, but I do with adobe reader 9.1 and acrobat 8,
on both XP and Mac OSX.
you're right that the text isn't actually bold; it must have something to do
with the smoothing used. I realize my test pages aren't a big deal, but in
my original doc (that unfortunately I can't share) the effect is more
noticeable.
I'll work on getting a better test case. Maybe there is no fix, but for now
at least I'll keep trying. I also don't think this has anything to do with
pdftex; I think it's a bug in the adobe pdf viewer.
thanks,
--T
Turgut Durduran
>
> I'll work on getting a better test case. Maybe there is no fix, but for now
> at least I'll keep trying. I also don't think this has anything to do with
> pdftex; I think it's a bug in the adobe pdf viewer.
>
Tim is the goal to produce something that is read on the screen or
something that is printed out? It may not appear "bold" on the printout.
Tim Arnold
news:slrnh1a2t...@web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu...
Hi, you're exactly right--the pdf prints with no problem. I'm sending the
pdfs to a printer and posting them on the web for customer downloads.
As Dan indicated, this is related to the text smoothing used in the Adobe
reader. What I don't understand is why it happens when I include an RGBA png
graphic--I can convert that graphic to RGB and the effect goes away.
So it looks like I have a workaround (just convert all included pngs to the
rgb color space), but it sure seems like a bug to me.
thanks,
--Tim
Turgut Durduran
Hmm. I suppose it is worth reporting to Adobe then. Sorry, I have nothing
else I could suggest. I only use acrobat reader when I absolutely have to.
Turgut
Tim Arnold
more news:
I posted another pdf example on planetpdf.com and got this response from a
standards architect for Adobe.
--------------------
It's a bug in PDFLaTex, that I thought they had fixed a few revisions back.
When you place transparency into a PDF, it changes the rendering color model
such that some colors may appear darker UNLESS an extra key is added to each
page on which the transparency appears.
So yes, it's a bug, but not in Acrobat. Acrobat/Reader is behaving
according to the PDF Reference/ISO 32000-1.
---------------------------
For what it's worth, I'm using pdfeTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.30.4-2.2 (Web2C
7.5.5).
Not sure what the 'extra key' is, but maybe this bug has already been fixed
in more recent versions of pdflatex.
thanks,
--Tim
Joris
> "Turgut Durduran" <u...@ugdc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnh1d8e...@web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu...
>
>
>
> > On 2009-05-21, Tim Arnold <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote:
> >> "Turgut Durduran" <u...@ugdc.org> wrote in message
> >>news:slrnh1a2t...@web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu...
apparently not in 3.1415926-1.40.9-2.2
Jim Diamond
I reported what might be the same bug in 2007 (look up the thread "bug
with included transparent graphics" in the pdftex mailing list
archives).
A work-around suggested immediately was to put
\pdfpageattr {/Group <</S /Transparency /I true /CS /DeviceRGB>>}
before the
\pgfdeclareimage
I was using to trigger the bug.
However, according to my notes, this bug was fixed with pdftex 1.40.7.
You seem to be using the venerably ancient 1.30.xxx version of pdftex.
Can you upgrade?
Jim Diamond
Tim Arnold
news:slrnh1ogd2.7c...@jdiamond-nb.acadiau.ca...
Thanks Jim. I cannot upgrade right now since we're in the middle of a
production run, but later this year I will.
I've written a workaround to test the images before compiling. If they're
RGBA, I convert to RGB. That takes care of it for now.
thanks,
--Tim Aronld
Joris
> "Jim Diamond" <Jim.Diam...@nospam.AcadiaU.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnh1ogd2.7c...@jdiamond-nb.acadiau.ca...
>
>
>
> > On 2009-05-22 at 13:52 ADT, Tim Arnold <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Turgut Durduran" <u...@ugdc.org> wrote in message
> >>news:slrnh1d8e...@web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu...
> >>> On 2009-05-21, Tim Arnold <tim.arn...@sas.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Turgut Durduran" <u...@ugdc.org> wrote in message
> >>>>news:slrnh1a2t...@web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu...
But like I said; it wasn't fixed in 3.1415926-1.40.9-2.2, so unless a
bug was reintroduced......
Dan Luecking
This work-around doesn't work (at least for normal
\includegraphics). I am using
pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7)
from TeX Live 2008 (on winXP). Putting this command
either before or after the includegraphics command in
Tim Arnold's test.tex (on page 2), doesn't produce any
change. Just for testing I changed true to false and
there was still no difference.
Other fiddlings: changing RGB to CMYK or Gray had no effect.
Stephan Hennig
> > and they truly do show the text as bolded, it's not zoom-dependent.
>
> I have seen this many times. The text isn't bold, it is
> simply darker, as if rendered with a different set of
> rules. This is suggested by the fact that the effect IS
> zoom dependent.
>
> It seems to me that it started occuring when I got an LCD
> monitor, but it could be that simply coincided with moving
> up to AcroReader 8.0. I have a 7.x installed elsewhere. If
> I have time, I'll look at it there.
>
> I don't think there is any solution. I also don't think it
> is related to pdfTeX, but I will see if I can find the
> effect in non-TeX documents.
I can observe the darker text rendering and have posted some test cases
in a parallel thread on comp.text.pdf.
Tim's file compiled with pdfTeX 1.40.9 looks like this here
<URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/p1.png>
<URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/p2.png>
with the second page being rendered darker.
This file is created by Adobe InDesign and shows the same effect
<URL:http://www.adobe.com/de/designcenter/creativesuite/articles/cs3ip_transguide.pdf>
<URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/indesign-1.png>
<URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/indesign-2.png>
Here is a file created by Microsoft Word 2007
<URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/mso2007-transparency.pdf>
that shows darker text on page 2.
Here, the effect is only visible with the following settings in Adobe
Reader 9 to 9.1.1 (Windows XP):
Preferences
--> General
--> Start-up
--> Check 2D graphics acceleration: X
Preferences
--> Page rendering
--> Rendering
--> Smooth text: Laptop/LCD
Preferences
--> Page rendering
--> Rendering
--> Enable 2D graphics acceleration: X
And, most important, the rendered page contains a transparent object.
I cannot believe all three applications, pdfTeX, InDesign, and Word,
suffer the same transparency bug. So, the bug is more likely in Adobe
Reader or, given that graphics acceleration has to be enabled, the
graphics card driver or the graphics card hardware. My graphics card is
a Nvidia GeForce 6200 and I can reproduce the bad rendering with driver
versions between 175.19 and 181.20.
I live with this bug for more than a year now and it doesn't bother me
too much, but this discussion made me curious. If people could test the
files linked to above with the described Adobe Reader settings and
report back about the results and their OS, Adobe Reader version,
hardware + driver version, perhaps one can pin down the buggy piece of
hard- or software.
Best regards,
Stephan Hennig
Robert Heller
OK, I have a nVidia GeForce FX 5200 card on my Linux box (CentOS 4.7).
I'm NOT using nVidia's drivers -- I'm just using the open source driver
that comes with XOrg (this just means no hardware 3D accel -- not
something *I* have any use for). I can't use Adobe Reader 9 -- it does
not like the version of libstdc++ I have installed (it wants 3.4.5 and I
have 3.4.6).
OK, with Adobe Reader 8, turning on text smoothing does make the text
darker. Not sure I would call it 'bold' (the heading is bold). Both
documents behave that way.
Acober Reader 8.1.4 on CentOS 4.7 (Linux, i686). GeForce FX 5200 card,
with open source driver (XOrg 6.8.2). Smoothing set for LCD: darker
text, Smoothing set for None: no darker text (but text is choppy at
small zoom factors, due to low screen resolution).
Note: this appears to just be a side effect of the antialiasing
(smoothing). A low zoom factors, turning off smoothing makes the text
nearly impossible to read (too many 'bits' are missing from the
glyths). I am not sure if this is a 'bug' really. And I suspect that
Adobe is unlikely to 'fix it', since smoothing is only optional and can
be turned off if it is 'bothersome'. Yes, with smoothing off there are
other issues. This is an artifact of the fact that display screens
(even 'HD' ones) are fairly *low* resolution, when compared to any
print device. That is *screen* resolution is something like 72 or 100
dpi and quality printers are *at least* 300dpi, which was standard for
1980's vintage laser printers. Modern inkjets can do far better that
that. What is the resolution of 'digital paper' (eg Kindle and the
like)?
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
Dan Luecking
<stepha...@nospam.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>Here, the effect is only visible with the following settings in Adobe
>Reader 9 to 9.1.1 (Windows XP):
>
>Preferences
> --> General
> --> Start-up
> --> Check 2D graphics acceleration: X
Adobe reader 8.x (on my computers) doesn't have this
setting. Possibly my graphics cards don't offer it.
>
>Preferences
> --> Page rendering
> --> Rendering
> --> Smooth text: Laptop/LCD
I get the effect on my LCD monitors with both of the
following settings of Smooth text:
for Laptop/LCD
for Monitor
I cannot find a CRT monitor to test the second setting on.
>
>Preferences
> --> Page rendering
> --> Rendering
> --> Enable 2D graphics acceleration: X
Again, this setting is not available to me.
>And, most important, the rendered page contains a transparent object.
>
>I cannot believe all three applications, pdfTeX, InDesign, and Word,
>suffer the same transparency bug.
I agree it seems very unlikely.
> So, the bug is more likely in Adobe
>Reader or, given that graphics acceleration has to be enabled, the
>graphics card driver or the graphics card hardware.
Unlikely: I see it on three different monitors with three
different graphics cards (2 Nvidia, one "Intel GMA 3000",
all in Windows XP, SP2 and SP3). And in AdobeReader 8.x
with no accelerator setting.
Tim Arnold
news:4a21aca2$0$32665$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
For anyone interested in more detail, I posted the problem on the planetpdf
forum:
http://forum.planetpdf.com/webboard/wbpx.dll/read?170260,106
The last response there says that it's the transparency and color space that
makes this happen:
------------------------------
When transparency needs to be processed a default color blending space has
to be picked. Acrobat and Reader pick CMYK. There is no way to change this
(except to change the PDF). I believe it is a very unhelpful default, with
far-reaching implications.
It is not a bug, therefore, in Reader, but it's bad design. Given, too, that
Reader does this, it's poor design for PDF generators not to take
appropriate action to minimize the damage. The poor end user is stuck
between two groups of decision makers who can each claim the moral high
ground and who cares if the users get unexpected results...?
--------------------------------
I suppose that the bugfix in pdflatex would be to explicitly set the
colorspace based on the image info instead of letting Adobe pick CMYK. I
don't know whether that fix is already in the new version of pdflatex; I'm
still using 1.30.4.
thanks,
--Tim Arnold
Jim Diamond
Well, what can I say? What I was doing was broken in pdftex 1.40.5, I
no longer needed the work-around in 1.40.7, and I still no longer need
it in pdfTeX 3.1415926-1.40.9-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.7). I am using Linux,
maybe things are (still/re-) broken with other systems?
To be a bit more complete, here is a complete usage, maybe your usage
is enough different that the bug was never fixed for you:
% \declareimage <image name for \useimage> <image file name> <[image options]>
% imageoptions are things like width=3in that are accepted by
% pgfdeclareimage (and thus like \includegraphics options of graphicx)
% Currently uses pgf facilities, may in future use something else.
\def\declareimage #1 #2 [#3]
{%
% The \pdfpageattr command is a work-around for colour-shift
% issues with transparent images for (at least) pdftex 1.40.5.
% Fixed in 1.40.7.
% \pdfpageattr {/Group <</S /Transparency /I true /CS /DeviceRGB>>}
\pgfdeclareimage[#3]{#1}{#2}
\def\declareimage ##1 ##2 [##3]{\pgfdeclareimage[##3]{##1}{##2}}
}
% \useimage{<name created with \declareimage>}
% Put a copy of an image declared with \declareimage
% Currently uses pgf facilities, may in future use something else.
\def\useimage #1 {\pgfuseimage{#1}}
Then I say something like
\declareimage crest crest-300RGB-transparent-20-percent [width=2in]
blah blah
\useimage crest
Another blah blah
\useimage creat
blah blah
\bye
and I get the expected result. In this case the image is a png file.
Maybe one of you would like to test this specific (plain tex) code
with your favourite transparent image?
Cheers.
Jim
Joris
> "Stephan Hennig" <stephanhen...@nospam.arcornews.de> wrote in message
>
> news:4a21aca2$0$32665$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>
>
>
> > Dan Luecking schrieb:
>
> >> > Only Adobe Reader 9 and Acrobat 8 show the bolded text,
> >> > and they truly do show the text as bolded, it's not zoom-dependent.
>
> >> I have seen this many times. The text isn't bold, it is
> >> simply darker, as if rendered with a different set of
> >> rules. This is suggested by the fact that the effect IS
> >> zoom dependent.
>
> >> It seems to me that it started occuring when I got an LCD
> >> monitor, but it could be that simply coincided with moving
> >> up to AcroReader 8.0. I have a 7.x installed elsewhere. If
> >> I have time, I'll look at it there.
>
> >> I don't think there is any solution. I also don't think it
> >> is related to pdfTeX, but I will see if I can find the
> >> effect in non-TeX documents.
>
> > I can observe the darker text rendering and have posted some test cases
> > in a parallel thread on comp.text.pdf.
>
> > <URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/p1.png>
> > <URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/p2.png>
> > with the second page being rendered darker.
>
> > This file is created by Adobe InDesign and shows the same effect
Tim,
I suspect that if you use the pdfx package your problem will go away;
haven't tried this.
Best,
J.