Photoshop PDF vs. Acrobat PDF

Fungusamungus

unread,

May 30, 2001, 2:38:15 AM5/30/01

to

I'm not certain I understand this.

Acrobat PDF files can be done similar to web pages, with multiple pages, and
links, and navigation, et al. Photoshop PDF's are simply images. So what's
the benefits? I mean, where would a photoshop produced PDF benefit over an
adobe pdf? if you're going to just create an image, there are tifs and eps
and whatnot, so why make a pdf in photoshop? The only thing I can think of
is a slight compatibility issue. I mean, I guess not everyone can read tifs
and eps's properly (although it doesn't take much to find a graphics program
that can), but acrobat reader is free, and should be able to view PS PDF's,
but that's a very minimal barebones excuse. Anyone got the skinny on this?
Just curious...

--
Fungus
Lose your mind to reply (I've already lost mine, now it's your turn :Ş

Marc Pawliger

unread,

May 30, 2001, 2:56:32 AM5/30/01

to

Photoshop PDFs, as saved in Photoshop 6.0, can contain all the layer data
as well as a flattened version of the file. Photoshop PDFs can include
vector-based masks and real text (searchable in Acrobat).

--marc

Marc Pawliger

unread,

May 30, 2001, 2:56:54 AM5/30/01

to

RossF

unread,

May 30, 2001, 4:59:21 AM5/30/01

to

On Wed, 30 May 2001 06:38:15 GMT, "Fungusamungus"
<fungu...@yourhotmindmail.com> wrote:

>I'm not certain I understand this.
>
>Acrobat PDF files can be done similar to web pages, with multiple pages, and
>links, and navigation, et al. Photoshop PDF's are simply images. So what's
>the benefits? I mean, where would a photoshop produced PDF benefit over an
>adobe pdf? if you're going to just create an image, there are tifs and eps
>and whatnot, so why make a pdf in photoshop? The only thing I can think of
>is a slight compatibility issue. I mean, I guess not everyone can read tifs
>and eps's properly (although it doesn't take much to find a graphics program
>that can), but acrobat reader is free, and should be able to view PS PDF's,
>but that's a very minimal barebones excuse. Anyone got the skinny on this?
>Just curious...

1. A PDF saved from PS can have text that can be searched, and vector
data that isn't limited like a bitmap. For web pages, PS doesn't
support Flash or SVG.

2. PDFs can be printed from Acrobat Reader to a non-PostScript printer
and retain fonts and vector data.

3. Not everybody has Acrobat, so being able to make PDFs (although
limited) in PS is an advantage.

Ross

Karl Elliott

unread,

May 30, 2001, 6:31:50 AM5/30/01

to

it is there because PDF is going to eventually replace postscript as the
main graphical language, all the software we will us including the whole mac
OS will use PDF as it's standard.
Karl Elliott

--
see 1000's of high resolution images at www.inspirationpix.com
"Fungusamungus" <fungu...@yourhotmindmail.com> wrote in message
news:rz0R6.60695$i56.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

Rick Tuter

unread,

May 30, 2001, 12:50:50 PM5/30/01

to

in article UW3R6.53$ED4.2628@NewsReader, Karl Elliott at
pureins...@btclick.com wrote on 5/30/01 3:31 AM:

The only reason I've used PS PDF is to send a file to a magazine or
newspaper for a client. When it's a file created in PS it saves a lot of
time.

I have noticed when I open the PDF, the file size defaults to 72 dpi. I
always change it to the correct dpi so the width and height return to the
measurements I used initially. That way, the person receiving can know
immediately what the correct proportions are, as they are usually third
party.

Rick

--
If you would like to reply to me personally, send your email to
rtu...@NOSPAMhome.com. I'm sure you know to take the NOSPAM out of my email
address; I refuse to be harvested like some kind of brainless algae adrift
in a sea of slime (but I do have cookies turned on -- hehe).

--