I'm designing a tearsheet which will be printed on a commercial press. The prepress guy said that i must flatten my photoshop files and save them as tifs. He also said i need to save my illustrator files as eps. Problem is, all my PSD files have transparent backgrounds and i have applied a drop shadow in InDesign. Obviously if i convert everything to tif i will lose all my transparency and there goes all my drop shadows. Is there a way to work around this or will i have to apply the drop shadows in Photoshop? Thanks in advance for any help!
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Change PSD to TIF before prepress?
- Thread starter johnderek
- Start date
You should be able to flatten your PSD files and save them as tifs, then create a clipping path to remove the background so that the images will still appears as they did before. With a transparent background.
This can be done using the paths pallet in Photoshop. Since the images don’t have a background I usually just click in the background with the magic wand tool, select inverse, go to the paths pallet and create a work path, then save it.
Then use the paths pallet again to convert the saved path to a clipping path, Save as a tiff file and update it from the PSD to the Tiff in Indesign.
Mike
This can be done using the paths pallet in Photoshop. Since the images don’t have a background I usually just click in the background with the magic wand tool, select inverse, go to the paths pallet and create a work path, then save it.
Then use the paths pallet again to convert the saved path to a clipping path, Save as a tiff file and update it from the PSD to the Tiff in Indesign.
Mike
Does your prepress guy use InDesign? Does he know you are using InDesign? He's not making a bit of sense. Why is he telling you this? Does his RIP not support InDesign files? Many printers have a standard laundry list of what they require for printing. They may not have updated their list to what is used in InDesign.
Printers make these lists so that they do not need to spend time converting files. You should ask this guy why he thinks he cannot use these file formats. There may be a lot more to his story.
There should not be a need to go to flattened art. If you can print your page from InDesign, he should be able to as well.
There is no need to do any extra work on your page. The only extra work you may find yourself doing is finding a competent printer.
- - picklefish - -
Printers make these lists so that they do not need to spend time converting files. You should ask this guy why he thinks he cannot use these file formats. There may be a lot more to his story.
There should not be a need to go to flattened art. If you can print your page from InDesign, he should be able to as well.
There is no need to do any extra work on your page. The only extra work you may find yourself doing is finding a competent printer.
- - picklefish - -
I'm sorry Jim, Tim...
But Indesign isn't all your saying it's cracked up to be! As a desktop tech in a full fledged, up to date prepress environment I've seen more than my share of problems with indesign. Whether it be linked psd's, ai's, font embedding, etc.
Yes, you can get some native file formats to go through a rip, but you must embed them which indesign makes into extremely huge files (exceeding 1 GB), and even then the success rate is hit or miss. Not to mention that when indesign exports them it 'flattens' them, which in essence rasterizes them. This has caused all kinds of problems with stroked type near the images.
And now that I mentioned stroked type, let's talk how indesign converts some fonts with strokes into something totally different than when it's fonts!
Indesign might well be the layout app of the future, but all I've seen adobe's done is made it easier for you designer types to "dummy down" and not put any thought into the reality that in order to go to film or plate, your files have to be able to export and rip!
And Jim... Surely you realize that just because your file prints to a simple desktop laser printer is no indication that it will make it through a high end rip the same??
But Indesign isn't all your saying it's cracked up to be! As a desktop tech in a full fledged, up to date prepress environment I've seen more than my share of problems with indesign. Whether it be linked psd's, ai's, font embedding, etc.
Yes, you can get some native file formats to go through a rip, but you must embed them which indesign makes into extremely huge files (exceeding 1 GB), and even then the success rate is hit or miss. Not to mention that when indesign exports them it 'flattens' them, which in essence rasterizes them. This has caused all kinds of problems with stroked type near the images.
And now that I mentioned stroked type, let's talk how indesign converts some fonts with strokes into something totally different than when it's fonts!
Indesign might well be the layout app of the future, but all I've seen adobe's done is made it easier for you designer types to "dummy down" and not put any thought into the reality that in order to go to film or plate, your files have to be able to export and rip!
And Jim... Surely you realize that just because your file prints to a simple desktop laser printer is no indication that it will make it through a high end rip the same??
Wow, harolda - I did not realize that I exalted ID so much.
When I referred to printing to your own printer, I was referring to the fact that if johnderek's document could at least print the document, there is little reason why it should not print elsewhere. Printing to your own printer or file is the first step to ensure that it will print elsewhere. A designer should always do a proof print. Should a professional RIP be less capable than a designer's studio printer?
If you scan the forum at adobe.com, you will find solutions and workarounds to the problems that you mentioned. It seems your RIP does not work with ID well. There are other printers that do not have these problems.
Even if you flatten PSDs to TIFs and save AIs as EPSs, you are still working with an ID file. It confused me why one would dumb down or convert the linked graphics but still print from ID. Should the prepress fellow also tell johnderek that he should use no transparency effects as well? There really is more to the story and johnderek needs to converse with his prepress guy to see what the story is.
I would hope that ID attracts a more saavy designer that clearly understands the printing process. ID is not as simple-minded as its DTP predecessors.
- - picklefish - -
When I referred to printing to your own printer, I was referring to the fact that if johnderek's document could at least print the document, there is little reason why it should not print elsewhere. Printing to your own printer or file is the first step to ensure that it will print elsewhere. A designer should always do a proof print. Should a professional RIP be less capable than a designer's studio printer?
If you scan the forum at adobe.com, you will find solutions and workarounds to the problems that you mentioned. It seems your RIP does not work with ID well. There are other printers that do not have these problems.
Even if you flatten PSDs to TIFs and save AIs as EPSs, you are still working with an ID file. It confused me why one would dumb down or convert the linked graphics but still print from ID. Should the prepress fellow also tell johnderek that he should use no transparency effects as well? There really is more to the story and johnderek needs to converse with his prepress guy to see what the story is.
I would hope that ID attracts a more saavy designer that clearly understands the printing process. ID is not as simple-minded as its DTP predecessors.
- - picklefish - -
jimo...
While I realize the incredible value of designers, and even prepress techs having access to desktop proofers, surely you, as a former printshop worker, should realize that when you are going to film or direct to plate, you have to export from the native application that will pass through a rip (raster image processor). This is the only language I know that an imagesetter will actually understand and that will drive lasers.
I'm sure you realize that your standard epson, hp, lexmark, or what have you proofer does not operate with postscript data. If more designers had postscript printers, I'm sure they would run into some of the problems printshops do.
I've been around adobe, I've spent COUNTLESS hours on the phone with indesign tech support, uploaded sample files to adobe... and they have been of little help to this point.
Now, you seem to have not understood me about psd's, flattening, tiffs, ai's,...
We get files all the time that have these linked. We can generally work with them if we include images out of indesign.
Let me stop here and say that I work in a total eps/pdf environment. So eps is the prefered export from indesign.
NO, I'm not telling johnderek, you, or anyone else that they shouldn't use some of the native file format features, just that they should be aware that we printers might have some problems with it and could cause some slowdowns while workarounds are implimented.
I came across these forums and was shocked at the 'bashing' that you and others were giving printers. I come from the belief that you are coming to me for a service. And it is my duty to provide that as best I can, however, I (and I assume you) realize that a lot of problems and pitfalls are already built into files by designers who have misunderstandings or aren't looking far enough ahead to see where something they do in a file may cause problems.
I believe that dtp to printing press requires co-operation from all involved, and good communication and acceptance of our respective roles goes along way toward a successful print job.
While I realize the incredible value of designers, and even prepress techs having access to desktop proofers, surely you, as a former printshop worker, should realize that when you are going to film or direct to plate, you have to export from the native application that will pass through a rip (raster image processor). This is the only language I know that an imagesetter will actually understand and that will drive lasers.
I'm sure you realize that your standard epson, hp, lexmark, or what have you proofer does not operate with postscript data. If more designers had postscript printers, I'm sure they would run into some of the problems printshops do.
I've been around adobe, I've spent COUNTLESS hours on the phone with indesign tech support, uploaded sample files to adobe... and they have been of little help to this point.
Now, you seem to have not understood me about psd's, flattening, tiffs, ai's,...
We get files all the time that have these linked. We can generally work with them if we include images out of indesign.
Let me stop here and say that I work in a total eps/pdf environment. So eps is the prefered export from indesign.
NO, I'm not telling johnderek, you, or anyone else that they shouldn't use some of the native file format features, just that they should be aware that we printers might have some problems with it and could cause some slowdowns while workarounds are implimented.
I came across these forums and was shocked at the 'bashing' that you and others were giving printers. I come from the belief that you are coming to me for a service. And it is my duty to provide that as best I can, however, I (and I assume you) realize that a lot of problems and pitfalls are already built into files by designers who have misunderstandings or aren't looking far enough ahead to see where something they do in a file may cause problems.
I believe that dtp to printing press requires co-operation from all involved, and good communication and acceptance of our respective roles goes along way toward a successful print job.
No, in theory, a true press ready pdf should fly fine. As long as the printer he uses is at postscript level 3. And johnderek, if you're using indesign, or any of the more current apps, you do need a printer that is operating at that level of postscript. Or you, and they will be doing workarounds which can be very risky to the integrity of your designs.
...so if johnderek can create a press-ready pdf, why wouldn't a compentent prepress guy be able to do the same?
The issue at hand was the needless effort of dumbing down the linked images.
Utilizing a PDF workflow seems to relieve the issues discussed in this thread. johnderek's prepress guy should know this.
There is no need for a designer or a printer to dumb down native file formats of placed images. InDesign/PDF makes the world a better place for everyone involved and we can all hug and sing Kum ba yah!
- - picklefish - -
The issue at hand was the needless effort of dumbing down the linked images.
Utilizing a PDF workflow seems to relieve the issues discussed in this thread. johnderek's prepress guy should know this.
There is no need for a designer or a printer to dumb down native file formats of placed images. InDesign/PDF makes the world a better place for everyone involved and we can all hug and sing Kum ba yah!
- - picklefish - -
Well jim, I said a press ready pdf "in theory should fly fine". But I, and other prepress techs have found that adobe's implimentation of transparacies, and new inclusion of native file formats has some issues (bugs) that aren't totally worked out. The only point I'm trying to get across is that designers should become aware and familiar with some of these bugs and do some pre printshop workarounds if they are on a tight deadline, or don't want others to have to dig deep into thier files.
While I know it's my job to keep the integrity of the files as they are given to me, I know how easy it is to miss a problem that develops when implimenting a workaround with files that you are relatively unfamiliar with.
So, as I first tried to state: Be wisely advised, use native file formats only when absolutely necessary. Other than that, stick to the tried and true.
While I know it's my job to keep the integrity of the files as they are given to me, I know how easy it is to miss a problem that develops when implimenting a workaround with files that you are relatively unfamiliar with.
So, as I first tried to state: Be wisely advised, use native file formats only when absolutely necessary. Other than that, stick to the tried and true.
I have followed this debate with interest, though my experience of the printing trade is limited.
I lean strongly in Jimoblak's direction.
A Printer is a tradesman who accepts documents (handwritten or electronically supplied)from customers and it is his job to print them!
He is paid by the customer to do this,
I realise that there are a lot of troublesome scenarios when office workers come running with PowerPoint presentations and expect a wonderful printout in book form with glossy high resolution pics and all......
As far as I know, in the dark ages before the computer a Printer would accept a written manuscript, sit down in front of trays of lead type and slowly pick out the letters (I know that technically this was a Typesetter job, but in the dark ages the printer did this too) then when the tray was ready with the document he would put it into a flatbed press and print. HE NEVER SUGGESTED TO THE CUSTOMER THAT THEY SHOULD TYPESET AND DELIVER THE JOB READY FOR THE PRESSES!
C'mon now, Printers are getting too lazy nowadays. They want everything handed to them on a CD so they just have to stick it in a computer and press "PRINT"
I agree completely with Jimoblak.
I lean strongly in Jimoblak's direction.
A Printer is a tradesman who accepts documents (handwritten or electronically supplied)from customers and it is his job to print them!
He is paid by the customer to do this,
I realise that there are a lot of troublesome scenarios when office workers come running with PowerPoint presentations and expect a wonderful printout in book form with glossy high resolution pics and all......
As far as I know, in the dark ages before the computer a Printer would accept a written manuscript, sit down in front of trays of lead type and slowly pick out the letters (I know that technically this was a Typesetter job, but in the dark ages the printer did this too) then when the tray was ready with the document he would put it into a flatbed press and print. HE NEVER SUGGESTED TO THE CUSTOMER THAT THEY SHOULD TYPESET AND DELIVER THE JOB READY FOR THE PRESSES!
C'mon now, Printers are getting too lazy nowadays. They want everything handed to them on a CD so they just have to stick it in a computer and press "PRINT"
I agree completely with Jimoblak.
Just to throw my two cents into the mix. Our first document done in InDesign was a 180 page coupon book. All images were Photoshop eps's with clipping paths. Though we used an OPI system with Quark, with InDesign we are linking directly with the Hi-res. Though printing through are printers is slower, the quality is higher. I packaged this book and sent it to our printer. We got a call a couple of days later saying that it was the best job we had ever sent them and that it had no problems and flowed beautifully. No I used siloed eps, with drop shadows applied in ID. The document was several gigs when sent to the printer. We only use Tiff for solid shots (with backgrounds). I also read/experienced that some eps graphics (illustrator) will not work well in ID. Any graphics that you have difficulties with, resave them as ai documents, works great!
I couldn't disagree with you more, drbgaijin. Your analogy fails completely as far as I'm concerned.
Your comparison of someone bringing in handwritten sheets doesn't work because you can do precisely that today: bring handwritten sheets to nearly any printer and he'll set the type (and layout the pages) and print it for you. There's no compatibility problem. You're leaving the typesetting and the printing to the same shop.
When a designer brings a file to a printer it's nothing like bringing in handwritten sheets. Instead, using your analogy of printing processes 100 years ago (or whenever), the designer is bringing in completely layed-out type trays and expecting them to fit the press, insisting that it doesn't matter what model press he has: it's his job to make your trays of type fit.
Why do you believe that your "trays" should fit the printer's press (imagesetter) no matter what? Why do you think you can take on the job of typesetter and then insist that the printer should be able to handle any size "trays of type" regardless? That's not the printer's job.
Good printers provide good customer service, but good customer service isn't the same thing as doing anything the customer wants no matter what.
If you want the printer to be able to print anything you design, leave the typesetting and page layout to him. Just bring in paper color comps and say "make this for me".
If you want to play typesetter (and I know I do) then know that it's your job to work with the printer to ensure that things are compatible.
Only someone who wasn't designing back before DTP would claim that printers are getting too lazy, in my opinion.
Your comparison of someone bringing in handwritten sheets doesn't work because you can do precisely that today: bring handwritten sheets to nearly any printer and he'll set the type (and layout the pages) and print it for you. There's no compatibility problem. You're leaving the typesetting and the printing to the same shop.
When a designer brings a file to a printer it's nothing like bringing in handwritten sheets. Instead, using your analogy of printing processes 100 years ago (or whenever), the designer is bringing in completely layed-out type trays and expecting them to fit the press, insisting that it doesn't matter what model press he has: it's his job to make your trays of type fit.
Why do you believe that your "trays" should fit the printer's press (imagesetter) no matter what? Why do you think you can take on the job of typesetter and then insist that the printer should be able to handle any size "trays of type" regardless? That's not the printer's job.
Good printers provide good customer service, but good customer service isn't the same thing as doing anything the customer wants no matter what.
If you want the printer to be able to print anything you design, leave the typesetting and page layout to him. Just bring in paper color comps and say "make this for me".
If you want to play typesetter (and I know I do) then know that it's your job to work with the printer to ensure that things are compatible.
Only someone who wasn't designing back before DTP would claim that printers are getting too lazy, in my opinion.
Thanks for the comments Genimuse.
As I said, ".....my experience of the printing trade is limited".
Now I know a little more.
I think my reaction was brought about by the different standpoints of the 2 debators. One on the printer side and one on the customer side.
My opinion was that Printers should are supposed to provide customers with a service. Providing a service means giving the customers what they want (even if it creates difficulties on your side) not in telling the customers they are wrong (even if they are).
I know the idea of what "giving a customer service" means has changed a lot in the past few decades, but from what I have experienced since I moved to Japan - it is still possible to provide customers with 100%+ service and still be happy and run a good business.
But when all is said and done probably things are better than they appear and have come a long way since the days when the first flood of "desktop" produced documents on floppies were handed in for printing.
I draw a line on my comments here, finishing with a big word of praise for Tek-Tips Forums and everyone who posts so many interesting and useful messages - whether negative ones or positive ones - they all add to our knowledge.
As I said, ".....my experience of the printing trade is limited".
Now I know a little more.
I think my reaction was brought about by the different standpoints of the 2 debators. One on the printer side and one on the customer side.
My opinion was that Printers should are supposed to provide customers with a service. Providing a service means giving the customers what they want (even if it creates difficulties on your side) not in telling the customers they are wrong (even if they are).
I know the idea of what "giving a customer service" means has changed a lot in the past few decades, but from what I have experienced since I moved to Japan - it is still possible to provide customers with 100%+ service and still be happy and run a good business.
But when all is said and done probably things are better than they appear and have come a long way since the days when the first flood of "desktop" produced documents on floppies were handed in for printing.
I draw a line on my comments here, finishing with a big word of praise for Tek-Tips Forums and everyone who posts so many interesting and useful messages - whether negative ones or positive ones - they all add to our knowledge.
I completely agree that customer service here in the US is in the pits, and I also wish that most of the printers/service bureaus I work with were much more customer friendly.
I also worked at a service bureau for a while, though, and in a print shop, so I have a lot of empathy for their tasks. Designer ignorance was rampant, and the number of horrible CorelDraw files outranked the well-done Quark files 10 to 1, so it's easy to get jaded, even if inappropriately. I have no reason to believe it's any better than it was.
Still, even with that experience I've spent much more time on the designer side and have had some horrible experiences with printers. On the plus side, though, if you insist on (and pay for) a blueline and/or matchprint, at least you won't be surprised when that screwed-up drop shadow appears on the press.
I also worked at a service bureau for a while, though, and in a print shop, so I have a lot of empathy for their tasks. Designer ignorance was rampant, and the number of horrible CorelDraw files outranked the well-done Quark files 10 to 1, so it's easy to get jaded, even if inappropriately. I have no reason to believe it's any better than it was.
Still, even with that experience I've spent much more time on the designer side and have had some horrible experiences with printers. On the plus side, though, if you insist on (and pay for) a blueline and/or matchprint, at least you won't be surprised when that screwed-up drop shadow appears on the press.
I'm a little lost in understanding any difference between a designer and a printer. Both have the same goal, right? My previous posts were not to favor a designer or a printer's position and were not intended to cause (or be a part of) any sort of debate between their responsibilities.
If one can find any problems with InDesign between the two, the ideal situation is for both parties to rely on PDF...
Proofing:
A designer can (and really should) create PDF proofs (including separations on spot color jobs) so that he/she can see what they should expect on the press. A designer should also have a virtual PostScript printer if not a physical one. Printing to a PS file and then distilling the output can help preview any problems that the printer will have.
Fonts:
PDFs keep your fonts together in one file. I can recall many times that a printer did not use fonts included with a design document (relying on already installed fonts with similar names but from different foundries). Sending a PDF also prevents a printer from stealing your fonts for their own use.
Graphics:
When you pack a PDF, you trim down overall file size. You may have a GB worth of linked files but when packed in a press-ready PDF, the size of the file can be just a couple hundred MBs.
The printer that I send the majority of my InDesign work to does not even use ID. I find out how they will print the document, impose it to their specifications with ALAP.com's InBooklet, and send it as a PDF. They use Acrobat Reader 5 (the freeware) and print to their RIP. I've never had a better experience with a printer.
PDFs benefit the printer because they do not need to wrestle with fonts and linked files. PDFs benefit the designer because he/she can take their document to any printer with a low price.
If you are commited to only sending INDD documents, you can find a capable printer from the list of service providers currently linked from adobe.com's main page.
- - picklefish - -
If one can find any problems with InDesign between the two, the ideal situation is for both parties to rely on PDF...
Proofing:
A designer can (and really should) create PDF proofs (including separations on spot color jobs) so that he/she can see what they should expect on the press. A designer should also have a virtual PostScript printer if not a physical one. Printing to a PS file and then distilling the output can help preview any problems that the printer will have.
Fonts:
PDFs keep your fonts together in one file. I can recall many times that a printer did not use fonts included with a design document (relying on already installed fonts with similar names but from different foundries). Sending a PDF also prevents a printer from stealing your fonts for their own use.
Graphics:
When you pack a PDF, you trim down overall file size. You may have a GB worth of linked files but when packed in a press-ready PDF, the size of the file can be just a couple hundred MBs.
The printer that I send the majority of my InDesign work to does not even use ID. I find out how they will print the document, impose it to their specifications with ALAP.com's InBooklet, and send it as a PDF. They use Acrobat Reader 5 (the freeware) and print to their RIP. I've never had a better experience with a printer.
PDFs benefit the printer because they do not need to wrestle with fonts and linked files. PDFs benefit the designer because he/she can take their document to any printer with a low price.
If you are commited to only sending INDD documents, you can find a capable printer from the list of service providers currently linked from adobe.com's main page.
- - picklefish - -
Thank you Genimuse for you contribution.
And yes Jimoblak, pdf's do make our work a lot easier. The only problems I've encountered are problems with the way they are created (ie: not all fonts embedding, no bleeds, downsampling, wrong color spaces). They also stop dead any concept of color adjustment, or press gain adjustment.
But yes, if created fine, no problem.
And yes Jimoblak, pdf's do make our work a lot easier. The only problems I've encountered are problems with the way they are created (ie: not all fonts embedding, no bleeds, downsampling, wrong color spaces). They also stop dead any concept of color adjustment, or press gain adjustment.
But yes, if created fine, no problem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question