Can anyone offer any advice on how to eliminate pixel shifts when an Indesign file contains multiple overlapping .psd files and type? I have the flattener settings set to Raster/Vector Balance @100 vector, Line Art and Text @ 2400 and Gradient and Mesh @300. My file has Two overlapping psd files with text placed on top. When I save to and eps or pdf (1.3) there is a major pixel shift in the images (it is a car ad and the shift occurs right at the seam between the hood and the front grill of the car). This is a definite costly "make-good" if it goes to press. I got the job through by combining all of the psd files in PhotoShop and then placed the type over it in Indesign. Takes me back to the old days. The problem is that I may not always get the application files for a job. I may only get a version 1.4 pdf. This file looks okay until it is flattened. In my opinion the Adobe Creative suite is a designers dream and a prepress persons nightmare. It reminds me of when Adobe released Illustrator...it made really, really pretty pictures that you could not rip. Then they came out with Adobe Separator. Soorry for sounding bitter but they should have dubbed Indesign "the Prepress Killer".
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 Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Indesign, PSD files and Transparency problems
- Thread starter Frank1314
- Start date
KISS (keep it simple stupid) always works. Unfortunately, a lot of these designers (I’m one of them) forget that.
In the case you cited, the person could have combined the 2 psd files in one, saved as a tiff, and your job would have been ok, and would probably be okay for the vast majority of other outlets. That would have been the “old fashioned way” but it invariably works.
Designers have to understand that a print ad can go to hundreds of different outlets, all with different printer/rip setups. To guarantee consistent results, it’s usually best to keep things as simple as possible.
It’s not the program, it’s the use of the program that causes the problems.
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
In the case you cited, the person could have combined the 2 psd files in one, saved as a tiff, and your job would have been ok, and would probably be okay for the vast majority of other outlets. That would have been the “old fashioned way” but it invariably works.
Designers have to understand that a print ad can go to hundreds of different outlets, all with different printer/rip setups. To guarantee consistent results, it’s usually best to keep things as simple as possible.
It’s not the program, it’s the use of the program that causes the problems.
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
...with 1.3 pdfs transparency has to be flattened during creation, versions 1.4 and 1.5 pdf's actually retain transparency, meaning your rip needs to be bang up to date to accept them and do a good job with transparent areas. The rip will take care of the flattening instead using this scenario, and in many cases, as with our Agfa Apogee X, does a better job than going to 1.4 before the rip stage...
...as has always been the case for a long time, front end software often updates quicker than rips, hence all the headaches when new features come out within design applications...
...i think the issue may be with your rip rather than your front end applications...
Andrew
...as has always been the case for a long time, front end software often updates quicker than rips, hence all the headaches when new features come out within design applications...
...i think the issue may be with your rip rather than your front end applications...
Andrew
- Thread starter
- #5
Yes the rip is the problem when sending 1.4, 1.5 or 1.6 due to their ability or lack-of to flatten the transparency properly. (My print vendors require 1.3 files). But the problem still occurs when I use Indesign or Acrobat 7 Distiller to flatten the files. As I am a prepress service provider I do not have control over the rips that are being used to plate my files and to suggest that an Art Director or Designer can not use all of the new Adobe features that make their jobs easier is not an option. I did speak to Adobe about this problem and I was basically told that this is as good as it gets at this time. And that I should prepare the files as we did in the past (raster in Photoshop/vector in layout program) to eliminate the flattening process. The common element when I see this pixel shift is Photoshop .psd files layered with other .psd files and Indesign elements. If I take all of the .psd elements and rebuild them in Photoshop and the bring the image into Indesign as one image the problem is gone. Rebuilding supplied files are becoming an SOP.
You might try one thing - just as a test. Open one of the problem files and use the Press pdf export (assuming you did not change it) and see how it comes out. That setting will output 1.3 unless you change it and gives the highest level of flattening. We've had very few problems with using that. In fact, the only time we print postscript files anymore is when we need a fully grayscale pdf for newspapers or magazines. However, we never use psds (always tiff with no lzw compression) and never layer one on top of the other (always combining, saving as tiff and placing.
One problem with ID preset pdf exports is that people often select "Print" instead of "Press" thinking that Print is what you send to the Printer. If people ae sending you pdfs only, you might try telling them to use Press and see if that helps. Print does not give adequate flatteneing quality.
If the problem files are coming from one or two sources, you might contact them and ask them nicely if they could combine the psds and possible place them as tiffs. That's certainly not a lot of work on the designer's end. Just - nicely - explain to them that problems are occurring at the production stage.
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
One problem with ID preset pdf exports is that people often select "Print" instead of "Press" thinking that Print is what you send to the Printer. If people ae sending you pdfs only, you might try telling them to use Press and see if that helps. Print does not give adequate flatteneing quality.
If the problem files are coming from one or two sources, you might contact them and ask them nicely if they could combine the psds and possible place them as tiffs. That's certainly not a lot of work on the designer's end. Just - nicely - explain to them that problems are occurring at the production stage.
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
jm
Is there a particular reason you are recommending that the combined PSD files be saved as a TIF before placing in ID? Why not leave them as a flattened PSD since ID handles them very well - even if they are being exported to 1.3 PDF.
Another point I'd like to make is that if these PDFs are going out to a range of printers, save them as PDF/X1-a and then the compatibility issues disappear.
Is there a particular reason you are recommending that the combined PSD files be saved as a TIF before placing in ID? Why not leave them as a flattened PSD since ID handles them very well - even if they are being exported to 1.3 PDF.
Another point I'd like to make is that if these PDFs are going out to a range of printers, save them as PDF/X1-a and then the compatibility issues disappear.
Eggles:
Yeah: It's always easiest to err on teh side of KISS. With tiffs, everything always works abd its not hard to hit Save As. If it has to be edited in PS it'll just opn up with no loss.
If you flatten in PS and save as tiff you're pretty much guaranteed to get the proper result. A decent part of my work is "consulting" which translates to "Help. It didn't come out the way its supposed to." - usually on the afternoon before deadline.
ID, in a good version, has only been out for about 3 years (version 3). An awful lot of people at the production end still have to get used to it, including updating things like rips to deal with some of the features. We deal with some printers that could not separate pdfs until this year. Designers. on the other hand, hgave a tendency to expect things to work just as it does on their monitor.
If somthing is only a little trifle at the design stage but could be a PITA past that stage, I always recommend taking the time at teh design stage
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
Yeah: It's always easiest to err on teh side of KISS. With tiffs, everything always works abd its not hard to hit Save As. If it has to be edited in PS it'll just opn up with no loss.
If you flatten in PS and save as tiff you're pretty much guaranteed to get the proper result. A decent part of my work is "consulting" which translates to "Help. It didn't come out the way its supposed to." - usually on the afternoon before deadline.
ID, in a good version, has only been out for about 3 years (version 3). An awful lot of people at the production end still have to get used to it, including updating things like rips to deal with some of the features. We deal with some printers that could not separate pdfs until this year. Designers. on the other hand, hgave a tendency to expect things to work just as it does on their monitor.
If somthing is only a little trifle at the design stage but could be a PITA past that stage, I always recommend taking the time at teh design stage
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
Hi jmgalvin,
ok this is offtopic but I must say that I don't agree.
I too do a lot of consulting and problemsolving as well as teaching InDesign, and I must say that I almost never encountered problems, when everything is done the way Adobe advises. In some cases you had to use a workaround but never with flattening PS-files to create a decent pdf.
The original poster has been mocking around with the flattener settings and I presume without knowing what he has changed. So there you have one possible hickup.
What does colorshift means, that the printout is different from his screen? Is he using Colormanagement? Are the PS-files in RGB, or in Color?
Has the type some transparency on it? Has he placed it on a different layer?
And so on.
You are right when you say that the real stable versions of InDesign are the CS1 and CS2 versions and that a lot of designers have no knowledge of the technical implications of their layouts. Mostly they feel so confident about their knowledge from other applications, or there is no time to get the knowledge to do the proper thing.
It is not the manufacturer of a tool, InDesign in this case, that is responsible for the wrong use (sometimes they are).
From my experience I can say that InDesign does a fine job if you use the tool the Adobe way, but often I encounter that people want the cheaper soft but want to keep their Quark ideas... always a wrong principle.
By the way, you often help people in a good way.
Greetz
Carlow
ok this is offtopic but I must say that I don't agree.
I too do a lot of consulting and problemsolving as well as teaching InDesign, and I must say that I almost never encountered problems, when everything is done the way Adobe advises. In some cases you had to use a workaround but never with flattening PS-files to create a decent pdf.
The original poster has been mocking around with the flattener settings and I presume without knowing what he has changed. So there you have one possible hickup.
What does colorshift means, that the printout is different from his screen? Is he using Colormanagement? Are the PS-files in RGB, or in Color?
Has the type some transparency on it? Has he placed it on a different layer?
And so on.
You are right when you say that the real stable versions of InDesign are the CS1 and CS2 versions and that a lot of designers have no knowledge of the technical implications of their layouts. Mostly they feel so confident about their knowledge from other applications, or there is no time to get the knowledge to do the proper thing.
It is not the manufacturer of a tool, InDesign in this case, that is responsible for the wrong use (sometimes they are).
From my experience I can say that InDesign does a fine job if you use the tool the Adobe way, but often I encounter that people want the cheaper soft but want to keep their Quark ideas... always a wrong principle.
By the way, you often help people in a good way.
Greetz
Carlow
Carlow: Please remember that the original poster is prepress guy who's had problems separating pdf's generated by ID. He got a white line where's it's not supposed to be. He didn't do anything wrong,he just inherited it. He siscovered that the problem arose when psds were overlapped and found that if they were flattened in photoshop and reinserted, the problem went away. My guess it that the problem files are coming from one shop.
Prepress and print people have do deal with many, many different things, ID, Quark, Pagemaker, Publisher, Framemaker, Illustrator, even Word and Wordperfect; not to mention complicated rips and machines. That's a lot to understand. A designer, who want's the best outcome for his client should try to create something that works easily all down the production line.
Adobe makes superb stuff and your reference to doing things the Adobe way is good, but to often "designers" (I use the term lightly because an awful lot seem to just buy some program and choose not to really learn the thing)think that what they "want" should just happen. I can understand complaints when something is a big, time consuming deal, but simply layering up a couple of psds in Photoshop and flattening there, is just a trifle.
It really just boils down to "can't we all just get along?"
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
Prepress and print people have do deal with many, many different things, ID, Quark, Pagemaker, Publisher, Framemaker, Illustrator, even Word and Wordperfect; not to mention complicated rips and machines. That's a lot to understand. A designer, who want's the best outcome for his client should try to create something that works easily all down the production line.
Adobe makes superb stuff and your reference to doing things the Adobe way is good, but to often "designers" (I use the term lightly because an awful lot seem to just buy some program and choose not to really learn the thing)think that what they "want" should just happen. I can understand complaints when something is a big, time consuming deal, but simply layering up a couple of psds in Photoshop and flattening there, is just a trifle.
It really just boils down to "can't we all just get along?"
Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4
- Thread starter
- #11
Carlow,
Your statement about me mocking around and not knowing what I am doing is insulting. Since the job that is creating problems is an ad I can not post the files, but I would love to see it run through the Adobe system and come out the way it should. I have had many people try, even Adobe Tech, and the only way to make it run successfully is to combine the psd files and then flatten them into a tiff in Photoshop. As jmgalvin seems to understand, prepress has been put in a very tough spot by Indesign. We have no control over the design of a job nor do we have control over the equipment that will be used to print the job. Our only position is to get the job to print correctly and on time no matter what work arounds, software or hardware is being used. I recently attended the pdf conference in Orlando Florida and came away from it knowing that my problems and concerns seemed to be shared by many others in the prepress end of the business. I apologize for my frustration in my original post and did not mean to ruffle the feathers of those who are championing Adobe ID. Thank you to those who offered some direction.
Your statement about me mocking around and not knowing what I am doing is insulting. Since the job that is creating problems is an ad I can not post the files, but I would love to see it run through the Adobe system and come out the way it should. I have had many people try, even Adobe Tech, and the only way to make it run successfully is to combine the psd files and then flatten them into a tiff in Photoshop. As jmgalvin seems to understand, prepress has been put in a very tough spot by Indesign. We have no control over the design of a job nor do we have control over the equipment that will be used to print the job. Our only position is to get the job to print correctly and on time no matter what work arounds, software or hardware is being used. I recently attended the pdf conference in Orlando Florida and came away from it knowing that my problems and concerns seemed to be shared by many others in the prepress end of the business. I apologize for my frustration in my original post and did not mean to ruffle the feathers of those who are championing Adobe ID. Thank you to those who offered some direction.
Hi Frank1314,
You are on the receiving end of the process, my critique was on the man or woman who created the file, so don't feel attacked.
I found one thread that talked about your problem at adobe.
So they probably used EPS, like Quark always wanted it for best results, but in InDesign they should have used another format.
So my remark stays: designers should read the manual to see how there workflow should change when they use InDesign.
greetz
carlow
You are on the receiving end of the process, my critique was on the man or woman who created the file, so don't feel attacked.
I found one thread that talked about your problem at adobe.
So they probably used EPS, like Quark always wanted it for best results, but in InDesign they should have used another format.
So my remark stays: designers should read the manual to see how there workflow should change when they use InDesign.
greetz
carlow
- Thread starter
- #14
jmgalvin,
I know Indesign did not do anything wrong other than to give designers the ability to produce files that may or may not rip properly depending on how the file was built. I was only attempting to see if anyone had any suggestions on how to get multiple .psd files to flatten without the negative artifacts, pixel shifts or white outlines. (Other than building the file in Photoshop.) Leaving the file un-flattened (1.4 or higher) as suggested by Adobe only moves the problem to the print vendor. Although my comments were a little facetious or snide, my original post was not meant to condemn Adobe or their products. I have been using their products since Photoshop 1.0 and Illustrator 1.1 were released and have for the most part loved them. I have been in the DTP prepress business for over 15 years and I completly understand that the front end is moving faster than the back end. Thank you again for your suggestions.
I know Indesign did not do anything wrong other than to give designers the ability to produce files that may or may not rip properly depending on how the file was built. I was only attempting to see if anyone had any suggestions on how to get multiple .psd files to flatten without the negative artifacts, pixel shifts or white outlines. (Other than building the file in Photoshop.) Leaving the file un-flattened (1.4 or higher) as suggested by Adobe only moves the problem to the print vendor. Although my comments were a little facetious or snide, my original post was not meant to condemn Adobe or their products. I have been using their products since Photoshop 1.0 and Illustrator 1.1 were released and have for the most part loved them. I have been in the DTP prepress business for over 15 years and I completly understand that the front end is moving faster than the back end. Thank you again for your suggestions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question