Here you go... I hope it makes sense! Its stripped right back, so in a new InDesign file, with only the Cyan box to show the knockout

actually that does make sense jeffrey, and you're right peter it is odd! if i place this file into indesign on its own, woul you expect the same areas to knockout? or with the absence of any indesign element will it overprint?

im going to check when i get back to work tomorrow, but would be interested to know what you think before i get there.

this cover is made up of many different PSDs overlapping, so it was expected they would retain their overprints throughout.. ive done so many special finishes before i cant believe ive never seen it!

Hmmm, Well you're right about the same results. I can't believe I've never seen it before, but I guess I have never used a Spot channel over transparency (In 13 years!).

But I'm not sure I agree it just kinda works.. Could you clarify what you meant by "same outcome as layer transparency within a psd file placed in ID".

The Fairy is a good example.. Its a layered PSD and the wing is transparent, when placed in ID it works as I expect. The PSD Layers I see in Photoshop transfere exactly as I see them into InDesign and there is no new areas of knockout.

When we add a spot channel in photoshop, when placed in ID it knocks out the area underneath. We can set ID objects to overprint, why does it not automatically overprint PS spot channels? or at least have an option..

Am I wrong to see this as an area which should be changed somehow? I supprised its not come up before...

Thanks for all the imputs though, I find it all very interesting

oooooo Photoshop PDF works.. in CS6 at least. Its not really a fix though, as saving as a PDF will not work if people don't know they can open it in Photoshop, and having .pdf as an extention doesn't help.

Annoyingly I think having seperate files for Spot and Image is the best way to go... I just created a PSD which contains only the Spot and set to Darken in InDesign.

Cheers for that Peter, the PDP is a new one to me! And it seems to work as I want it too.. this leads to another set of questions.

Why is PDP not the default file extension for a Photoshop PDF? Is there a way to have .pdp without the manual change.

AND what problems am I likely to see over a PSD?... If the PDP maintains layers, transparency, blending modes, vectors and spots why would I save into a PSD format anymore?

Hi Bob.. We got to the .pdp file format because the .psd with spot channel I was supplied gave me a knockout spot, and this was unexpected to me.. see above discussion.

Now we have arrived at the fact that saving as a pdp works, why would I not just save all my layered photoshop files as a pdp? Does it lose some information? I have just saved a file as a pdp and a psd.. 459mb vs 644.5mb.

I cant find any detailed info on the differences between .psd and .pdp but as far as im seeing here, a .pdp works as I want it to, retains all photoshop data, and is smaller!

Im wondering why it isn't a default option in PS... I know it is in PDF form, but that isn't very good when you have large numbers of people needing to access and recognise the file as a native PS file.

Yes i realise this Jeffrey.. Sorry I should have said the .pdp was saved with "preserve Photoshop Editing Capabilities". PDF 1.3, no compression and no downsampling.

Also thanks for all your replies.. we're now slightly off point. But I think Im there!

Its a shame PSD doesnt maintain spot channel overprint as default, or give us an option when saving or placing in ID.

Thanks for the last answer to Peter, your absolutely right about the PDF example, I think im getting getting a little polerized in this whole discussion... Why doesn't this Adobe program do exactly as I want and not what the masses want!

haha.. Cheers all!