I'm having an issue with a PSD file and can't work out whether I'm just missing something obvious, or if this is an Issue?
Basically, I have a PSD with a spot channel over solid and transparent areas of a layered, CMYK PSD file.
When it's imported into InDesign the spot knocks out all the transparent areas of the image, but is overprinting fine on the solid areas.
Its fine and dandy in Photoshop as far as I can tell... But can't for the life of me working out why its not overprinting all over! And this is affecting many files on a Book Cover.
I didn't set it up but its my job to fix.. thats the easy bit. I've worked around it.. But I need to know why this is not working as I'd expect.
It doesn't look to me as if it's overprinting the native Photoshop in most places.
Right, in the areas where the opacity of the photoshop image is less than 100% (i.e. the white glow fading to 0% opacity) the spot appears as though it is knocking out. Look at the spot channel over the ponytail and purple dot, the opacity in this area is 100%. And the spot channel overprints this native photoshop art.
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!
With the same components (psd w-spot channel placed in ID) I can reproduce the same undesired results as you.
The spot channel phenomenon has the same outcome as layer transparency within a psd file placed in ID... It just kinda works.
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.
Change the extension to .pdp and ID will know to open in Photoshop when you use edit originial (and the OS can be told). Photoshop PDF preserves a lot of iinformation that gets flattened or rasterized when ID places a .psd (vectors, and most blend modes are lost when placing .psd, or example).
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?
The only reason to use PDP is so that you can use edit original to edit the file. Otherwise you can safely leave PDF as the extension and use edit with if you need to edit the file and have it open in Photoshop.
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.
If you think PDP should be the default, then file a formal feature request here:
There should be full details on that request and how/why it will benefit users.
459mb vs 644.5mb
A Photoshop PDF can be saved with various image compressions, quality levels, and downsampling for that matter. So you could inadvertently compromise the original quality by saving PDF if you're not careful.
Back to the question of why PDP isn't the default extension when saving PDF from Photoshop, which I think is waht you were asking, rather than why isn't that the default format, I think the answer is that most times when you save a PDF compatible file from Photoshop you actually intend for your readers to see it as a real PDF that they can open in Reader, or so the thinking goes. Not all Photoshop imagery is destined for placement into ID.
If you think there should be a preference in Photoshop for choosing the PDF/PDP default extension, you'll have to take that up with the Photoshop team.
As far as why not make PDF/PDP the default format for saving in Photoshop, I think the answer is largely the same. PSD preserves the same information right up until the point where you place it into ID, and is, I think, the most compact format you can save, and it's a more universally accepted image format, I think, than Photoshop PDF, though I can't say that I've ever heard of a program that would accept placement of PDF that wouldn't accept one made in Photoshop.
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!