I have a problem:
My images in Indesign are blurry.
I did try resizing the frame untill the quality is improved (the frame was already set to 100%) but the quality is still not the same as my picture in photoshop. The display performance is set to high quality.
When I export the document to PDF it is even worse. JPG quality when exporting to PDF is set to maximum quality. The picture is 300 PPI.
Does anyone have a clue what I am doing wrong?
After resizing the frame the effective PPI is 274. But when placing the image (before resizing the frame (the quality is then even worse)) the effective ppi is 300 (the actual ppi is also 300)
Ellis meant .psd, I'm sure.
800 x 909 sounds like a pixel dimension, not a physical dimension. The pixel dimensions don't change as you scale, but if you change the size on the page (the physical dimensions) the resolution changes, and the quality of the preview might change.
You said it was 300 ppi effective and actual resolution, which would make it about 2.66 x 3 inches. ID uses a jpeg preview, not the actual image pixels, on screen, so some of you r loss might well be coming from that. Can you show us a screen shot comparison?
While you have the indesign page open.
File place - click once inside the page to import image - this will import the image same size as is supposed to be.
The file should look quite sharp along as you have ‘High Quality Display’ clicked as mentioned earlier.
Otherwise it could be that the original image has a low dpi resolution, if you can open the original file, change the dpi to higher than 300 dpi, say 600 dpi, also try changing it to different formats such as jpeg, eps, gifs etc to see if any changes.
Also chmge colopur from RGB to CMYK, probably willnot make a difference, but worth a try.
Without having the original file, I am just guessing.
Those are the pixel dimensions, and I can't quite figure out from the screen shot what you have selected, but it looks like the frame is much larger than the image and it was saved in Photoshop at 300 ppi and placed it in ID at 100% (which effectively is scaling it to 25% of what you think the size is).
You're set to use pixels as ruler units, apparently, judging by the dimension in the Control panel. ID doesn't really use pixels as a measurement, and fakes it by mapping pixels to points at 1:1, so to match the pixel dimensions of your images to the ruler dimensions at 100% they must be saved at 72ppi, or you have to scale them in ID. In this case, since the saved resolution is 300 ppi you'll want to scale the image 416.66%, or resave in Photoshop at 72 ppi.
The preview looks pretty normal to me. You only have a few pixels on screen over which to build those slopes (look at the rulers and you'll see each roff slope is only about 130 px wide), so they are going to be jaggy at that size. You should check what the image looks like in your output.
Tried 72 ppi and with 300 ppi at 416.66%. Still no succes. I do see that when I change the size of the picture in Indesign that the picture is indeed improving. But I can't seem to get it to the high quality as I see it in photoshop. Also in pdf it is in that case still no top quality.
With output you mean when I export to pdf?
What is the expected final destination for this? If it's PDF, then yes, view the PDF, but it's also very important that you use the correct settings to make the PDF. Is this destined for screen? If not, you shouldn't be using pixels as your unit of measure, and you don't want to export as interactive PDF.
If you ARE exporting as interactive PDF, keep in mind that ID is going to downsample images with an effective resolution larger than you have specified in the export dialog, and the default is to use lossy jpeg compression, both of which are going to impact image quality negatively. I don't do interactive work, but I would bet that if you place images saved at 72 ppi and export with JPEG 2000 compression you will get better results than placing 300 ppi images.
...I can't seem to get it to the high quality as I see it in photoshop.
You never will. This bears repeating:
Peter Spier wrote:
ID uses a jpeg preview, not the actual image pixels, on screen...
All the resolution wrangling and display quality settings aside, the image you see on-screen in InDesign is not the image you edited and viewed in Photoshop. InDesign literally writes its own JPEG for dedicated use in its display on your screen. Judging the quality of your image in the InDesign editing environment is a waste of your time and energy.
Take your project through to whatever the mode of deployment will be; print, on-screen, etc., and judge the outcome.
Thank you all for replying. Just for the record, the product will be a printed brochure. I will ask for a sample before ordering high amount of printing. I will get get back to you all with the results
Offset print : all images and document needs to set to CMYK, as a rule of thumb, minimum dpi set 300dpi
Colour copier printing : Document can be a mix of RGB and CMYK, but best to do the document in the one colour mode.
I personally always design in CMYK and is easier to convert to RGB then RGB to CMYK
This is pretty poor advice. 300 ppi EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION is a good rule of thumb for offset printing continuous tone images with a fair amount of detail t be viewed at arm's length (derived from the 2X linescreen for a typical 150 lpi commercial print), but it's hardly cast in stone. The actual required resolution depends entirely on the printing method, the type of image, and the intended viewing distance.
But much worse is the notion that you should design in CMYK. Yes, becasue the cmyk gamut is generally smaller than RGB you won't lose many colors in a CMYK to RGB conversion, but all CMYK spaces are device-dependent and you start out by throwing away potential colors from your RGB images if you convert before you know the output space, and if you convert to the wrong space you may lose colors that you could other wise have printed. Once gone, colors are never recovered by conversion.
Leaving the images as RGB until output allows you to use the same content for a variety of output conditions, converting color as required at the time of output. If you are extremely picky about the color conversion, you can convert in Photoshop and place those once you know the correct ooutput conditions, but this is only worthwhile if you tweak colors or sharpness after the conversion. If the limit of the conversion would be a simple "convert to CMYK," or "convert to profile," the results of doing the conversion during PDF export would be identical. Even better would be to deliver a PDF/X-4 file, if the printer can accept it, and let the RIP do the conversions at output.
Peter...You must have a very high horse that you sit upon.
This rule of thumb has as seen me through many a design and print job and not failed me yet, so from experience of working in many print and design departments/agencies, I know what good advice.
I have no problem with using the rule of thumb, but as I said, it's not cast in stone (in fact I know plenty of experts who will tell you 1. x linescreen is maore than adequtes in most circumstances), but the really importan part of that rule is that the 300 ppi values is the effective resolution of theimage after palcing and scaling on the page. You make it sound as if saving an image at 300 ppi is all that's necessary, when in fact the saved resolution is completely meaningless.
If you'd like to know more about the science involved in determining optimal resolution, take a look at Distance-Resolution Formula
Sorry, I was typing too fast. that shold have said 1.5 x linescreen.
Stochastic screening generally requires less image resolution than traditonal halftoning, for any given image, too, and as I mentioned, the level of detail is also important. Some images actually require more than 300 ppi effective resolution for a good print with adequate detail.
Peter, Bob, I’m standing by my comment, as I feel it is justified in todays and in the future of design. I appreciate that many people come from different backgrounds that post on this forum and not all information applies to certain creative projects, print or web criteria, that’s for the individual to make their own mind up or to search for further advice .
I have enjoyed posting on this Forum, and hope that some of my posts have been helpful, but to be dismissive and insulting to my contribution is offensive.
I don't claim to be the font (excuse the pun) of all knowledge or know all the answers, just want and try to pass on my experience, which may be of use or not, but to call my information as 'poor' a comment that needs rephrasing or go on a customer care course to respond politely.
It’s responses like 'poor' would put forum posters off submitting helpful suggestions. I would have thought the Adobe community being a clever and creative lot from beginner to advanced would be more open minded, friendly and understanding that everyone can make a comment without being insulted and make a valued contribution.
Everyone is welcome to contribute here, but if you post information be
prepared to have it questioned. It's happened to me, it's happened to Peter
and it's happened to just about everyone else.
Let's move on, shall we?
Offset print : all images and document needs to set to CMYK,
The conversion to CMYK can be the same anywhere in the workflow—Photoshop, Export, Output. So the current wisdom is why bother doing it in Photoshop especially if the job is headed to different output devices, which would need different CMYK values (profiles) to maintain the intended color. Sending default US SWOP CMYK to a newspaper would likely cause big problems.
Fifteen years ago a managed color conversion on export or print was not possible.
But you also can't say that images should always be left as RGB. If you want to optimize a job for one destination, RGB can have its own set of problems. It can be difficult to get the full CMYK gamut on a conversion without post CMYK edits (100% cyan, magenta, yellow, or black). If you want neutral images to separate without casts, a different profile with heavier black might be needed.
If you guys could just step away for a moment, I would like to repeat my question to Sebastian:
Did you try changing the view percentage to 100%?
I believe it is the 106.1% that is causing the images to look choppy. They don't look blurry to me.
Do you have this image as different file type? LIke AI or PSD with (Vector) form layers?
If you have the AI file (I suppose that the original was created there) I would strongly recommend to use that file, not a rasterized image.
If you have a layered PSD file save that as PDF and import that file.
For Fonts and Vectors 300ppi will look always pixelated or blurry if printed or in HR PDFs.