Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

is eps suited for a newspaper

Jun 15, 2009 12:25 AM

am new to indesign and just got a job in a publishing company responsible for the layout of their newspaper, am used to working with jpeg but them my predecessor was using .eps files, my problem is that the eps files appear bad in document but good in print, but lately i streched a picture too much and had no way of telling if its pixilated or not, how can i notice that a picture has been stretched too far.. PARDOM MY ENGLISH

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 1:14 AM   in reply to makate

    If the images are vector files (like logos, that are supposed to have smooth edges) then eps files are much better than jpegs.  If you go View>Display Performance>High Quality Display you will see them better but the views will update slower.  You can stretch a vector eps file as much as you want and it will never lose quality, however some eps files also contain bitmap images that will lose quality when you stretch.  The info panel may help here.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 1:33 AM   in reply to makate

    makate wrote:

     

    am new to indesign and just got a job in a publishing company responsible for the layout of their newspaper, am used to working with jpeg but them my predecessor was using .eps files, my problem is that the eps files appear bad in document but good in print, but lately i streched a picture too much and had no way of telling if its pixilated or not, how can i notice that a picture has been stretched too far.. PARDOM MY ENGLISH

     

    How is it that you are stretching an eps file?

     

    An eps file should be used as it is provided. You should go back to the original file, before the eps was created, to manipulate elements.

     

    I'm sure if this eps was provided from an advertiser they wouldn't want it stretched and if it was produced inhouse as I said I cant see why you aren't working with the orginal source file.

     

    high resolution pdf's would be a better format.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 5:13 AM   in reply to makate

    That is not a good way to do it.  Don't do anything to the jpegs that they send you, apart from converting them to CMYK in Photoshop if necessary.  Place them in Indesign and set the resolution on export (I assume you're exporting to PDF?).  That will mean that they all have the same resolution and you won't run into problems if you enlarge something.  Use the info panel to see what their resolution is, the effective figure will tell you if you're making a photo too big.

     

    Osgood: for stretching read enlarging, it was never said that the stretch was only in one direction!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 5:18 AM   in reply to makate

    And yeah, Classroom In a Book is good, for print I also highly recommend Pariah Burke's Mastering InDesign CS3 for Print Design and Production.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 7:09 AM   in reply to makate

    makate wrote:

     

    i hope this is not too late to save my job..

     

    so you agree that i should not convert these images to eps, i should place them as jpegs. What is the correct resolution because some pics are sourced from the net and might not have the same res as the ones from the journos.

     

    When i package the file i get a warning about transparency blend not matching the pdf, what is this all about.

     

    I need this job i can't tell the boss am failing..

     

    Personally I would not convert them to eps. Tiffs are propably a better option.

     

    Not sure that all rips (raster image processors) handle jpgs, check with your print house if they can.

     

    Depends on the quality of the publication as to what resolution you use. If it's a glossy journal 300dpi, if its newsprint you could possibly get by on 150dpi. Using images sourced from the net, which are usually poor quality 72dpi, arent really good enough to use for print.

     

    If they are digital images supplied by the journalist then they may provide them at 72dpi but they would normally be very large in area size. In this instance you can resample them down to 300dpi in photoshop.

     

    I would not worry about the 'warning'. Your print house will handle the output.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 8:18 AM   in reply to makate

    It would be better to save as TIFF or PSD.

     

    Everytime you save a jpeg you reduce the quailty. Tiff and PSD are lossless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 8:33 AM   in reply to makate

    makate wrote:

     

    if they handle jpeg do you recommend that i keep them, and the res should be at 150dpi, the images from the journos are very big yet the res is 72dpi this confuses me a lot, so if i resample them to 300dpi should i again reduce the res to 150dpi to match the other images..

     

    If your prepress company (the one you use to output the InDesign files) says they can handle jpgs then I see no reason why you should not leave them as jpgs.

     

    To be on the safe side I'd leave all of your resolution at 300dpi. If that much resolutiuon is not required it won't matter as the rest just gets ignored at output stage whereas if 300dpi is required and you send 150dpi images then they may not look as sharp as they should do.

     

    Its best always to check with your prepress company what the requirements are.

     

    Digital images can be very large in dimension and yet only have 72dpi. In photoshop change the dpi to 300 make sure the 'resample image' box is unchecked. You should see the image reduce in dimension whilst keeping its clarity. A good check is to zoom into the image 2 or 3 times, if it doesnt pixilate too much from the original then you know it will be good to print.

     

    Your newspaper may have a media pack where all the print specifications are written down.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 15, 2009 11:52 AM   in reply to osgood_

    You don't need to resample in Photoshop, Indesign will do it when you export!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2009 1:42 AM   in reply to makate

    Makate, to get the maximum resolution for your images you don't have to do anything!  Leave them how you get them!  Indesign will automatically downsample them to a suitable resolution when you export to PDF, for example Press Quality is between 300 & 400dpi.  You only have to use Photoshop if they're RGB and your output needs CMYK.

    Talk to the next user (i.e. printer or prepress operator) of your files and ask them what they need, they will appreciate you trying to put standards in place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2009 3:39 AM   in reply to makate

    This means that the photo is 300ppi (Actual) but at the size that you've got it you can only get 170ppi (effective).  So if you want to output at 300ppi (recommended for high quality offset print) you'll either need to make the image smaller in Indesign or get a bigger image.  A problem I get is that sometimes photographers email their pictures and send a smaller one so it'll come faster.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2009 4:51 AM   in reply to makate

    makate wrote:

     

    what if the picture is smaller than the space reserved, can't i strech them and how can i know i have reached the limit, someone suggested the Info panel so this is what i see:

     

    Actual ppi: 300x300

    Effective ppi: 170x170

    what does all this mean in terms of the picture quality.

     

    You can enlarge the image in photoshop without it losing that much definition, 50% or so. You'll lose a bit of quality but it won't be noticable to joe public and it may well be that a larger sized image is not available.

     

    Then bring it back into InDesign and look at the resolution info.

     

    Persoanally I'm not keen on this idea of leaving your images as you have recieved them and letting InDesign do the output calculations. I'd rather manually make sure the images contain the correct resolution, color space etc etc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2009 6:55 AM   in reply to osgood_

    The effective ppi is the resolution at the print size. 170 ppi is pushing the limit, but should work on newsprint with a screen in the 100 lpi range or lower.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 4:43 AM   in reply to makate

    Sorry.

     

    Window > Info... this shows you all kinds of useful information about whatever is selected.

     

    The "rule of thumb" for resolution (and the only resolution that matters is "effective resolution") is that it should be two times the line screen at print size. The line screen is how densely  the halftone spots are packed on the paper, and affects the balance between spot size, detail and number of gray levels (or other color levels) produced in the printed image.

     

    Two times is actually more than is really required -- 1.4 x is about the minimum -- and newsprint is very porous so you can't print using high lpi values. I think 85 to 100 lpi is pretty typical these days, so 200 ppi effective resolution should be fine for a target, and 180 ppi ought to be no problem. Even 150 ppi will probably be OK on newsprint for most images.

     

    Crash on export to PDF can be caused by a lot of different things, from bad fonts or images, to not having enough temp space. Do you get an error message?

     

    Peter

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 7:31 AM   in reply to makate

    Try exporting ranges, or even individual pages, and see if any of those work. If so, you may be able to isolate a problem page, or determine that it's a resource issue (if every page will export alone or as part of a smaller range).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 7:50 PM   in reply to Peter Spier

    When Makate said "i hope this is not too late to save my job..

    so you agree that i should not convert these images to eps, i should place them as jpegs. What is the correct resolution because some pics are sourced from the net and might not have the same res as the ones from the journos."

     

    It inspired me to add my thoughts to this conversation. I am a basic knowledge user of ID so I'm not going to be able to give you expert advice like the others, but I want to offer my simple thoughts.

     

    First, do what the experienced people said—talk to the prepress people and begin establishing a good working relationship with them to define the requirements for publication. I find that if you establish good lines of communication and ask intelligent questions, people usually are motivated to help you. Don't be uncomfortable saying to your new employer that you don't know the answer to a particular situation, followed by a confident attitude that you will sure find out. You have an incredible resource here in this forum where you can receive great help. Employers appreciate when their people are hardworking and dedicated to doing a good job. Makate you seem that and more. I think you'll do fine when you get your feet wet in this job.

     

    This part I'm going out on a limb because I may not know what I'm talking about, but when you said "what if the picture is smaller than the space reserved..." Here's my input.

     

    1. Always save the photo you receive or obtain in the original format.

    2. Make a copy that you then use to edit to whatever resolution you learn from the prepress people is what they want.

    3. If the reserved space is 2 x 3 or ? edit your photo in photoshop to fit that space.

     

    So, hang in there, be optimistic and go for success. (Donuts or cookies now and again to show your appreciation to the help you receive from the prepress people couldn't hurt either!)

     

    Good luck,

    Patty

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 8:25 PM   in reply to pattyclarke

    1. Always save the photo you receive or obtain in the original format.

    Good advice, as long as you mean "leave the original alone".

    2. Make a copy that you then use to edit to whatever resolution you learn from the prepress people is what they want.

    There is rarely any good reason to upscale resolution. So if your prepress people ask for 300 ppi, downscaling to 300 ppi is harmless, but if you're starting with a 100 ppi photo, upscaling to 300 ppi just hides the low resolution. Adding resolution doesn't add any new detail and you'll end up with hi-res garbage. For that matter, unless you're going to sharpen your photos, downscaling to 300 ppi is unnecessary, unless you're considering file size and RIP time.

    3. If the reserved space is 2 x 3 or ? edit your photo in photoshop to fit that space.

    Again, not really necessary. Cropping before Indesign is harmless but unnecessary, unless (again) you're considering file size and RIP time.

     

    Ken

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 9:56 PM   in reply to Kenneth Benson

    Ken,

     

    Thanks for your comments about my basic instructions to Makate. I knew the experienced people would chime in. My main purpose for talking was to give Makate a feeling of confidence that there are life-lines here that can help. I don't want Makate to lose the job and I like the donut/ cookie idea!

     

    I don't know about the RIP etc. that you speak of (that's the stuff I thought the prepress people would help with) but I do have one question. If Makate was forced to deal with a small-sized 100 ppi photo for placement in the newspaper would a slight upscaling for newspaper print be really noticeable to readers?

     

    Patty

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2009 11:14 PM   in reply to makate

    Forget the donuts... Let's all lift our glasses and toast you Makate for a job well done. This forum is a wonderfully helpful place. Enjoy your success.

     

    Patty

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2009 4:34 AM   in reply to makate

    Congratulations, Makate!

     

    One more bit of advice, though...

     

    If you are re-saving any image for print don't use jpeg as the file type. JPEG uses lossy compression and every save cycle does some damage to the image, though how much depends on the quality settings for the save. JPEG also does not support transparency and layering which limits what you can do.

     

    Instead, use TIFF or even native PSD files. Any layout application can import tiff, and it has the option for lossless LZW compression if you need it, and InDesign is quite happy importing native PSD files (also natively compressed without loss), my personal first choice.

     

    Peter

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2009 5:00 AM   in reply to pattyclarke

    I don't know about the RIP etc. that you speak of (that's the stuff I thought the prepress people would help with) but I do have one question. If Makate was forced to deal with a small-sized 100 ppi photo for placement in the newspaper would a slight upscaling for newspaper print be really noticeable to readers?

    It's not that upsampling resolution would be noticeable; it's that it wouldn't make any difference except to hide the fact that it's low-res. Preflight programs look specifically for low-res images, but if you upsample, it's still going to look like sh*t, but preflight will be happy with it.

     

    Ideally, users wouldn't try to print low-res images, but many people think they can copy pictures from the web and use them in print. Web art is usually 72 ppi; print art is usually 200-300 ppi. Web art looks bad in print unless you make it really small.

     

    If you need to print a picture and it's low-res, you have four choices:

     

    1) Get a higher-res original

    2) Print it small

    3) Print it anyway

    4) Upsample it to high-res and print it anyway.

     

    Choices 3 and 4 are really the same thing, except that preflight won't see the problem in choice 4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2009 5:05 AM   in reply to Kenneth Benson

    Well choice four is nominally better than choice three because at least you get to look at the result and mess around with it. Judicious use of filters sharpening and blurring can sometimes improve things a little, but a lump of coal is never going to be a diamond in our lifetimes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2009 6:37 AM   in reply to makate

    Why all this talk of upsampling? It sounds to me that there is a complete lack of understanding of the resolution to file size. Most Jpegs from a digital camera have plenty of resolution. all that needs to be done is changing the ppi without resampling anything. after the ppi has been changed the image needs to be saved as PSD or Tiff.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2009 7:28 AM   in reply to Buko.

    Most Jpegs from a digital camera have plenty of resolution.

    Yes, they do. And if everyone got their pictures from a camera I wouldn't be droning on and on about resolution. But many, many people get their pictures from the internet, and these pictures are almost never acceptable quality for print. Those same people who think web-quality pictures are good enough to print often think you can make something out of nothing and "fix" those pictures by upsampling.

     

    There is no free ride with images. Resolution is like money: printing more than you really have is counterfeiting.

     

    Ken

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points