Ok, I have [maybe?] a strange question. I'm designing a page layout in InDesign, and I need to save the graphical elements of the page as jpgs or psds. Rather than go back and create them in Photoshop, I would normally export my InDesign layout as a hi-res pdf, then open that pdf up in Photoshop, and then save my images that way. Now, some people that I work with, just do a copy and paste directly FROM InDesign, and INTO Photoshop.
My question is this: going my co-workers route, is there a loss in resolution and color that way? It seems like there would be since copying and pasting using that method just copies to the clipboard.
In case more info is needed: long story short, we are designing layouts as we normally do in Indesign by placing hi-res, CMYK images INTO InDesign. We use Indesign to layout our page as we'd like it. Once we are finished, we hide our text layer and then need to save our art layer as one big flat jpg or psd (reason why is not relevant). As I mentioned earlier, I would normally export as a high res pdf and open that in photoshop, then save it as a jpg or psd that way--thereby, maintaining original resolution and color mode.
Also as stated, my co-workers just group the image layout in indesign, then copy and paste directly into photoshop. Even though they can specify resolution when they paste into photoshop, is that actually a true conversion? By that I mean, is there really no loss of anything using that method?
I'm just wondering if I'm taking an extra unnecessary step by exporting as a pdf first, or, if they're skipping an important step by not doing so.
Please let me know if I can provide any more details. I hope I was clear enough.
I'd certainly vote for your workflow over that of your co-workers, provided you're exporting to PDF in a way that preserves the original images' characteristics.
The others are essentially working at (InDesign's preview) screen resolution/RGB.