Can you give us a screen shott with the effect settings and the object?
Don't use EPS! Use AI, PDF, PDP or PSD instead.
Here are two screenshots; the first showing the drop shadow dialogue box and the previewed effect on the object image, the second showing the altered angle of the shadow after zooming out and zooming back in to the layout.
After 20 years of using Quark XPress, this simple project was intended as a trial of InDesign, so not a good start!
I appreciate your reply, but am intrigued as to why you suggest avoiding EPS files. This format has been an industry standard since I've been designing; QXP has no problems with encapsulated postscript, surely InDesign is capable of handling this file type?
I don't see anything wrong with your screen shot? What is the problem here? Did you turn on the print preview?
EPS is an old outdated file type as PostScript is anyway. Avoid postscript as far as you can, run away from it. It does not support transparency nor color management. InDesign can use and import EPS but EPS does not support any new functions which new versions of Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop has added. InDesign is here far superior to Quark Xpress, so it makes a difference if you use this odd and terrible file type.
Make a try: Save your logo in Illustrator with a drop shadow once as EPS and once as AI file. Place both of them on the same colored background and you realize what I mean.
Or, have a logo with spot colors. When you use EPS you have to have a version with spot colors but you have to have also a copy with process colors if you have to print without spot colors. When you turn on the ink manager in InDesign and activate to output all spot colors as process colors and you are making your output via postscript (print or distill) the spot colors are not converted properly, so you have to use another EPS with process colors, with an AI/PDF you can automatically convert spot to process.
EPS is always causing huge problems, and I don't understand, why people use it up to now. It is NOT an industrial standard anymore today. Time has changed, EPS has not been developed since the late 90s and PDF became its successor.
Willi, the shadow on the right seems to be cast upwards slightly, not what you should expect from a 60° light source... It took me a while to spot it too.
I do think it's a mere display issue, quite possibly caused by the use of EPS. Try turning on 'Overprint Preview' for a more accurate display.
I second the recommendation of AI files for logos, though they're far from the top of my list of lingering 90s bad practices. InDesign is as capable of dealing with them as Quark, but Quark struggles with AI or PDF. Regardless of the results of the OP's trial, the switch is inevitable, as Postscript is dead and Quark is terminally ill with no hope of a recovery.
I think with high quality display it would be more reliable, and the problem is also that EPS has often a wrong preview, or at least a much worser preview than PDF or AI or PSD. To be honest I would only judge according to an exported PDF rather than of the preview of an EPS in InDesign. I don't trust EPS’.
Does the logo already have a drop shadow applied, one applied from the graphics application that it originated from? There is some other effect happening, the shadow with a negative X offset, would not appear on the right side of the logo as it does in your screen capture. Keep in mind, effects in Indesign can be applied to both the object and the content of the frame. Your capture is showing the panel with only the effect applied to the graphic. Do you have any effects applied to the object? Can you replicate this with the logo saved as .ai file ?
Jeffrey – no, the shadow effect has only been applied in ID (and only to the content, not the frame), but I'll try saving the logo in '.ai' format and see if the problem persists.
Congrats, Danny, you win today's 'spot-the-difference' competition, and save me having to explain the issue further.
I've tried, with varying degrees of success, employing the 'overprint preview' option.
Here's a screenshot of the whole layout without the 'overprint preview' checked:
…and here's the same layout with 'overprint preview' on:
Switching to 'overprint preview' seems to help the logo shadow on the right of the layout, but doesn't alter the one on the left (which is way out of line).
The layout is quite large (six pages of 2500mm high by 1445mm wide) so maybe the physical dimensions are causing the programme to struggle with previewing).
Thanks for your time.
One thing that is revealed with these captures... there are multiple transparent elements overlapping each other. The logo with shadow, the brown panel with transparency and multiply and the image of the surfer. With projects similar to this, I have experienced transparency malfunction in the export to PDF (non-flattened). But, unlike your situation, you see the mishap in Indesign.
Jeffrey, the only transparency occurs in the logo shadow; the whole background was created in Photoshop and imported as a flattened tiff. Because of the size of the panels (it's for a trade exhibition display) I worked up the raster elements separately, keeping the dpi down to 60 (plenty enough for the viewing distance when the panels are produced) and then adding the text and logos in ID to retain their vector sharpness when creating the production pdf files.
It would be easier to do it in InDesign.
If you use Photoshop images, use PSD if not text or vectors are used,
use PDF or PDP if text or vectors are used.
Use RGB images, even for print.
TIFF is also causing bad previews, but causes no problems in PDF export.
Use layered files, don't flatten layers in Photoshop.
That's best for InDesign.
Thanks for the clarification. Although the projects that I experienced transparency issues had multiple overlapping transparent elements, they were large trade show displays similar to yours. Normally I create to final size, but for my issue, I reduced file dimensions, and enlarged at output and it worked out.
I feel your issue is more application memory based, than the use of eps graphics.
As much as I agree with Willi's recommendations, I'm inclined to agree with Jeffrey that it's probably the scale that's making the bug occur rather than file formats.
How does it look when exported to PDF?
Working at 25% or even 10% scale might help, if the supplier of the displays accepts artwork that way. I'd be loathe to do that personally, as I prefer to work 1:1 whenever possible.