Do you mean PPI? EPS files don't show resolution values because the format supports both raster and vector data in the same file.
The use of EPS in InDesign has been discouraged for may years in favor of using a native format like .psd or .ai, or for Photoshop files that also contain vector data like type, PDF. EPS does not support transparency, among other drawbacks.
Not sure what you mean by "PPP" or "pop indications" but in any case, I can say for certain you're gaining nothing by using the EPS format for raster images. In fact you're losing out...big time. In an all-Adobe workflow (which I assume you're running if you're running InDesign), by far the best image/graphic formats to use are the native formats; PSD, AI, in some cases, PDF. With these, you get true transparency and transparency interaction, a full compliment of color-managed workflow enablers, and other features borne of full integration, such as Smart Objects. None of that applies to EPS.
yes, i meant PPI.
did you ever tried to do a 600 products catalogue with .psd or .tiff ?? believe me you will eat your hair one by one, just waiting while scrolling or touching anything anywhere in InDesign.
.jpg are working but the quality for printing is not as good as .eps. I admit nobody cares but me when i see the final printed product, but it is still breaking my heart. I already use .psd or .ai or .pdf and that is working perfectly fine until a certain point.
I guess i am too old fashioned but i am not narrow minded. so i will try to use .psd instead of .eps with path and see the difference in the weight final .pdf.
did you ever tried to do a 600 products catalogue with .psd or .tiff ??
There shouldn't be any meaningful performance difference between placed .psd and .eps, so it might be a hardware issue. You're linking and not embedding right? You might try adjusting your Interface>Live Screen Drawing preference. And obviously the Display Performance preference would affect viewing performance.
As John points out, besides the lack of resolution info, EPS also doesn't support transparency or layers—PSD layers can be turned on and off in the layout. And although you can embed a profile in an EPS image, InDesign won't recognize it, so correctly color managing placed RGB EPSs downstream could be a problem.
so i will try to use .psd instead of .eps with path and see the difference in the weight final .pdf
When you export a PDF the format of an image file doesn't matter. On export the incoming pixels are converted and compressed based on the export dialog settings and not the image format. You can use Acrobat's Object inspector to see that—place the same file as an EPS and PSD on a page, export to PDF, look at the image attributes (pixel dimensions, bit depth, resolution, compression filter) and they will be the same.
Thanks Rob, I'll try this way. I'll just have to find the "Live Screen Drawing Pref" in French.
I just must say that InDesign recognize my color profiles from .eps images, probably because of the settings I choose to register them (as a printer told me to do so). I just had this PPI issue since 2 years.
I worked already with .psd when transparency was needed. I just preferred to use .eps rather than .jpg. But i'll go the new way.
Thank you all for your answers !
@mppastini – there is a workaround getting the effective PPI of a placed PhotoShop EPS file.
You could use InDesign's Preflight feature for this.
Add a new Preflight Profile where you define minimum PPI for placed images. This will not only work for placed image types like TIFF, JPEG or PSDs, but also for placed PhotoShop EPS files. If you define a otherwise ridiculous value of 1200 or even 2000, preflight should report the effective PPI for all placed PhotoShop EPS files like that:
In my example above (screenshot) you can see, that the placed EPS's effective resolution is 536 ppi.
Great !! Thank you !
InDesign recognize my color profiles from .eps images
Yes you are right, it is Illustrator EPSs that don't support color management.