1 person found this helpful
If you are placing multiple images, select several at a time during the place command. When you get to the InDesign page, instead of clicking one-at-a-time, click once, but before you release the mouse button, use the up and right arrows to create a grid. When you release, your images will all be in frames the same size and scaled. You can then use the Fit Image to Frame command if you like.
Good workflow suggests sizing and rezzing them in Photoshop first; then place them.
Another method: build an Object Style for the pre-built frames. The Object Style can be designed to scale content to fill proportionally. Each time you place into such an object-style-controlled frame, it will scale itself in to fit.
If you click and drag the frame as you place, the image will scale to the size you drag.
in addition to the two excellent workflows given, you can also import all your images, click-drag (without releasing the mouse button) then use the arrow keys (up key to add lines, and right key to add columns). You can then still keep on draging your mouse to addapt the size of all your blocks on the fly. Once you have enough blocks created, realease your mouse button.
Pretty usefull to know that you can ask blocks to fit your images before actually importing contents:
First create empty blocks at you desired size. Go to menu Object>fitting>frame fitting option in in the content fitting >fitting menu, choose for example "fill frame proportionally". If you reimport an other image on those blocks, the content will fit proportionally and so on.
Of course, as suggested, you can embed those "fit proportionally" feature in a object style.
When I work with many images to be imported, I use a script to do it!
I make the layout with anchored text frames with the name of the figure to be imported as: @Figure_1.psd@
When all the basic layout is done, I just launch the script and it's done: the figures are imported and redimensionned to the dimensions of the blocks! With only one click that takes … 1 second!
interesting but are you scripting youself? or do you use an existing script, be careful, suggesting people to write they own scripts only concerns a very few portion of Indesign users.
… mais ce qui l'est, c'est la curiosité [encore que !…] !
Un minimum d'efforts de recherches ici ou sur Internet donne accès à une bibliothèque (quasi infinie) d'outils particulièrement redoutables !
Le script dont je parle a été écrit il y a 7 ans (!!!!) par mon ami le génial scripteur Kasyan Servetsky, qui le propose for free sur son site web :
Just their apparent placed size relative to the page layout, in my case 11" x 17" tabloid size.
By default images are placed at 100% of their output size, so you will have to scale the image as you place either via dragging or an object style as others have suggested.
But you might also look at the source of the problem. Many cameras and phones default the resolution of images to 72ppi, which creates a very large output dimension. So from an iPhone 4:
Wow, I've been using InDesign (and Pagemaker before that) for years and I never knew that shortcut.
This will save me time when I create newsletters that have photo sections with a dozen or more photos per page.
One good thing about these forums, even if you are well versed with a program and a lot of shortcuts, there is always something that you never knew and will come in handy in the future.
But perhaps I should have added more detail. When I run pictures through PS, I am generally resetting the Resolution from 72ppi to 300ppi with the resample switch turned OFF. Therefore, I am not resampling the images. The advantage is less InDesign file bloat as I place images into the InDesign file. I am less concerned with PDF file size for commercial print workflow.
I do like the idea of limiting the number of resamples to 1 time at the rip. I think, though, that the technical degradation can be so slight as to be indistinguishable in many forms of printing.
The way I setup color management (color management policy: convert to working rgb) from PS down through ID and out to Acrobat is to set it all the same so that pictures are not being redundantly re-interpreted at each step of the way.
There is no advantage/purpose to changing the resolution in Photoshop without resampling or doing some other operation at the same time. You haven't changed the pixels at all and ID certainly doesn't care what the saved resolution is other than to calculate the 100% scale, and perhaps a slightly smaller embedded image preview, but I'm not sure I would say those previews cause file bloat.
but I'm not sure I would say those previews cause file bloat.
I quick test from my 20mp Canon where I'm scaling to 10% in order to get to an 8" width, the difference is around 700k for one image. Hard to tell if the big downscaling would create a performance drag if you were scrolling through a large number of pages with many scaled images?
Did you resample or just change the saved resolution?
Did you resample
No I resized.
A version where the actual res is 72ppi and the effective is 684ppi saves as 2.1MB, and a version where the actual and effective res are both 684ppi—the image scale in ID is 100%—is 1.3MB.
For the 72ppi version ID would be building the 100% preview proxy at 76"x56" vs. 8"x5.33" for 684ppi version, so I think it makes sense that larger proxy would show up in the file size.
Interestingly if I place the 72ppi version via click and drag, where there's never a full 70" preview generated, I get a file size in between—1.8MB
At this point I suppose it depends on your definition of bloat, and your hardware capabilities, whether it is worth the time to resize just to resize.
The click-drag-arrow trick is insanely great, thank you for this great suggestion!
The click-drag-arrow trick is insanely great, thank you for this great suggestion!
If the image containers (graphic frames) would be prepared as a template on a master page or on an actual page, it would be a one-"click"-no-drag-trick :-)
How the images are placed in the graphic frames can be determined by some options as Nicolas in reply #5 already pointed out. Hover over a graphic frame with the placegun loaded—small brackets will surround the placegun icon—and a single click will place the image to a prepared graphic frame.
and if there is still an image in a block and we want to place a new one with the placegun icon loaded we can just press the alt key. Love that so unknown feature.
And here some other ones:
To unload the placegun in one go, simply click a tool in the Tools box.
To unload a single image press ESC.
Want to go to the next image stacked in the placegun, use the ARROW DOWN or ARROW RIGHT key.
The one before? Use the ARROW UP or ARROW LEFT key.
While you are cycling through the images stacked in your placegun, open the Links panel and watch the listed images there.
If you want to undo the action simply do an undo…
Peter Spier wrote:
…and perhaps a slightly smaller embedded image preview, but I'm not sure I would say those previews cause file bloat.
Peter, this is something I was aware of, but since it doesn't affect the type of work I do, I don't pay it much mind. That said, I did a little experiment where I downloaded 25 random images and saved them at 4 resolutions (72, 100, 300 and 1200) without resampling, so there was no change to the pixels. I placed all 25 on a single page ID document, like this:
…one file for each resolution. Because the images were all placed at the same size, they had identical effective resolutions:
…(this is the top left image, and it's the same on all 4 documents).
The ID file sizes were quite different:
…but the PDFs exported at High Quality Print were all identical:
I expected the files with the highest resolution would yield the lowest ID file size, but I was surprised that the 72ppi file was slightly smaller than the 100ppi file. As to whether or not this matters, the 100ppi was more than four times larger in file size than the 1200, but since this was a one-page test, I'm not sure if that would carry over to a large book in the same proportion.
I don't really have a recommendation based on this, but I thought you or others might find it interesting.