1 person found this helpful
Make the guides you create in Photoshop visible objects (like with the Line tool). Don't use the guides feature. Place the guides you create in Photoshop on their own layer. Save the file as a Photoshop (PSD) file.
When placing (File > Place in InDesign, choose Show Import Options and you can choose which layers you want to be visible in InDesign.
When in InDesign, you can use Object > Object Layer Options to turn on and turn off the Photoshop layers as necessary.
What about taking a snapshot on photoshop with guides ON and drag into InDesign. Making too many guide layers in photoshop would look clumsy.
Why not get a x y coordanance reading from the Info panel in Photoshop
Then use those xy co-ords to make the same guides in InDesign
That would be the most accurate way.
It may or may not be more convenient, but it's no less accurate than a guide or guide-like object.
It would be the best thing to do.
Err, that's a really weird answer... I'm definitely sure it would be "best," but even if it is, you should tell us why.
It's very frustrating to be given a recipe for something without the explanation...it's hard to remember without justification, and it's hard to weigh competing recommendations if you don't understand their basis...
Doing something by-the-numbers should be just as accurate as doing something by guides. Both are open to different kinds of errors. Transposition of digits can be quite common for some people, and bad mouse coordination can lead to missing your target with a guide. Both are errors that should not happen, but I would not say that one is clearly less plausible than the other. I think a lot depends on the person involved. But for a given use case, one can definitely be more efficient than the other.
err, that's a really weird answer... I'm definitely sure it would be "best," but even if it is, you should tell us why.
"definitely not sure it would be 'best.'"
Sorry - but if you make a mistake with transposition of the numbers that's your own fault.
Recreating the guides in InDesign would be best. I fail to see how that's a problem.
I think you're arguing for the sake of it.
Eugene, when you declare something is better than another thing and refuse to explain why, you come off looking rather poor.
I implore you to reconsider.
And to follow that up with an attack against the motives of the person questioning you? Please don't do that in public.
I think it's important that we not say one way to do things is better than another way without explaining the logic of it, and definitely important that we not say one way is better when that's not always true. I don't think that is "arguing for the sake of it,' but if you think so, I guess I won't push it -- it's an important thing to be concerned about, regardless of what you choose to label it.
As experts, we need to give advice that is coupled with justifications. It's very hard for non-experts to resolve conflicts between guidance from multiple experts, and explaining the reasons behind advice is an important step. Also, experts sometimes make mistakes, and are sometimes even wrong.
On a more basic level, I have difficulty remembering things if I am not taught the reason behind them. Perhaps you learn differently, but I think there are a lot of people who learn and remember the way I do.
Johm, I don't come off poor. If you don't like my suggestion that's fine.
Creating guides in InDesign that are the same as photoshop is the most accurate way.
It doesn't need an explanation.
Thanks for all InDesigners for quick reply!
If Adobe has not provided such feature (viewing guides ID to PS vs PS to ID) then there is no need to quarrel.
But such feature would be really helpful.
It's a good idea for a feature. It's just x y co-ords on the page. If your photoshop file is large enough to account for bleed that would have to be taken into account to.
I like the idea of using same guides from photoshop.