For or against

[Simon_P_Cooper@adobeforums.com]

G5 Mac
InDesignCS2

When creating PDF for commercial printing are you for 'Bicubic Downsampling' or 'Do not Downsample' under Compression and your reasons. I have have been told to leave it at the default that is Bicubic Downsampling by the printer and any reasons for this?

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

only if the image is 10% bigger or smaller in ID,

I will make any size changes in Photoshop greater than that when downsizing bicubic sharper is best.

[Phil_Taz@adobeforums.com]

isn't the question whether to downsample at all or not? I would say downsample for sure, never did me any harm...Presumably, makes smaller file, never tested it myself.

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

never did me any harm




It *will* do you harm, when you have technical illustrations in 600ppi TIFs instead of vectors.
Don't laugh, these things are rather common.
Resampling those leaves nothing to be printed.
There are other examples of the same nature.

Plain photos can be resampled but with inferiour quality than by doing it in Photoshop as Buko said

[Phil_Taz@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Gerald, I will have to test, as this is common workflow....as for plain photos, I think Buko was referring to major downsizing where quality is affected by the downsampling method. I think the poster was being asked to avoid 'any' downsampling which is safe except for your example.

(Note, Buko edited while I was composing this, he has qualified that statement now...)

If you are working on a print job where quality is paramount, you would not be placing images at super high res' anyhow, you would be sizing and adjusting in photoshop with appropriate resolution after correct downsampling.

[Simon_P_Cooper@adobeforums.com]

Thanks guys, I checked some of the 300dpi images and they were reduced in InDesign down to nearly 50%. Next time I will reduce them in Photoshop.

[Richard_Sohanchyk@adobeforums.com]

I've heard the arguement that you don't have to resize an image at all anymore since distiller does that for you when exporting PDFs. I still size the majority of my photos in PS. For junk like client supplied newsletters I don't sweat it so much but for stuff I design I pay attention to stuff I do.

[Phil_Taz@adobeforums.com]

If you are a clever designer, work out your layout, run a batch conversion with the best downsampling to scale your pic collection to 20% bigger than you expect to place them.

Keep the originals though, because you might need to do some different scaling.

Place the one that is closest to your output size at 300ppi.

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

I've heard the arguement that you don't have to resize an image at all
anymore since distiller does that for you when exporting PDFs.




yes the software will do it. but its like doing on the fly RGB to CMYK. You can do it but not for a high end job.

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

Gerald:

The question is, should people rely on the various continuous-tone raster file formats to try and do the job of a vector or font, when there are so many workflows out there that will destroy the extra resolution (like Creo/Scitex or Artwork Systems set to defaults)?

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

The question is, should




I disagree. I think the question is, should the workflow assume that they *don't* use pixel formats?
There may be reaons. Like a CAD programm that can save perfect TIF in any resolution but saves lousy EPS or worse formats.
If pixel is what the users has, the workflow should not damage them.

[Simon_P_Cooper@adobeforums.com]

I can see Buko point about resizing in Photoshop for top quality images, but if there was lot of images to resize it mean more labour work right? So would we really like to go down this route especially if you are up against a deadline?

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

Just remember if the reduction it too much the image will go all soft looking. You need to do a test to see what is acceptable for you. as for having too many images to downsize create an action in Photoshop and do a batch. By using bicubic sharper you will get much better results than letting ID downsample.

[Wayne Guy]

I don't have any vested interests here, but I use "LinkOptimizer" everyday. It's from <http://www.zevrix.com/>
I deal with designers who give me way over-rez files linked in InDesign. This solution is way quicker than toggling Photoshop, though LinkOptimizer automatically uses PhotoShop.

[AlFerrari]

Wayne,

How did LinkOptimizer fair through the InDesign CS2 changes of 4.0.2, 4.0.3, and 4.0.4 as far as updating the links at the correct size and cropping?

Al Ferrari