Linked images suddenly

[carlo_nicolaou@adobeforums.com]

The imported images have started updating differently. When I change the resolution in PS the image resizes in Indesign – it didn't do this before. Is it to do with the update??

Thanks
Carlo

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

Yes, 4.0.3 behaves differently when updating images than 4.0.2.
It already stirred quite a boil over here...

[carlo_nicolaou@adobeforums.com]

You are joking........!!!!!

This was one of the greatest pleasures of switching to InDesign! Is there a way I can go back to the older version? We've got magazines to produce here!

If this is true – it's the dumbest thing that's ever happened.

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

We've got magazines to produce here!




And you install updates without prior testing?
Now you are joking.

[thomas olbrich]

Ah, us is beta testing. Is it a Win-win situation?

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

When I change the resolution in PS the image resizes in Indesign




Surely you mean when you change the print SIZE, not necessarily the resolution.

This is something about InDesignCS2 (not CS1) that I just learned recently.

If you place a 6" square image in ID and scale it to 50%, then scale the image in Photoshop to 50% and relink or update, it resizes the image to maintain the same print size adjusts the scale in ID accordingly... so it is similar to the way Illustrator relinks.

So we are saying that the recent update undoes this???

1 step forward, two steps back

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

Apparently... yes <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc0cc09/4>

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

In 4.0.2 we have this behaviour:
- updating keeps the size on the page the same
- replacing by calling file > place keeps the scaling attribute the same (image gets smaller)

In 4.0.3 we have this behaviour
- in both cases the scaling attribute stays the same -> the image changes its size.

As far as I remember 4.0.0 showed a behaviour like 4.0.3

[Melinda_VanLone@adobeforums.com]

Is there any way we can put it back? I really liked it when it kept the image appearing the same size (adjusted the scaling in other words). At the very least make it a preference! How do we put in a request for that?

[Melinda_VanLone@adobeforums.com]

Is there a forum for requesting they change it back? Or make it a preference the user can turn off and on?

[Melinda_VanLone@adobeforums.com]

Is it my imagination or did they break the feature in 4.0.2 that allowed placed images to automatically size? For example, before if I had a placed image at say 50%, then went to Photoshop and re-sized the image, then went back to ID it would automatically "fix" the sizing when I updated the image. I didn't have to put it at 100% in other words, the program did it for me. I loved that! Such a time saver. And now, I've updated to 4.0.3 stupidly and it's not working any more.

Is there a preference I can choose somewhere to put it back?

[Dave_Saunders@adobeforums.com]

Up to you whether you report this as a bug or a feature request (or both). Use the Contact link at the top right of this page.

The reason for the behavior change is listed in the 4.0.3 ReadMe where it describes the following as a bug:

--------------

After enlarging the canvas size of an image in Adobe Photoshop, the linked image does not enlarge or scale correctly in Adobe InDesign CS2. The edited file with the new canvas size fills the content frame rather than the graphic frame of the placed image, making the image look smaller rather than larger. [1273425]*

--------------

The fix for this is what has changed the behavior (back to the way that all versions of InDesign worked before 838 of InDesign CS).

The asterisk at the end means that this is a new bug fix with 4.0.3.

Dave

[Dave_Saunders@adobeforums.com]

Note, as time permits, I'm going to merge these topics into a single topic (this one). I'll probably do something similar to the Intel Macs rounding error topics.

Dave

[Forum Host]

[Haydn_Clark@adobeforums.com]

Is there an easy way to uninstall the update and go back to what this program should do, like QuarkXpress always has done.

[carlo_nicolaou@adobeforums.com]

How can we change this back. We're finding more and more occasions where it's really tripping us up. I'll say again – It's the craziest 'update' I can remember.

[Todd_Shirley@adobeforums.com]

Wow, people sure are upset about this.

This is the way Quark has always worked. As Dave mentions, they changed the behavior in build 838 of CS, without really informing anyone, so it caused a lot of problems here in my shop, because all my operators are used to it working like Quark. To me, it seems intuitive: if you change the SIZE (scale) of a picture in PS, it changes in the layout program. It begs the question - why are you changing the scale of images in PS? Just change the resolution and leave the physical dimensions alone. This is the way the world of pre-press has been doing it for years.

I realize that some people have adapted to this workflow, so I agree that it should be a preference that can be changed. This is exactly what I was screaming about in this forum when the change occurred with the 838 update. However, I don't really understand what the big deal is regarding sizing vs. changing resolution in Photoshop. If you are modifying your images in Photoshop anyway, what does it matter which set of numbers you change? Is there some advantage to having images with smaller (or larger) physical dimensions vs. different resolutions?

The main issue for me was exactly what Dave quoted in his post. If you enlarge the canvas in order to "extend" and image to fill a graphic frame, InDesign would scale it down to "fit", not keep it the same scale, which is what I want. The workaround was to re-call the file with the place command. Now I don't have to do that.

-Todd

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

Well if you place images at the correct size in the first place.

[Chuck_Braasch@adobeforums.com]

Okay Buko: If you want to go through all our magazines and "correctly size them in the first place", go right ahead. Though, we won't pay you the extra money for the extra time it'll take. Just meet our productions scheds.

Anyway, my art department agrees with the majority: Change it back, or offer an option, at least.

[Bjorn_Ost@adobeforums.com]

It begs the question - why are you changing the scale of images in PS?
Just change the resolution and leave the physical dimensions alone. This
is the way the world of pre-press has been doing it for years.




It is so much easier to just check the percentage in ID and then use that to scale to 100% in PS than to do the maths of just changing the resolution.

You would have all sorts of image resolutions in ID, it doesnt really matter for quality but I like my things neat! :).

I would not mind seeing a unsharpen mask option in the PDF export. Something that scales with the downsampling needed to get to your target resolution. Would hardly have to bother with downsampling in PS then (unless for the very few (are there any?) that still send live files to the printer).

[carlo_nicolaou@adobeforums.com]

We produce several current affairs magazine with hundreds of images. These are fixed at the end by checking the colour and resolution in PhotoShop. It will add on hours of work to go through the magazine and reposition the images again. We're in the business of telling stories and making money. This has effed it up.