Placing .psd files for printing

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

I place Mostly layered PSDs with transparency.

I also place layered tiffs with transparency. saved with zip compression.

I also place layered PDFs with transparency.

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

I knew I had done these checks when CS2 came out.
The same image saved as several formats, all sizes in MB:

TIFF flattened
no compression: 4,6
ZIP compression: 2,5
JPG compression: 0,36

TIFF layered
no compression: 12
ZIP compression: 8,8
JPG compression: 6,2

PSD no compatibility: 9,3
PSD max compatibility: 14

PDF (preserve Photoshop editing off)
no compression: 4,7
ZIP compression: 2,6
JPG compression: 0,3

PDF (preserve Photoshop editing ON)
no compression: 14,4
ZIP compression: 12,4
JPG compression: 10

Which means that PDF with editing capabilities is the largest possible file format. But for produtction purposes there is a smaller alternative.

Thanks
Gerald

[Bob Levine]

> Which means that PDF with editing capabilities is the largest possible file format.

Which certainly makes sense since you're really saving two files.

> But for produtction purposes there is a smaller alternative.

Depends on what you mean by "production purposes." If you need
editability as well as vector and text data, no, there's not. If you
mean for packaging for print, then yes, PDF with no editability would be
smaller. Anything else would lose the vector and text and quality would
suffer.

Bob

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

Use TIF, when you do not use transparency in your image.




this is a false statement. tiffs do support transparency.

any file that uses Jpeg compression is using a lossy format.

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

this is a false statement. tiffs do support transparency.




It was not a statement, it was a recommendation.
Many people still work with other programs besides InDesign that will not support transparency in TIFs.
In these situations a TIF containing transparency is a sort of ticking timebomb.

That is why I usually recommend the three cases I lined up above. Anyone having a special workflow can of course decide differently, but those three are safe.

If you mean for packaging for print




Yes, thank you, that is what I meant in this case by "production purposes". It might be the lesser evil to have two files (a flattened PDF and a PSD) instead of having just one file that takes 20 minutes to load.

[Klaus_Scharfenstein@adobeforums.com]

Gerald wrote:

None of the formats supports spot colours, transparency and vectors at
the same time.




Uhm - even PDF won't? Which is the one that PSD PDF won't support? Vectors?

Klaus

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

even PDF won't




No, you cannot save transparency and spot colours in a Photoshop PDF at the same time.

The reason for this is that a spot colour in Photoshop is a channel and transparency is only defined on layer basis.
What you get is basically a transparent CMYK layer and an opaque spot channel on top, destroying the mask.

PSD can transort transparent images including a spot channel. But of course PSD does not bring the vectors into InDesign.
Mind you, there is a bug in InDesign that means you should be careful with PSD that contain spot-channels and masks. A spot value of 80% results in 64% in InDesign, if there is only a transparent CMYK pixel at the same place. So be careful to use spot-colours in PH only where there is CMYK-colour as well.

[Bob Levine]

> instead of having just one file that takes 20 minutes to load.

If it's really taking that long, there's a problem somewhere.

Bob

[AlFerrari]

Mind you, there is a bug in InDesign that means you should be careful
with PSD that contain spot-channels and masks. A spot value of 80% results
in 64% in InDesign, if there is only a transparent CMYK pixel at the same
place. So be careful to use spot-colours in PH only where there is CMYK-colour
as well.




Gerald,

Can you say more about this bug, or provide some link(s)?

Does this bug create problems for placed PSDs with several adjustment layers having layer masks, and some layers have transparency in order to blend the adjustment effect with other layers? In the course of color correction work, I place several instances of such a PSD file in an IDCS page with different layers turned on/off and color proof from IDCS. (I am aware that in IDCS2 the layers can be turned on/off from ID, but I am using IDCS, so I save several versions of the PSD file.)

Since the layer masks are channels, does this bug come into play? In other words, would this bug cause IDCS to produce different color output if flattened PSDs were used instead of layered ones?

Thanks,

Al Ferrari

[Gerald_Singelmann@adobeforums.com]

Al,

I haven't checked all circumstances and connections of this bug (that's Adobe's job, isn't it?).
You can see it for yourself, by opening this PSD in Photoshop, check out the spot channel, then place it into InDesign and check the spot channel with the separation preview.

<http://www.indesign-buch.de/tipps/spotntransp.zip>

I've looged the bug with Adobe some time ago, but of course I have no idea when or if it can be mended.

Does this bug create problems for placed PSDs with several adjustment
layers having layer masks, and some layers have transparency in order
to blend the adjustment effect with other layers?




No, the problem I can see involves only spotchannels in areas where the layers are masked (less than 100% opacity) There is nothing wrong with anything involving only the layers (i.e. only CMYK)

Since the layer masks are channels




No, Photoshop makes a clear difference between spot-channels, mask-channels and alpha-channels. This applies only to spot-channels.

Sorry to cause any confusion.

Gerald

[AlFerrari]

No, Photoshop makes a clear difference between spot-channels, mask-channels
and alpha-channels. This applies only to spot-channels.




That sets my mind at ease. Thanks for the prompt response.

Al