Are you running this on an offset press? Then you will need to use a channel for the spot color and save the file in DCS2 format.
It would help to know how you are using this logo and where it will be printed and on what type of press.
If it is just printing on your desktop printer then you can take a different approach to adding color.
First, more information please.
Yep, I’m running it on an offset press. I thought that DCS2 format didn’t support transparency and that the best format for IDCS was the native photoshop format – not sure though.
Color mode must be cmyk. Add spot channel and move the image into the spot channel.
Save to a psd and place into InDesignCS. IDCS can recognize the spot channels in a psd. What it cannot do is recognize vector in the psd image.
I know how to make a spot channel but (I know this sounds a bit stupid) how do you move the logo into the spot channel? Would I then colour it with a pantone colour in Photoshop (not sure how to do this either)? How does this differ from making the file greyscale then colouring it in IDCS? Also how does it differ from the monotone option?
I just want to get my head around all these different options and what the differences are.
Continued help is much appreciated.
how do you move the logo into the spot channel?
If image is grayscale:
Command + A
Command + X
Image>Mode=cmyk
In channels, add your desired spot color.
With spot channel selected, Command +V
Save to psd and place in InDesign.
How does this differ from making the file greyscale then colouring it in IDCS?
Since I need it to have a transparent background
InDesign cannot colorize a transparent grayscale image. It can only colorize a flat grayscale image.
Also how does it differ from the monotone option?
Monotone route is doable since InDesign CS will support a transparent monotone. (Save as psd) It will not place in Illustrator CS though.
<< Save to a psd and place into InDesignCS. IDCS can recognize the spot channels in a psd. What it cannot do is recognize vector in the psd image. >>
I must have the Special Edition versions because InD CS will accept placed Photoshop CS .psd files containing Vector Layer masksand they Exportt correctly to PDFs too!
Ann
Make a 72ppi image and add some live text to it.
Save out to Photoshop pdf.
Save out to PSD.
Place both in InDesign and label them for ease of recognition.
Make a pdf from InDesign or print it out to your printer.
You will find the test prints at a rasterize resolution of 72 ppi instead of maintaing the vector mask of the text for psd images.
InDesign does not "see" the vector in the text for psd images but will see it for pdf images. (InDesign WILL see clipping paths though in psd images)
<<You will find the test prints at a rasterize resolution of 72 ppi instead of maintaing the vector mask of the text for psd images. >>
You are correct. Of course!
:~)
<< InDesign does not "see" the vector in the text for psd images but will see it for pdf images. (InDesign WILL see clipping paths though in psd images) >>
InDesign does "see" both Vector Layer masks and Clipping Paths in .PSDs.
However, InD appears to "rasterize" them as soon as they are "placed" whereas the PDFs retain their crisp vector outlines right through InDesign into an Exported for Press PDF.
John, thanks for your help so far.
When I cut and paste the logo into the spot channel, the logo which was previously solid, now is semi transparent – I can partially see through it – I’m not sure what I’m doing wrong. Thought it might have something to do with the solidity value in the spot dialogue – I changed this from 0 to 100%, but with no change happening. Also the overall colour is a lot lighter than the original pantone colour – the logo is just embossed around the edges and most of the inner part is solid, so I would have thought that at least the centre part (which is solid) would be 100% of the spot colour. The CMYK channels and layer 1 are empty at this stage – not sure if this is supposed to happen.
Just one last thing: can the new gradient map feature be used to to colourise a grayscale image with tints of a single spot colour and then somehow get it to output to a separate plate?
The solidity simulates the opacity of the ink. It will not affect the percentage the image outputs at. (solidity will effect trapping though)
Use the eyedropper to measure the tint % of the image. What it shows is what it will image at.
John, Kind of a rambling question: Thanks for your input here. Do you work in a service bureau? I am interested in using PS format images in a catalog I have normally used EPS with clipping in the past. With over 1000 images, I am thinking that file size will increase dramatically if I use native Photoshop files as opposed to EPS with clipping. What are your thoughts on this? Is there a formal list of all the things you can have available to work with (like transparency and spot color) when placing PS files in InDesign? File size is my main concern, but bigger file sizes seem to be less of a problem with systems taking on more RAM – I still like to be frugal in the area of conserving file sizes on any job submitted for printing.
There are a lot of variables Ken. These numbers should help answer your question.
Create a 2" Square cmyk transparent image at 300 ppi. Working file size 1.37 M
Save as transparent PSD (A) 128k
Save as transparent TIF ( B ) 96k LZW/1.8 M no compression Save as transparent PDF (C) 96k
Flatten the image
Save as EPS with a clip path (D) 1.2 M
Save as PSD with a clip path (E) 96k
Save as TIF with a clip path (F) 72k LZW/1.4 MB no compression
Place each file individually in InDesign CS and sent to rip with high resolution default flattener setting. (only lzw tif files ripped)
Resulting postscript file size printing as INRIP separations on the rip: A=250k, B=251k, C=251k, D=267k, E=267k, F=267k
Resulting postscript file size printing as separations on the rip: A=373k, B=371k, C=373k, D=503, E=438, F=439k
So, eps files will always yield large file save sizes and larger rip postscript sizes. The compression used to save a file will affect file save size but it will not affect the rip postscript size.
The smallest reliable file size (generally) is with TIF + lzw compression. The rip size though will always compare closely with psd and Photoshop pdf file size.
Adding transparency to a file will always yield a larger file size than with a clipping path.
So, to answer your question, you will see a great savings in file size if you move away from the eps format. (as long as the application you are placing into supports the format)
As with converting the clip paths to transparency, the extra file size is minimal compared to eps files. With transparency, a bottleneck forms at rip time because of the flattening process taking place. If you factor in multiple images, the flattening process usually takes far less time than ripping eps files. With one image, the time difference is negligible.
As to needing to convert clip paths to transparency, don’t do it just because you can. Only do it if you do not need a hard line edge or if you find it easier in your workflow. Bottom line, the benefit has to be there for you in order to add the complexity of transparency to your files.
Even though I love transparency, there is a time and a place for it and unfortunately, there are still print shops who are not up to snuff in outputting transparecy. (either equipment or employees)
Sorry for the tangents.
btw, I am in prepress for the printing company I work for. 🙂 (which means I push a button for a living)
Tangents Alive! I like it! Your outline methodology for arriving at a conclusion in this instance is what communicates best in a production environment. I put most of my store in 1.) Hire a good printer, 2.) stay in regular communication with the printer 3.) give the printer what he wants. If I were to change my workflow I had better have a **** good reason, then, run it up and down the flagpole for feedback with every department in the chain to the finished product BEFORE it would translate to an actual job.
Wouldn’t it make us look stupid if we had to spend our entire lives learning the process that makes our work happen. No, we just push a button. : )
Thanks for your help John.
Seraya
