InDesign Images

[cgmpowers]

Is there a way to raster an image ONCE its been placed into an InDesign document? Do I have to raster each image individually before placing it?

Someone here, before me, made an InDesign page with 12 photos in a rowed block. Each image eventually is still at full resolution even though they're all thumbnail size in the InDesign document.

Before I start resizing all these photos--is there just a simple way to rescale them and raster them inside InDesign without having to edit them in Photoshop?

When I export the page as an EPS file, its over 140 megs...of course far too large to email.

[Ned]

Keep your images at full resolution within InDesign. Don't export as an EPS, export as a PDF. You can then set your compression resolution when you export. You can also adjust your transparency flattener presets, if you need to rasterize vector art.

[resdog]

I think he means that the original person put in a full size imge (say 8.5x5.5) into a smale space (2x1), shrinking it in InDesign.

Are the images all the same size? If so, the easiest would be to do an action in photoshop that resizes to the corret one, and then relink them.

There isn't a way (that I know of) to do this in InDesign. You need to resize the images in photoshop so they are the correct size. That will lower your file size. Hope that helps!

[Craig B]

Ned's right, PDF and set compression settings appropriately. Even if the originals are larger and reduced in InDesign, using PDF and compression settings it will "fix" the problem.

[resdog]

but pdf compression settings lower the resolution of the file. So if the image was originally a 8x5 image at 300dpi, brought into InDesign and shrunk to 2x1, effectively INCREASING resolution to 1200dpi. So when you use the compression settings to take it down to a manageable size (say 150dpi), you are getting rid of 1050 dpi. Whereas if you started with a 300 dpi image at 2x1, then took it down to manageable size, you are only removing 150 dpi, leaving the image more clear and less pixellated.

At least, that's how it was explained to me.

[urstwile]

I generally prefer to have my images placed in a document at as close to 100% as possible, for a couple of reasons. As the original poster has discovered, the file size starts to get huge, and printing takes way longer than it needs to. In addition, I prefer to have Photoshop's interpolation engine come into play with images, rather than have InDesign interpolate. I generally downsize my images with Bicubic Sharper, and then import them back into InDesign.

[fredrich]

I generally prefer to have my images placed in a document at as close to 100% as possible, for a couple of reasons. As the original poster has discovered, the file size starts to get huge, and printing takes way longer than it needs to. In addition, I prefer to have Photoshop's interpolation engine come into play with images, rather than have InDesign interpolate. I generally downsize my images with Bicubic Sharper, and then import them back into InDesign.

For example when making a CD cover in Illustrator. Let's say the canvas of the front is about 12 x 12 cm. And I want to place an image at 3500 x 3500 pixels to use on the cover. If I interpret your post correctly; you would rather resize the image to say 1000 x 1000 pixels before you place it in Illustrator and resize it to match the canvas?

[urstwile]

Yes. :)

Illustrator and InDesign don't have use of Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper interpolation engine, which greatly enhances the detail on an image that's been downsized by a large amount in the layout. In addition, importing an image at 25% of it's original size impacts the file size of either the InDesign file or the Illustrator file that it's placed in, and reduces the printing efficiency. And although that file size can be minimized when going to a PDF, I don't think that Acrobat uses the same interpolation engine as Photoshop does either, so your image will end up looking soft (muddy) when you reduce by that vast amount.

Before Photoshop introduced the Bicubic Sharper engine, it was routine when downsizing images in Photoshop to apply an Unsharp Mask. The Bicubic Sharper interpolation mostly eliminates the need for that step.

[pmkcreations]

The other advantage over the pdf vs. the eps is if the file is using any fonts, proper embedding of the fonts in the pdf will help eliminate problems for the end user.

The other suggestion would be to make a postscript file of the page with bleeds and just the Photoshop and transparency elements and open the postscript in Photoshop and save it as a single flattened tiff file and place that back into InDesign on a separate layer, turn off the other layers and export that file as a pdf.

[Ned]

I wouldn't do that second option, as you don't want your text to become rasterized...

[urstwile]

^^^what Ned said^^^ :)

[pmkcreations]

I know better than that. I thought by stating to make the postscript file of the photoshop files and transparency items, that would imply that you don't include the type.

[fredrich]

Yes. :)

Illustrator and InDesign don't have use of Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper interpolation engine, which greatly enhances the detail on an image that's been downsized by a large amount in the layout. In addition, importing an image at 25% of it's original size impacts the file size of either the InDesign file or the Illustrator file that it's placed in, and reduces the printing efficiency. And although that file size can be minimized when going to a PDF, I don't think that Acrobat uses the same interpolation engine as Photoshop does either, so your image will end up looking soft (muddy) when you reduce by that vast amount.

Before Photoshop introduced the Bicubic Sharper engine, it was routine when downsizing images in Photoshop to apply an Unsharp Mask. The Bicubic Sharper interpolation mostly eliminates the need for that step.

Does Illustrator/Indesign handle the resizing better when the image is closer to it's final size in the artwork, or does it have to be resized at the exact size in Photoshop before placed in Illustrator/Indesign to get a good result?

And isn't it better to link a raster image (and have it separate from the .pdf) rather than embedding it into the file that is going to print?
My experience is that an image and the .pdf together result in less file size than only the .pdf but with the image embedded.

[urstwile]

In terms of resizing images, I try to have the image as close to 100% as possible. This makes the file size more manageable, and prints more efficiently. In addition, it takes advantage of Photoshop's superior interpolation, as I said.

Generally, I will link to the images in InDesign and Illustrator, rather than embed them. This does not mean that they link in the PDF, they'll be embedded there, but the file size will definitely be smaller in the layout files.

[fredrich]

Generally, I will link to the images in InDesign and Illustrator, rather than embed them. This does not mean that they link in the PDF, they'll be embedded there, but the file size will definitely be smaller in the layout files.

Will images automatically be embedded in a PDF?

[urstwile]

Yes.