DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > Print Design

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2005, 11:03 PM   #1
michelen
Member
 
michelen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In California, where Berkeley, Oakland, and Emeryville all meet.
Posts: 100
Default Sizing Images

Greetings,

We do several pubs. One of them is "Star Wars Insider" magazine. The designer for this magazine is very talented, and pretty much production oriented, except for two things:

He designs pages (in InDesign) with placed images scaled to 25% or even smaller. And he does not crop his images. So I end up with a 2-page InDesign file that is 40+ megs because all of the linked images are huge. I've been around since the days of 20MB hard drives, and this just makes me nervous.

He upsamples with impunity. If he receives an image (usually from Lucas) that is not large enough for his purposes, he thinks nothing of upsampling it in Photoshop. He won't scale it in InDesign because he knows we will yell at him. But if he upsamples it in PS before he places it, then we don't know. Until I try to retouch and start seeing artifacts all over the place.

My questions:
Should be break his arm(s) to force him to size and crop his BIG images to keep our file sizes down?

What are the rules for resampling? In my world, the rule is: DON'T. Am I wrong?

Best,
Michele
michelen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 12:33 AM   #2
LoisWakeman
Staff
 
LoisWakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uplyme, Devon, England
Posts: 1,402
Default

Michele,

I always understood it was good practice to have your images sized appropriately to display at 100% at the output resolution, and to have bigger files than necessary was not very professional, and wasteful of transmission time and disk space.

OK, neither of those 2 are so important now (though lots of us in the UK still cannot get broadband), but why wait ages for a huge file to open when you could do it better?

As for resampling, then in my area of relative expertise (photography), it has to be done very carefully to avoid getting a mushy result, and should only be done if necessary to avoid pixelisation in the output.

Break his arm, by all means!
LoisWakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 01:49 AM   #3
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelen
Greetings,

We do several pubs. One of them is "Star Wars Insider" magazine. The designer for this magazine is very talented, and pretty much production oriented, except for two things:

He designs pages (in InDesign) with placed images scaled to 25% or even smaller. And he does not crop his images. So I end up with a 2-page InDesign file that is 40+ megs because all of the linked images are huge. I've been around since the days of 20MB hard drives, and this just makes me nervous.

He upsamples with impunity. If he receives an image (usually from Lucas) that is not large enough for his purposes, he thinks nothing of upsampling it in Photoshop. He won't scale it in InDesign because he knows we will yell at him. But if he upsamples it in PS before he places it, then we don't know. Until I try to retouch and start seeing artifacts all over the place.

My questions:
Should be break his arm(s) to force him to size and crop his BIG images to keep our file sizes down?

What are the rules for resampling? In my world, the rule is: DON'T. Am I wrong?
I always believed that the rule was 'don't', until a couple of years ago when I produced a book with some critical illustrations of Wedgwood glass, photographed by a brilliant photographer. He's a lecturer at one of the universities here, and his illustrations for my book just jumped off the pages. His instructions were not to upsample or downsample more than 30%.

Of course, he's a very talented and experienced photographer, and he also supplied TIFFs produced using the profile for the printer who was doing the book. But I've used those rules since with some fairly iffy illos, and the results have always been acceptable, if not universally brilliant.

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 05:53 AM   #4
don Arnoldy
Curmudgeon
 
don Arnoldy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michelen
Should be break his arm(s) to force him to size and crop his BIG images to keep our file sizes down?
Start with a couple of fingers on his heft hand.

Quote:
What are the rules for resampling? In my world, the rule is: DON'T.
Better rule is DOWN ONLY!

   
__________________
--don
don Arnoldy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 12:36 PM   #5
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,916
Default

>>michelen: Should be break his arm(s) to force him to size and crop his BIG images to keep our file sizes down?

Yeah to both...'-}}

If he knows how to upsample in Photoshop, then it's just pure laziness (ignorance???) to resize in ID...


>>What are the rules for resampling? In my world, the rule is: DON'T. Am I wrong?

In general, that's probably a good rule but it really depends on the image how much upsampling you can get away with...when you start getting artifacts, you've gone too far...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 12:44 PM   #6
Franca
Staff
 
Franca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey Bay area, CA
Posts: 2,203
Default

I was always told never to upsample. I've played around with it and have never been able to get away with even a small bit of upsampling on photos. Now, if you're doing artwork and special effects, that's a bit different. But representational photos for catalogs, magazines, newsletters, etc. - nope! Downsampling, OTOH, is often essential for respectable file sizes and decent repro if the photos were scanned to allow page-width printing, for example, but are only being used one column wide.

   
__________________
..
..Franca

..
Franca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2005, 01:04 PM   #7
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,916
Default

>>franca: I was always told never to upsample.

That's what I learned too...

>>I've played around with it and have never been able to get away with even a small bit of upsampling on photos. Now, if you're doing artwork and special effects, that's a bit different.

I've been able to do it but for straight photo work, you're right, you generally can't do much if any...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2005, 12:29 AM   #8
LoisWakeman
Staff
 
LoisWakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uplyme, Devon, England
Posts: 1,402
Default

Terrie (and others),

I have heard that you get better results by 'stairstepping': that is, repeated increments of 10% per upsampling run, rather than doing it all in one go. I think Fred Miranda has a PS action for this.

Haven't tried it myself, as my printer can only do A4 which means I have plenty of res from my camera. But might come in handy if I can afford to upgrade to A3!
LoisWakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2005, 01:59 PM   #9
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,916
Default

>>loisw: I have heard that you get better results by 'stairstepping': that is, repeated increments of 10% per upsampling run, rather than doing it all in one go. I think Fred Miranda has a PS action for this.

I have heard that and good things abou Fred's goodie but I've never used it...


Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2005, 06:21 PM   #10
Cristen Gillespie
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoisWakeman
Terrie (and others),

I have heard that you get better results by 'stairstepping': that is, repeated increments of 10% per upsampling run, rather than doing it all in one go. I think Fred Miranda has a PS action for this.

Haven't tried it myself, as my printer can only do A4 which means I have plenty of res from my camera. But might come in handy if I can afford to upgrade to A3!
I've been hearing conflicting reports. Using something like Qimage is probably best if you have to go very far, but I've also heard that those little stairsteps do more damage to the file than Bicubic Smoother or Sharper, although they can sometimes cause damage, too.

I suppose it all depends upon how much detail is in the image, how far you think you're going to go up (or down, though obviously fewer problems with down mainly because at print size, you ain't gonna see the problems<G>) and I'd say best bet is to work on duplicates and try out more than one method if you're not satisfied.

And if there IS really a rule of thumb I haven't heard broken, it's to try to stick to good multiples, 50% not 46% or 53%.

The best world is never resample. The real world....that's another story.

   
__________________
Cristen
Cristen Gillespie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CRT vs. LCD sizing terrie The Corner Pub 12 03-17-2007 02:55 PM
Colouring images in ID Robin Springall Print Design 7 04-04-2006 02:04 PM
Free-to-use images Kelvyn Images 5 09-16-2005 08:29 AM
Key cmd for sizing images in InDesign? Norman Hathaway Print Design 10 03-21-2005 02:02 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.