ok, be me: working on book.multiple 'small' tifs from archive, slide scans n the like, all at like 3600 dpi.i want easy to use lightweight files for getting the layout underway and eventually approved as illustrator lags when filled with too many images and linked text frame, but i didnt really alter the tiff kinda - i took a zero off the resolution for 360 and have tweaked a dimension, but really ive got images at 360 dpi. so now all the design is approved im putting high res images in and checking color modes. was gonno swap in tiffs. But couldnt i really keep the jpgs?im gonna swap all the jpegs for cmyk tifs, but thought id pose the question.should have been more thoughtful about making the temporary working images, but i figured it was gonna be a slog either way so didnt matter.so what if i just kept the joegs?
if youre printing you can get away with 300 dpi. link your jpeg/image files instead of embedding em
>>456149like 95% are linked, so repointing is really easy. ive read some (not all) printers want CMYK images, so Im just doing the swap grind - even though im basically redoing the same process from making the first jpeg set, just saving as tiffs this time. whatever, it costs a few dull days.but stil, yeah was curious. thanks for the 2 cents.
>>456150looking at the files sizes (like 2 mb for the jpg, 47 for the original tf, and like 60 mb for the final) id say the process achieved its original goal. just a bit of a slog. seeing the sizes im inclined to think the swap out is for the best.
>>456144>im gonna swap all the jpegs for cmyk tifs, but thought id pose the question.oldfag here, been in the printing industry since the 90s.First, if you are working on a book you should probably use publishing software like InDesign or QuarkXpress.Second, image resolution is simply proportional to the resolution of the press, and you should be working building to specs from the printer. For instance, if the printer had a press that uses 300 lpi (lines per inch) plates, then your image resolution should be between 300 dpi and 600 dpi. Anything more than that is a waste. File format shouldn't matter since you'll probably submit the job as a PDF anyway.Third, it's not as important these days to worry about RGB vs CMYK. As long as the images have embedded color profiles the plate separations will be fine. After all, that's the whole point of color profiling. If you are worried about the colors then proof your images in CMYK mode to make sure nothing is out of gamut, but then we run into the problem of "is your working environment properly calibrated" which is outside the scope of this reply.
>>456160cool thanks for the reply. yeah i really need a communicating partner at the press i guess. trying to cover all my basics before sending out the book block pdf.again, thanks.
heres a general type of detail if any one is interested: archive file is 1x1.5 inches at 3600ppi and 47 mbif i make it 360pi without resampling to make a larger image in inches and RGB jpeg becomes like 1.7 mb but and CMYK tiff becomes 64 mb.even though bridge shows the jpg and tiff are the exact same size in pixels. wht should i google and read up to get more comfortable making good choices to make highest quality documents?
>>456164>RGB jpeg becomes like 1.7 mb but and CMYK tiff becomes 64 mbJPEG is a lossy compressed format and TIFF is lossless and often uncompressed. That's the main reason for the difference in file size. Don't use CMYK images unless you are specifically instructed to do so. The CMYK color gamut is SMALLER than SRGB so you are throwing color information away when saving as a CMYK file. Use your image editor's proofing tools to view RGB images in a simulated CMYK color space to be sure they look OK.If you want to get serious about color, read "Real World Color Management: Industrial-Strength Production Techniques" by Bruce Fraser. It's a pretty easy to understand book and the information is invaluable for someone working in print.
>>456165i appreciate the reading suggestion and will dig it up. most the stuff ive skimmed suggested cmyk for offset printing. i know jpeg is lossy, but thought it was very interesting that files of the exact same image dimensions would have such a different amount of data.ive alread swapped most the low mb images out and cant imagine replacing them with the tiny jpeg place holders.
https://archive.org/details/realworldcolorma0000fras/page/n5/mode/2upanyone with disabilities wanna share their crednetials lol
>>456160hey print anon - I have a question if you have a moment.Generally speaking, without getting into the weeds over dpi, ppi and what not, If i had an image 4"x6" at 300 dpi - how much could i enlarge it without the degradation becoming noticable? Like if i scaled the 6" to 7" and the res is 257, is 257 obviously terrible to look at? just curious. thanks in advance for any thoughts.
>>456310>noticable degradationThis is totally subjective. If this is for print and the press has a line screen of 300 lpi, then scaling that amount probably wouldn't look too bad. When images are printed they are essentially destroyed and put back together. You'll notice the moiré pattern before you notice pixels, and even if the image is low res it will simply start to look progressively blurrier as the resolution decreases. Also, there is the concept of dot gain which might affect how sharp the image looks. Again, all this is dependent on the press, ink, and paper (and the pressman to some degree). If you are really worried about the resolution you might try upscaling software if it puts your mind at ease, or alternatively, talk to the printer and get some advice since the answers will be specific to your project.
>>456312just looking to learn and for rubrics to guide choices. im a jack of all trades designer who has the fortune or misfortune of newly being the last hands and eyes on the files before sending things out. Ive done a few books but never was the liason with the printer nor the one singing off on the quality of the collateral.thanks again for the info and data points to follow up on.
>>456315*signing off etc.
>>456316Right on, hope I said something of value. The printing industry is so mature and advanced these days it's pretty hard to screw something up.
>>456144If you have multiple artboards with linked files inside a single AI file it can get laggy and cumbersome. You might be better off either designing the layout in indesign or with each page as its own AI file.
>>456320yup illustrator is laggy and prone to crashing. hate that bitch. but i also love her. i design more by proportion than template so the move into indesign 'feels' unwieldy. ill muscle through it one day though. fwiw the project is divided into 5 ai files and the layouts used low mb jpgs until ALL the editing was done and all aspects of the design and prep were complete. just redirecting the links now. i wonder whats it like cleaning up widows and orphans and what not in indesign?
>>456324>i wonder whats it like cleaning up widows and orphans and what not in indesign?That's the specialty of layout programs, literally designed to be good at managing hundreds of paragraphs of text. I haven't had to do much cleaning up widows and orphans in InDesign, but it used to fly though it in Quark, which had every imaginable kerning and leading function bound to a shortcut key. I could clean up dozens of pages in a couple minutes.
>>456325illustrator isnt the best handling llong linked text - but its has the tracking and kerning all there and what not. gross spell check interface which is a drag, but thats ok as someone needs to take responsibility for copy editing anyway. i was thinking about the rigidity of the templates really. unfortunately i nevr got into quark. is that software still around these days?
>>456326>nevr got into quark. is that software still around these days?I think the answer depends. If you are a print shop or publisher that existed before InDesign (late 1999) then you almost certainly have legacy files and may still be upgrading Quark (the company I work for is like this, I literally was working in files from 1996 last week). However, most print shops and publishers have been swallowed up by larger, more tech-savvy ones, and those are all basically running Adobe CC. Quark Xpress is still pulling in about 150 million in sales every year so it's not like they are abandonware or anything. It's just that you're not going to find casual users (people who go to school for graphic design usually get an Adobe student license) so it looks like no one uses Quark. Plus these are layout programs. Using them is grunt work for production artists.
>>456327thats a pretty good sales pitch for quark actually!
