Photobooks with InDesign

Hi. I've been doing my photobooks in InDesign and want to run my processing steps by everyone. I print them at Adorama, which prints on photo paper and does not use an actual printer.

 

1. Import raw file into lightroom

2. Apply general sharpening (setting of 50) and do any color corrections

3. Export pictures at full size (with no output sharpening applied) and bring them into InDesign.

4. After figuring out what size I want the images sized to, I run a script that downsizes all images to 100%.

5. Then I import the downsized images into lightroom and export them with output sharpening applied.

6. Make a PDF of the book and then rasterize each page to be uploaded to their book maker.

 

Does this sound ok? I'm always worried about over sharpening. I thought glossy standard would be a pretty good setting for printing on Luster paper.

I'm no prepress guy. The 2 sharpening steps confuse me a bit. The other issue: Do you really know the exact size (amount of pixels) your pictures will be printed at? There is usually confusion about it and media technicians upscaling PDFs to bleed pages happen. - That approach seems safer than "You didn't bleed, so we had to cut your book a tad smaller" but it is of course crucial to the image quality, if you adjusted hand counted pixels to taste. - If a situation permitts I'd transmit whatever I have pixels wise and let the printer's algorithms downscale that. - I might be off and am curious about others' takes on the issue.

I'm no prepress guy. The 2 sharpening steps confuse me a bit.

One is capture sharpening, one is output (although LR doesn't provide output for anything other than ink jet and to screen. See: http://creativepro.com/out-of-gamut-thoughts-a-sharpening-workflow/

IF Adorama is using an ink jet printer, the output sharpening should be OK if you target the right paper type and of course, better to under sharpen than over sharpen (LR provides three 'strengths').

InDesign will impose your images to fit the frames you designate. The frame for your images should include the bleed allowance, but the content must be cropped so that the composition is correct after the bleed is trimmed, using InDesign tools. I would sharpen the images to look correct at the size you edit them, not necessarily as fitted to InDesign.

 

It is not necessary to size the images to fit the Indesign frames, just the aspect ratio. The images are not automatically embedded in Indesign, rather linked. with the fitting determined by InDesign. You can embed them with a simple command, but it increases the file size greatly, and reduces your flexibility in editing the book.

 

Use the Export tool in InDesign to create a PDF file for printing. InDesign will handle the imposition of images, along with resampling and sharpening, which you can specify in the export dialogue. You must do all the page imposition before creating the PDF file, based on the style of booklet (e.g., tri-fold or saddle-fold and stitched).

 

PDF export is the best way to get it printed the way you want, because all the images and fonts are embedded, framed and sized. Images are automatically rasterized, but fonts remain as vector objects, rasterized during the printing process. However you can also create a "package" in the File menu, which will include all the fonts and linked images with the layout. If you were sending it to a service bureau, that would be the best way, but include a PDF and printed proof copies if possible.

 

I have yet to encounter a service bureau which does not have InDesign.

Photo.net, please fix the paragraph spacing problem! It is ridiculous to type an intelligent response then have the paragraphs collapsed. PNET no longer responds to either BB nor HTML line commands.

InDesign will impose your images to fit the frames you designate. The frame for your images should include the bleed allowance, but the content must be cropped so that the composition is correct after the bleed is trimmed, using InDesign tools.

Indeed, but if (IF) the OP is output sharpening the files first, he should do this to their size/resolution since this does affect the degree of sharpening applied from Lightroom.

Is it true that Lightroom cannot sharpen for silver halide prints?

Lightroom and ACR's output sharpening is optimized for ink jet (matt or glossy papers) or to screen. You could use them for silver halide prints but it isn't optimized for that output.

Lightroom and ACR's output sharpening is optimized for ink jet (matt or glossy papers) or to screen. You could use them for silver halide prints but it isn't optimized for that output.

Would it be best to use Nik Sharpener for output sharpening when I am printing with Silver halide?

Would it be best to use Nik Sharpener for output sharpening when I am printing with Silver halide?

 

I don't use that product, no comment.

Digital printing on silver halide media is rasterized, using a laser for the light source. In principle, it is no different than an inkjet, and probably has less resolution. There is no reason you couldn't sharpen and image appropriately for that process, with consideration to the equivalent DPI.

 

I don't find I need to sharpen specifically for Indesign. I don't sharpen as a general practice anyway, but when I do, it is for a full-sized image. When a program such as InDesign down samples the image for printing, the sampling process preserves the details, including sharpening, in an appropriate manner. More detail is preserved in downsampling that would be obtained in an original image at the same resolution.

 

When you export an InDesign document to PDF, you have many options to optimize and control that process. You may, in fact, find that photo printed text is not as sharp and clear as you would like, and reverse type probably doesn't hold well due to halation. There are several short run printing services that can do a comparable job with images and a much better job with text than you would expect from a photo process.

Digital printing on silver halide media is rasterized, using a laser for the light source. In principle, it is no different than an inkjet, and probably has less resolution. There is no reason you couldn't sharpen and image appropriately for that process, with consideration to the equivalent DPI..

The guy who invented the concept of multiple rounds of sharpening and targeting output sharpening based on the technology (and did so for contone, inkjet, halftone etc) and who wrote this piece would disagree with you, (as do I): http://creativepro.com/out-of-gamut-thoughts-a-sharpening-workflow/

That workflow was introduced into Lightroom thanks to Bruce's work over many, many years with Adobe. But what does Adobe and Bruce Fraser know about sharpening? :confused:

Bruce Fraser wrote that article in 2003, starting with a 6 MP image. He does a remarkable job making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Do you have something more recent to cite? If 300 dpi is high quality for offset printing (200 is more realistic), a 24 MP camera would be 12"x18". How much sharpening would you need for a magazine-sized (or smaller) publication?

<p>

<p>At very least you could omit the middle step of Fraser's method, and sharpen to enhance the printing process. Basically, Frazer recommends "output" sharpening with a maximum halo of 0.001", which translates to a 3 pixel radius at 300 dpi, or 1 pixel for a PNET image at screen resolution (~ 96 PPI)

Edited February 27, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

Bruce Fraser wrote that article in 2003, starting with a 6 MP image. He does a remarkable job making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Do you have something more recent to cite? If 300 dpi is high quality for offset printing, a 24 MP camera would be 12"x18". Would you even need sharpening for a magazine-sized (or smaller) publication?

Do I? Yes, the thousands of images processed by Bruce's customers using the product he (and I) developed to apply specific output sharpening for differing devices! Do you really believe that output sharpening based on the files resolution has changed since 2003? As if halftone and contone and ink jet devices have changed too? No. If you actually understand what Bruce proposes, produced and was accepted by Adobe (and others), you'll see that capture sharpening and output sharpening are both independent from each other, based on the image resolution and specifically targeted for a group of output devices. So no, nothing has changed since 2003 expect displays and sharpening for that output (and some products have been updated for this change; like 4K displays). Halftone, contone and inkjet dots haven't.

To answer your specific question, both 300 DPI (and the associated LPI) as well as the MP of the device (after capture sharpening based on that) is accounted for in a product properly designed using Bruce's concept. Now that IS NOT the case in Lightroom! Which is what was asked above just to remind you. For a halftone OR a Contone output because again, Adobe did NOT build that into the product; only output sharpening for screen and inkjet. I know this as a fact because Adobe licensed these two and only these two conditions from Bruce and his partners!

Do I? Yes, the thousands of images processed by Bruce's customers using the product he (and I) developed to apply specific output sharpening for differing devices!

 

 

So, you are selling a product you developed in conjunction with Bruce Fraser. Rather than beating around the bush, why not post a link, or better yet, an ad?

So, you are selling a product you developed in conjunction with Bruce Fraser. Rather than beating around the bush, why not post a link, or better yet, an ad?

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument!

 

I'm not here to sell anything. If I were, I'd have answered Keith's question differently with a sales pitch.

 

I am here to aid the OP and point out your misunderstandings about output sharpening and specifically how it works in Lightroom. How that product is specifically designed in terms of sharpening for exactly which output devices. Based on working with Bruce, my other partners and licensing our work to Adobe in that product as well as ACR! I'm here to help the OP understand the correct way to target output sharpening from that product and kind of dismiss your ideas provided to him be it about how and when to sharpen, prior to inserting the files into ID and to dismiss the wrong idea that a Contone output sharpening is the same as Ink jet output sharpening. This is based on intimate and actual experience with Lightroom engineering and output sharpening specifically for Adobe's products that provide this! Some here who can remain nameless, don't have that understanding or experience which is important to point out to the OP!

Kidding aside, it would be nice if you did have a plug-in for this purpose. The process described by Frazer seems a little complicated, but worth further examination. It sounds like something tailored to a particular process, and likely something a service bureau could provide. I don't tell them dot gain specifications, but they seem to do just fine. I have no control over how my images are used by others, typically for brochures, news release and posters. I haven't had to ask about sharpening, but perhaps i should.

Kidding aside, it would be nice if you did have a plug-in for this purpose.

All kidding aside, we do!

We? Other than the NIK Set, I don't find what you're talking about on the web. Please provide a name or better yet, a link.

We? Other than the NIK Set, I don't find what you're talking about on the web. Please provide a name or better yet, a link.

You obviously didn't even read this carefully: http://creativepro.com/out-of-gamut-thoughts-a-sharpening-workflow/

I did read it. I'm looking for a plug-in, script or software to simplify this task. /m sure others would be interested too. Why build a watch when you just want to know the time.

I did read it. I'm looking for a plug-in, script or software to simplify this task. /m sure others would be interested too. Why build a watch when you just want to know the time.

Then try reading it again, a bit more slowly; the answer to your question was provided.

The product in question is "Photokit Sharpener" by PixelGenius.

 

<br><br>I am reluctant to fill in words for those who stutter, even when typing, but this has gone too far. For what it's worth, the Google/Nik kit does essentially the same thing, and it's free. Digitaldog doesn't use it, but people who work for GM don't drive Fords ;)

For what it's worth, the Google/Nik kit does essentially the same thing, and it's free.

 

And you know that (they do essentially the same thing) how?

At least you read slowly, carefully and found your answers; both the product that Bruce, I and other's worked on and was partially introduced in ACR and Lightroom (unlike NIK) and a free product you can use under the uneducated assumption it's the same. Good job Ed!

Now if you can figure out that no, contone and inkjet sharpening are not the same in a properly designed product for output sharpening, you'll have learned even more useful facts in this thread.

 

I am reluctant to fill in words for those who stutter, even when reading....:)

Digitaldog doesn't use it, but people who work for GM don't drive Fords ;)

"All generalizations are false, including this one".-Mark Twain