Dither or Noise in Gradients w/ new InDesign??
|
- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Hi, we’re still using good ol’ InDesign CS6 because it just works fine for typical print jobs and we don’t have any monthly fees.
– But we’re wondering if any of the new InDesign CC releases have done anything to help create smoother gradients on press (e.g., less potential for banding)?
I know in CS6, we can add noise to things like glows & shadows, but not to a gradient or a gradient feather (either could work for us). Has this or anything similar been added in new releases?? Seems like such a common need for good output, not sure why it’s not there in our version.
If not, are there any good tried & true tips for creating various gradients (shapes, tones, etc) in InDesign WITHOUT having to recreate each one individually in PhotoShop just to add a touch of noise?? Some of our designs have a fair amount of gradients, some set at an angle within frame, and of differing sizes & overall shapes. It would be a huge jump in workflow to have to recreate each manually in PS.
I thought about possibly creating a large block of gray w/ noise in PS, then using as a default background graphic in an object frame that we then use the gradient feather to create our overall gradient. But would this really retain the noise in the gradient where we need it?? We tried having our printer run a test of this, but the inkjet they use for proofing must introduce a degree of noise or ‘dots’ by default, as we noticed noise in both the PS gradients & the InDD gradients. So the test was completely inconclusive.
Thanks for any tips or advice!
-
Hi Kenny. There is no change as regards the way InDesign (or Illustrator, for that matter, which creates gradients the same way) handle vector gradients, which is what these are. Technically, I think it would be a very hard thing to engineer noise into a vector object without rasterizing it.
For that kind of artwork, I take one of two approaches, the usual one being to create what I need in Photoshop and place it in the InDesign document.
Occasionally, I’ll place a pre-made greyscale, high-res noise image (50% grey with noise added, jpeg or tiff) and color it with the gradient, or a solid color with a gradient feather. In some situations that is the best approach. The image must be greyscale, to allow InDesign to color it properly. Give the image a blend mode of Color Burn or Hard Light at a suitably low opacity to finesse the effect. This does eliminate banding.
All that said, modern computer-to-plate workflows are far less likely to have banding issues on press than in times past, particularly if the shop uses stochastic screening rather than the traditional half-tone angled screens.
-
Hi Alan, thanks for the reply!
So would it be safe to assume that glow & drop shadow effects in InDesign are raster effects, not vector, since you are able to add noise to them in InDesign?? I was just hoping that since those effects could introduce noise, the option for a gradient (or probably gradient feather) might do the same, even if it rendered the element as rasterized.
But I did try the 50% grey Photoshop image with noise option. We could live with this since we’d still be able to create all the different gradients needed in InDesign without having to hop back to Photoshop all the time.
I figured out that the gradient needs to be applied to the FRAME, while the image is just colored black and given a blending mode (I’m trying Overlay as assuming that would be most neutral, not introducing anything but the noise). However, with this method I seem to get a hairline around the image frame that I can’t get rid of. It doesn’t have a stroke, the image is larger than frame, there are no effects, etc. But there is a definite hairline that I can see where the gradient is white (or very light). In overprint preview mode, I am able to actually detect ink in the black channel there, so I don’t think it’s a preview issue.
If I try the ‘gradient feather’ method, I don’t get the hairline. And from what I can tell (at least on screen), it displays as smoothly as the standard gradient method.
I had just read somewhere (can’t find it now) that the gradient tool creates a gradient in a technically different manner (with better results) than creating the same gradient using the ‘Gradient Feather’ method (e.g., with a solid fill). But I imagine that might be due to it not having any transparency (and therefore being rasterized) by default compared to the gradient feather (something about the way a good RIP can interpret it). But if I am using a blending effect with my grayscale TIF, then I guess that introduces transparency into the gradient when using method 1 above anyways.
And I believe we have noticed a difference with certain printers having less issues with gradients than others. So I’m sure with proper RIPs and techniques, it may be a non-issue. We just don’t always get to choose the printer and wanted a ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ workflow here without adding hours to development.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 |