See Pixel sizes at 100%
|
- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
In what version of InDesign? In CC (maybe CS6 too?) they fixed that… or at least it is much closer. But in earlier versions we had to use a script such as:
https://creativepro.com/custom-zoommagnification-settings-in-indesign.php -
Hi David, I am in ID CC 2014. I am looking at the jpeg exported from InDesign in Photoshop at 100% and it is about 20% smaller on screen than the ID file at 100%. I exported it at 72dpi straight from ID and intended to use Save For Web from PS as it finesses the compression a bit better. But then I notice the size issue.
I prefer to lay out flat web work in ID as PS leaves a lot to be desired in terms of layout tools. I can cope with no Save For Web in ID, can script my way around the lack of Hex colours, but this latest problem means I will have little ammunition when the web guys come and moan at me for not using PS!
-
If your INDD image is 350×250 px and you exported at 72ppi, the image is exactly the same size as a 350×250 image created in Photoshop. It just looks different in Id because of the different ways that the two programs interpret “100%”.
To InDesign, 1 px = 1 pt. It uses your screen resolution setting in the OS to display the image at what ought to be 100% of its printed size. (InDesign is at heart a print layout program.) In Photoshop, 100% means “pixel for pixel”, which is not the same thing.
You can verify this easily enough. Create a 350×250 in Photoshop, and compare it at 100% to your Id-created image in Photoshop.
I routinely (and for the same reasons) create web and digital billboard/digital display images in InDesign and have never had an issue.
You can squeeze a bit more quality out of Id, especially for text, if you export at a multiple of 72 ppi, like 144 or 288 ppi, bringing that into Photoshop and scaling and compressing at the same time in Save for Web. Starting big and scaling down in Photoshop preserves hard edges better than exporting at 72 ppi from Id.
It’s a cakewalk to set up a simple Action in Photoshop to automate this process. For extra credit, turn it into a droplet (or use Tools > Photoshop > Batch if you’ve lots of them to process at once).
-
Hi – thanks for that, and it’s good to hear that other people are using ID for this purpose.
I know that the MPU I am making is the right size – it’s just more difficult to design it if it is viewing larger than ‘actual size’ and I am looking for a way to convince ID to view it the same way PS will. Perhaps the scaling script could be used for that, but to make it smaller rather than bigger…
-
I recommend the InDesign workflow to everyone doing this kind of creative. The speed with which you can create an accurate layout in ID (not to mention ID’s type engine) is jaw-dropping to someone who’s only used Photoshop. Several of my friends have the maxillary bruises to prove it.
Under the hood, in the dark recesses of your system where only low-level functions hang out, some minion of the OS is telling InDesign that the resolution of your monitor is [x] pixels/inch (a number that may or may not be accurate).
InDesign has with this manic fixation that if you set your document dimensions in px you really meant points. So InDesign goes through the marvelously convoluted calculation of converting your document dimensions in pixels to a size in inches, then converting that (using the pixels/inch value passed to it by the OS) to a new pixel count. If the px/in value from the OS is valid, and you’re planning to print your document, the 100% view works reasonably well. If you’re targeting the web, it doesn’t.
You could work around this by telling your OS the blatant lie that your main display is 72 ppi. (Pray that it never finds out, because it will probably sue for divorce.) Other things in your system use that value that you probably don’t want to alter, but if churning out MPUs is what you spend most of your time doing, it’s certainly worth a try. In fact, if the px/in value being reported to your OS is flagrantly wrong now, you may get a far better result in general.
A compromise might be to zoom out one click from “100%”. It may not be exactly the size you see in Photoshop, but it may give you a better look at it.
Having said all that, the actual visual dimensions of your MPU are going to be so different on each of the many screen sizes out there (especially mobile devices) that I wouldn’t consider it worth the effort to try for some exact value. You might want to give yourself a week to get used to ID’s concept of 100% before you decide you really need to change it. InDesign’s way of doing it isn’t necessarily wrong unless you’re targeting an exact, known display; it’s just different. Because I use this workflow for everything from web banners to outdoor electronic billboards, I’ve never paid much attention to exact size. An electronic billboard display can be 60 feet wide. The artwork is 1400 pixels (no kidding!), so a “100% view” is pretty meaningless.
It’s probably more worthwhile to get several displays of different resolutions hooked up. What looks about right on your 110 ppi professional screen might look positively clunky on a generic 1280×1024 screen but wimpy on a high-res smartphone.
-
While I agree that doing layout in InDesign is superior to Pshop, you have uncovered an unhappy truth:
InDesign assumes that 72 pixels per inch, but Photoshop does not. So InDesign is actually more accurate from a print perspective.
For example, when I create a document that is 8.5 inches wide, and zoom to 100% in InDesign, it is 8.5 inches on my screen. If I create a 300×250 px document, it is 4.16 inches wide on screen — which is correct, if you assume 72 ppi.
However, Photoshop is displaying images at about 108 ppi on my screen. (It seems to ignore the display ppi setting in its own Preferences dialog box, strangely.)So which is “right”? As Alan pointed out: neither of them, because the same 300×250 image will be displayed on different screens at different resolutions.
That said, i totally agree that it would be nice if we could easily make InDesign and Photoshop match. On my screen that happens when I set InDesign to 70% view. Yes, you should be able to use the script to make Cmd-1 go there.
-
There are two related-but-different design issues here. One is the run-of-the-mill issue of sizing things correctly, the other is the one Salieri is concerned with: “designing for tiny” is different from “designing for big.”
There are plenty of print situations where this is a big consideration. A logo design is often drawn twice, one version for “normal” size reproduction and another for small applications such as business cards or tchotchkes.** The small version often uses less detail and/or heavier strokes so as not to appear weak at its intended print size. When I was ordering pens for my own promotional purposes (the one I gave you at the conference!), I had to redraw the logo so it would “read” properly at that tiny size.
When it comes to something like a web ad, as a designer you have to make it so it grabs attention — tricky enough in its own right — and maintains legible detail and looks good. You can’t assess that accurately without viewing it at the size it will actually be when it’s displayed on <random website>, so I can see why it’s a problem. On the other hand, screen resolutions are so variable now that looking at your design on only one device might be misleading in itself. My phone has a Quad-HD resolution, 1.5 times that of my main workstation monitor. The monitor is 30 inches @ 2560×1600, the phone is 5.7 inches @ 3840×2160, my laptop is 17.3 inches @ 1920×1080. The same image viewed in a browser on each device is radically different in size.
That’s why I suggested that the fact InDesign’s “100 Percent” view isn’t pixel-for-pixel accurate is not necessarily something to agonize over.
—————-
** For readers unfamiliar with the wonderfully expressive vocabulary handed down to us by Yiddish-speaking immigrants to America, a “tchotchke” is a small item such as an ornament, usually more decorative than functional. The small promotional items companies hand out are often referred to as tchotchkes. (Microsoft’s giveaway of a Surface Pro 3 to attendees at Adobe MAX this year would not fall into this category, Mac aficionados notwithstanding. but the Adobe Creative Cloud pens would.)
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
 |