Create your own layer comps in InDesign
Photoshop’s layer comps feature is excellent for preserving and previewing all of your different layout ideas. It’s especially useful for Web designers who create the bulk of their backgrounds and graphics in a bitmap environment. Print designers, however, generally use InDesign to layout their pages, and not Photoshop. So why isn’t there a layer comps feature in InDesign?
I’ll leave that question for the powers that be over at Adobe. In the meantime, I recommend creating your own InDesign layer comps.
Let’s say you’re creating a single page advertisement, but you’re not sure whether you like the header text positioned at the top of the page or at the bottom. Why not try both ideas using layers? Place your initial header text on its own layer positioned at the top of the page. Then duplicate the layer by dragging it over the New Layer icon at the bottom of the Layers panel. Turn off the visibility for the initial layer and reposition the duplicate header text at the bottom of the page. Be sure and rename each layer in the Layers panel so that you know which is which.
Unlike Photoshop’s layer comps, you’ll have to duplicate objects in order to save them in different layers. You’ll also have to control layer visibility for each comp manually. Despite the extra effort, this technique is still easier and more flexible than duplicating entire InDesign documents in order to try out your different layout ideas.
As useful as layers already are in InDesign, I think this is one feature that could be greatly enhanced with future releases. I’ve added to my wish list for IDCS5: sub layers, layer sets, and layer comps.
This raises a question I’ve had for years:
What the heck is a “comp”, and whatever it is, why do people refer to it using such a supposedly “hip” term of jargon?
I’ve always thought of comp meaning composite, similar to making a mockup or some sort of near final piece that shows a client what the design will look like in theory. But maybe that’s just me.
Yes, I believe “comp” is short for composite, or composition. :)
It’s hardly self-explanatory, is it?
DTP tools has a layer comp plugin that does exactly what you are looking for.
https://www.dtptools.com/product.asp?id=lcid
I do hope it gets added to CS5 as well.
There is a much easier way AND by using only one instance for each object : anchored objects and object styles ! Think about it !
Also by using parental links between styles, it is “easy” to create one object style = one layer comp.
Add to this a little flavor of conditional text… ;-)
I have all 15 versions of our magazine’s cover in layers (they finally picked one). :) Every issue we go through a million versions — I used to do them as separate pages, but it’s definitely easier in layers. Got used to alt-clicking the eyeball to see the layer I wanted…….
I’m Norwegian and therefore perhaps not the most ideal person to explain the seemingly too-hip English word “comp,” but I’m sure I have read, back in the Jurassic age, that in the English or American advertising business a “comprehensive” was a carefully made *sketch* created to give the client an exact idea of what the final advertisement would look like. Eventually, the cumbersome “comprehensive” got abbreviated into a “comp.”
Whether or not I’ve got my etymology right, I myself often produced such pieces of artwork 25-30 years ago for various Oslo ad agencies, using the technology we had back then — Letraset type, marker pens, stats, airbrush, etc. — but of course, we didn’t have any coolified English word for this, we just called them “presentations” or something.
Klaus, I think you’re right. I was taught in school, back in the early ’80s, that “comp” is short for “comprehensive.”
Although “comp” may sound hip, graphic artists have been using that term for well over 30 years. Groovy!
Much needed in the layers panel as well is the ability to group layers together within the little folders. They could actually just take all of the Photoshop layers panel functionality into inDesign and that’d make it a heck of a lot more useful. (lotsa coding I know, but worth it in every way).
Gary, thanks for confirming. “Groovy” indeed – yes, I can dig it, man!
Klaus – Comp is just an abbreviation for composite, nothing cool or hip about it.
I worked with people who called themselves “old comps” or “old compositors” since the term had fizzled out in the 90’s – 00’s.
The term I am fully qualified with and have a trade craftsmans card for is “originator” which takes about 10 jobs from the 1970’s and roled them into one, since the age of computers prepping (preparing/creating) artwork for press is no longer a 10 man job. (Ok maybe not 10 :) )
As for using layers for different layout ideas, I’ve been doing that for ages. Better than having 15 pages, or 15 documents.
I actually did it first in Photoshop, then I started doing the same idea in Illustrator, now I do it in InDesign.
The one thing that gets me is that they added Groups for Paragraph and Character Styles (object styles too, and probably table styles?)
Anyway, there is no Group option in the Layers Panel, which is annoying.
The Group in the Styles is handy because you can name the Group, Style Set 1 or something similar, and put all the styles in there.
Then you copy all those styles to another Group and edit them slightly, no need to rename them.
But you can then use those groups of styles with different layouts – if you get me.
So if you’re working on Style 2 of the Layout, you only edit the Group called Style Set 2, and only those styles are changed and the others remain untouched.
I think it’s handy anyway.
Eugene, no, “composit(or)” is not the source of “comp” as the term is used in advertising and, by extension, in Photoshop (and in this blogpost). “Composit(or)” pertains to graphics art production, and specifically typesetting, whereas “”comp” is a carefully made sketch for client presentation.
Gary — that groovy guy — corroborated my etymology, and I will not budge on this issue!
And yes, it would be very useful to get full-fledged layer comps in ID, but meanwhile we’ll do with Ted’s useful plain-vanilla layer idea.
Interesting Klaus, learn something new everyday. Definitely a difference there if it’s Comprehensive and Composition. I always took it to mean Layer Compositions. “Layer Comprehensive” doesn’t sound right.
Where’s my rock and I’ll go climb back under it.
What would be really Groovy is if we could create our “comprehensive composites” in IDCS5 using Photoshop’s layer comp functionality. :) At the very least, I think we should be able to group ID layers into sets. I’d also like to see sublayer objects displayed in the Layers panel, like in Illustrator.
Amazing anyone would consider “comp” hip jargon. What’s the next hot thing, “23 Skidoo”? “Daddy-o”?
I’ve been in the business for over 40 years. As a denizen from the Jurassic, I’m qualified to field the “comp” issue.
Klaus is right. “Comp” is short for comprehensive. Before we had Macs, Pagemaker or Laserwriters, there were pencils, ruling pens, rubber cement, razor blades, markers, T-Squares, triangles (45° and 60°/30°), Prestype®, Benday®, Rubylith®, Amberlith®, etcetera.
You get the point.
The client had to be persuaded of a layout’s worth.
Talking it up wouldn’t do.
Clients have to be shown, not told.
Consider the fact that mocking up an ad from scratch with type and photographs would’ve been prohibitively expensive. Just to get the client to sign off on it.
There was no iStockphoto®, no Flickr. You’d have to set up a photo shoot, or hire an illustrator (a person, not software), order type, get stats, make a mechanical and send it to a service bureau so they would make a dye-transfer print (google all those terms, you might learn sumthin’, young ‘uns).
A marker comp was both expedient and affordable (besides markers, there were watercolors, tempera, pastels, Dr. Ph. Martin’s?, Prismacolor®, brushes, airbrushes).
Plus making changes in the middle of the process was manageable within an agency’s bullpen.
Layouts were drawn by hand?some art directors could actually draw and letter. With their bare hands!
Sometimes they would give the job to a “comp” or “marker” guy (it was mostly guys back then, “artist” was too artsy-fartsy a term).
If you ever saw a good comp artist at work, and saw a finished comp, you’d get it. It was fine work and some comps were breathtakingly wonderful.
The comp sold the ad concept to the client.
Sadly, comp artists went the way of the Rapidograph®.
You may find them both in an old taboret’s drawer, all clogged up.
Mr/Ms azabache, you’re a true blast from the past! It’s almost painful to admit it, as it shows my Jurassic age, but I know all the ancient terms you used — for I used ALL those things myself, back when I was a young and promising stalwart of the Norwegian commercial art scene, cranking out comps and airbrush artwork and retouched photos right and left. But now I’m only left with being still promising! So thanks for the trip down memory lane, azabache.
Klaus,
I’m glad to see another designasaurus reminisce about the days when “commercial artist” was a good enough description for our occupation.
Would that the sense of craft evolved from mastering the tools of the trade be magically transferred to those who find it so easy to slap gradients and some drop shadows together and call themselves “designers”.
A lot has to be said about the discipline and skill involved in learning to draw a Scotch rule with a ruling pen, with perfect corners and without smearing. (Mostly words unfit for a public forum such as this, but let’s look at the good side.)
Something happens during the process of learning through mind, eye & hand coordination that goes beyond fine motor skills.
There’s an accretion of small epiphanies along the way that add up to more than just a string of competencies.
I’m not advocating a return to the dark ages. I love my Mac and the Creative Suite.
However, I miss having people think things through before they commit to a final concept. The cumbersomeness of the process often got in the way, but it also acted as a filter.
Ideas really had to be sketched through and thought out before marshalling all the resources it took to make them happen.
And the only “undo” was to crumple a sheet and start over.
Hot diggity dog, you sure know your stuff, azabache — you’re the cat’s pajamas!
But I rest my case. If there is disagreement among long-standing members of a profession over the origin of an abbreviation, then its current meaning can’t be all that clear.
I have further questions… For example, how does a “layer comp” differ from an ordinary “comp”?
When does a style become a style “sheet”?
And what’s this “client” thing everyone’s talking about?
@Old Jeremy: “how does a ‘layer comp’ differ from an ordinary ‘comp’?” In a fundamental way, they don’t differ: they’re both possible visualizations of a design idea. Digital layer comps are just the often-easy-to-knock-together design variants which we old-timers used to laboriously produce with markers and paper. So usually very few paper comps were made for a particular project, often only one, since they were labor-intensive and performed by (occasionally!) well-paid, skilled folks.
@azabache: “And the only ‘undo’ was to crumple a sheet and start over.” Spoken like both a true philosopher and a true poet!
In case anyone cares, here’s — no, not a comp (they were quickly thrown away!) — but a book cover design/air-brush illustration I did back in the Jurassic, I think it was in 1982:
https://www.klausnordby.com/ego/xara/micro-old.jpg
Keep in mind that the first Apple Mac only came out two years later! And it took until the mid-90s before it became possible to do similar artwork on a computer, at least on my budget. I retired my Grafo and Pasche airbrushes in 1995, in favor of CorelXara.
Um, you are all right, comp is short for composite, comprehensive, complementary, competition and more…
But in Photoshop I always thought of it as short for composition because that is what I use layer comps for ? to quickly switch between different compositions of the same set of layers.
To know what Adobe meant when they put the term in their software is a question for them. And Photoshop help says…
“About layer comps
Designers often create multiple compositions or comps of a page layout to show clients. Using layer comps, you can create, manage, and view multiple versions of a layout in a single Photoshop file.”
I worked for an agency with a very talented art director/illustrator. One client wanted to use his “comp” as the actual ad. Which we did. No joke.
I worked for an art director back in the late ’80s who sent a marker comp to a printer in China to get a quote. About a month later, a box of brochures arrived from China. Due to miscommunication, the printer color separated the comp and printed that.
I also remember the days of artboards, wax and rubber cement, and specing type. I still have a box full of old art tools: technical pens, circle and ellipse templates, compasses, burnishers, french curves, etc. My wife and I can’t seem to part with these ancient artifacts. You should have seen the look on our teenage daughter’s face when we showed her how artwork used to be done.
Yeh I knew it meant “compositions” in photoshop. What I was trying to say before was that “comp” isn’t necessarily a cool hip new word. It’s just an abbreviation. I just included my own experience of how I knew of the word “comp”. But for a whole day I’ve been thinking that Layer Comps meant Layer Comprehensives – which it doesn’t – according to Photoshop Help files.
Shows I should have researched the term “Layer Comps” myself :)
But I’ve learned some bits there from the old hands, cheers guys.
Great tidbit. I have actually been using this layer comp technique for sometime and wondered as well why it’s not offered in InDesign.
One caveat however is, and maybe it’s something I am not versed enough in, but if you are using a text wrap on any of the layers it will affect all the layers regardless if they are switched on or not. For that reason I had to use the multiple pages comp for a particular project.
I think you can make the text in any particular frame on any particular layer stop wrapping by selecting the frame, then choosing Object > Text Frame Options… > Ignore Text Wrap (it’s a checkbox).
Not sure how that would affect “comps” though — I’m still trying to “wrap” my head around the concept!
PS: Still waiting for one of you wrinkled old sea dogs to tell me when a style becomes a style “sheet”. — When you specify more than a single aspect of formatting, perhaps?
Actually, Eugene, I think that the notion that what the Adobe help writer says about “comp” *really* proves it means “compositions” is worth nada: they had heard the word “comp” being used by graphics professionals, they seized on it, and — as a kind of linguistic back-formation — claimed it was short for “compositions”. There are THREE of us old-timers here who all say it’s short for “comprehensive,” and that “comp” has been used for a “hand-dawn client presentation sketch” in the commercial art biz since at least the 1960s. Don’t quarrel with us old-timers, you young punks — we may not have your lean, mean muscles, but our mighty beer bellies are no pushovers!
What difference does it make?
None
It means compostion to me, regardless of what you old hands think it’s called, in the documentation it’s called compostion. So it’s a compostion layer, not a comprehensive layer. If a couple of old sea-dogs think it means Comprehensive then that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. It makes no difference – it’s still not a “cool hip” new word. It’s just an abbreviation.
I loved reading this thread, it brought back so many memories there should be a place for us old sea dogs to go and chat about the good old days.
I’m interested in learning how to use anchored objects and object styles with parental links in order to simulate Photoshop’s layer comps in InDesign. Does anyone have a good read or primer on this? Thanks!
The ease of use for creating and manipulating layers has come a long way in the past 4 years.
The people who wrote the code for Photoshop and wrote the help file are millennials who never touched a T-square, Rapidograph, or poster color in their lives. As far as they are concerned, “comp” is short for composition. To artists who worked in pre-digital days, it was short for comprehensive, meaning comprehensive layout as opposed to rough sketch. In a comprehensive layout, the client is shown everything as close as possible to the final ad, using either paste-up photographs or detailed illustrations.
When we explain it to students today, we explain both the old meaning and the new meaning as taken by Photoshop. Nobody is wrong, both are correct.
This thread is almost nine years old and STILL no layer comps in InDesign…