# image format do you use with InDesign?



## acc30 (Apr 26, 2006)

for over year's I've been using QuarkXPress at work, but since upgrading to a newer computer and getting CS3 Suite, I've been using InDesign, learning it as I go. 

I've always worked with EPS files in Quark, I'm wondering what other designers use in terms of image file format; JPEG, EPS, TIFF, PSD?


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

I have used both Quark and InDesign and I always use TIFF images. Not sure if it works with EPS as I have never tried! This was just how I learned and what I am comfortable with though.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

All depends what it is, using psd files for files with transparencies is nice, as well ones with layers as you can now control the layers in InDesign. 

I have more and more troble with eps' now, I tend to either copy and paste from illustrator or just place an ai or pdf file. But my experieces with pdf's have been quite shakey too.

If it is just a plain image file I usually save it as a tif and place them.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I usually use .eps files. But they all work well, Using CS3 as well, I hardly touch Quark anymore unless its a repeat job that was saved in Quark or a customer brings a ready made file in Quark. Last time I touched Quark was probably 2 to 3 months ago.


----------



## acc30 (Apr 26, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> All depends what it is, using psd files for files with transparencies is nice, as well ones with layers as you can now control the layers in InDesign.
> 
> I have more and more troble with eps' now, I tend to either copy and paste from illustrator or just place an ai or pdf file. But my experieces with pdf's have been quite shakey too.
> 
> If it is just a plain image file I usually save it as a tif and place them.


I have placed in psd files, but I have yet to try working with layer. Though I would think a layered PSD will have bigger file size than a flattened TIFF, I will try and observe it when I'm working.

I did find placing PDFs to be slow and as mentioned 'shakey'


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

acc30 said:


> I have placed in psd files, but I have yet to try working with layer. Though I would think a layered PSD will have bigger file size than a flattened TIFF, I will try and observe it when I'm working.


They can be sometimes, depending on what is being done in the file. The advantage with the layer control in indesign is that you have one psd instead of multiple tifs. But how often do you place the same image with different affects done to it? I never have.



acc30 said:


> I did find placing PDFs to be slow and as mentioned 'shakey'


I went to a CS2 presentation and they were touting pdfs like they were the best thing since sliced bread. I blindly believed them and had several jobs that needed to be resaved and source files sent. Even still have problems with them and printers, both offset and office. Not worth the trouble unless a printer asks for them and tells me how they want it saved.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You can make transparent TIFFs that are smaller than PSDs and retain the various opacities. TIFFs can even retain layers and effects much like a PSD--but half the calories.


----------



## esct (Feb 20, 2008)

The Great thing about indesign is that you can use any format including vector! or movies if you want to make a newmedia pdf!!!

I stopped using Quark a long time ago and have never looked back.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*Quark at work..Indesign at home!*

At work, a pre-press graphic company, tiffs are required, something the printers prefer. At home I use Indesign a much better application and cheaper too than Quark. Easier to convert to pdfs using Indesign and the best choice for freelancing for small companies. I use tiffs at home since I'm just use to it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Meh, InDesign is good, but it's far from being a Quark killer. Each has their share of strengths and weaknesses. I find doing large-document layouts easier and faster in Quark, but doing things like tables is amazing in ID. I find myself using either app for very specific jobs.

I'm not particularly fond of how ID prohibits a free-flow way of working. It's like the ID engineers looked at the interface from Illustrator and Photoshop and didn't bother researching their usability and opted for their own app behaviors.

The one thing that Quark has over Adobe is product activation. God forbid if you ever move an Adobe license between computers and forget to deactivate it. I've never felt so guilty about talking to Adobe's support and getting an activation number. Quark has a web-based form where you can get an activation number without the interrogation.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> The one thing that Quark has over Adobe is product activation. God forbid if you ever move an Adobe license between computers and forget to deactivate it. I've never felt so guilty about talking to Adobe's support and getting an activation number. Quark has a web-based form where you can get an activation number without the interrogation.


Ha! I just went through this on Saturday, what a farce. I was on hold for a good 40 minutes before someone answered, and when someone did, I couldn't understand what the hell they were saying. I don't know how many times I had to have her repeat herself, it wasn't pleasant. Then I had to talk to a manager to evaluate my experience, whom I again couldn't understand. WTF, I just hung up, everything was solved anyway.


----------

