I decided to write up my thinking a little more in this blog post: https://creativepro.com/tif…..pdf-vs.php

@Mark: I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your idea of “combination tones” requiring 500-900 dpi. If there is vector data in the file, use PDF and you'll get a combination of vector and raster data. If you need it to be all-raster, your higher-res does not (I argue) work. In your example, you're exporting from Photoshop as PDF (which maintains the vectors), then rasterizing in Photoshop! Why on earth would you want to rasterize like this in Photoshop if you wanted sharp edges?

Please understand that if you have a 500-900 ppi TIFF image, it's going to get downsampled significantly. Either InDesign will do it at print/pdf-export time, or your RIP will do it internally. If you're printing halftones, that typically means it will downsample to 2x the halftone screen frequency (lpi). Downsampling like this is usually done in a non-bicubic manner, which means your final output will be worse than if you downsample the image yourself before printing.

There is little reason to have more than 1.5x lpi in any photographic image, so if you're printing with a 150 lpi, then 225 ppi is all you need in most images. If you do have very sharp edges, then I would suggest 300 ppi.

I'm open to hearing your argument, but I'm not convinced from your samples there. There are too many variables, including your particular rip, your worfklow, etc.

I decided to write up my thinking a little more in this blog post: https://creativepro.com/tif…..pdf-vs.php

@Mark: I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your idea of “combination tones” requiring 500-900 dpi. If there is vector data in the file, use PDF and you'll get a combination of vector and raster data. If you need it to be all-raster, your higher-res does not (I argue) work. In your example, you're exporting from Photoshop as PDF (which maintains the vectors), then rasterizing in Photoshop! Why on earth would you want to rasterize like this in Photoshop if you wanted sharp edges? 

Please understand that if you have a 500-900 ppi TIFF image, it's going to get downsampled significantly. Either InDesign will do it at print/pdf-export time, or your RIP will do it internally. If you're printing halftones, that typically means it will downsample to 2x the halftone screen frequency (lpi). Downsampling like this is usually done in a non-bicubic manner, which means your final output will be worse than if you downsample the image yourself before printing.

There is little reason to have more than 1.5x lpi in any photographic image, so if you're printing with a 150 lpi, then 225 ppi is all you need in most images. If you do have very sharp edges, then I would suggest 300 ppi.

I'm open to hearing your argument, but I'm not convinced from your samples there. There are too many variables, including your particular rip, your worfklow, etc.

Both tiff and psd are bitmap only, both can have layers, neither support vectors. PSD supports duotone but TIFF does not. Not sure if TIFF supports layer comps; perhaps not. The main benefit for TIFF is that you could more easily import it into powerpoint or quarkxpress 4, or something like that. The main benefit of PSD is that you can just leave it in the native file format.

Here's an old blog post that discusses this (especially in comments): https://creativepro.com/why…..-tiffs.php

As for EPS vs. PDF, here's one post on the topic: https://creativepro.com/my-…..llenge.php

Right, you definitely should NOT apply character styles to the whole paragraph. Character styles should only be applied to one word, or one sentence, or something like that. They are only for making things bold or giving them emphasis, etc.

Amazing! But I remember chiseling plates out of granite that we had to quarry ourselves! Using only our teeth! :)

No, actually, my background is all digital. But because my stepfather worked at Xerox PARC, I had access to laser printers and Alto computers. So I started “typesetting” around 1979. I remember my 7th grade teachers would never write edits on my school papers because they looked like they had all been professionally typeset. Old software such as Gryphon (color vector drawing program) and early color laser printers… amazing.

But later, I started collecting type paraphanalia. I have a small collection of wood type, metal type, photo type, and other fun things.

Is the image inline (anchored)? Would it help to put the objects on different layers? (The layers panel is usually the best option for that kind of thing.)

Sorry, no.

(You can “fake” it by making extra cells, but it is a big hassle.)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's how images are tagged in InDesign's XML world. I can't recall exactly. Have you tried making something in InDesign, tagging it, and exporting it as XML to look at? That often helps.

Have you watched Jim Maivald's XML and InDesign title at lynda.com? Or read his book? In my experience, XML is incredibly frustrating for things like this. I would probably never use XML for a directory like this. Instead, I would use InData from emsoftware.com (use code idsecrets211 by end of February to get 10% off).