Creating Effects/transparentcy in InDesign or Quark

[Techboy]

Hi All,
How many here has experience with printing drop shadows or other special effects in either InDesign or Quark? I'm old school. I was taught to do any artsy stuffs outside of layout apps. Does it still apply now?

Both InDesign and Quark 7 has their own drop shadow effects etc build into the latest of either program. This morning, we were having a problem with drop shadows not proofing correctly and this stuff just came back from outside designer. This stuff is still a crapshoot at best which is why I suggest the designer to do things the old way. Of course, he claims it will take up too much time for the job. Frankly, I rather have something done correctly than someone taking a shortcut and not realized the shortcut really isn't saving them much time.

How hard is it to create type with soft shadow in Photoshop, add a color background and flattening it for re-import? Takes like 5-10 min if one knows what's going on. This designer clearly don't.

This job is done using InDesign's drop shadow, but on color laser proof, it prints a light/faint tint of black around text/object boxes.

[almaink]

They a work fine in Indy IF you have a modern workflow that supports transparency. Flattening for older workflows can cause issues tho. Quack does it now but everything gets flattened and output is always a crapshoot.

[pmkprog]

If you know how to do it old school and know that you can control predictability that way, I say stick with what you know.

[prepress_vee]

This job is done using InDesign's drop shadow, but on color laser proof, it prints a light/faint tint of black around text/object boxes.

Are you sending files from the RIP to the laser or straight out of INDD?
Cuz it might be a different outcome when you RIP for plates/film.... sounds dangerous. Different renderer/interpreter - different outcome.
Also, be sure the INDD file is layered with your text on the top most layer.
INDD's dropshadow effects should work ok, I have no use for Quack 7 so can't really comment on that.

Like pmkprog says, if you can crank it out your way, and it's safe/predictable - do it your way.. designer guy will never know if looks right.

[DCurry]

I've worked on a few Q7 jobs that had drop shadows applied, and they work fine. Just remember that stacking order is king when controlling what gets flattened - this applies no matter what app you use. The biggest difficulty in using these effects in Q7 is that there is nothing like InDesign's Flattener Preview to show you potential problem areas and how they will be flattened.

[AlanThompson]

I had a Q7 job today that had a drop shadow where the picture box was rotated 15 degrees. By rotating the picture box it caused the drop shadow to be "stairstepped" So, I brought the image into PS and rotated it, saved it and brought it back into Q7 NOT rotated. Problem solved.....Alan

[Lammy]

I've found PDF to be a large help with quarks effects. At least then I can force it into submission with pitstop.

[Jezza]

For the advice from the software houses themselves go here

Quark: QuarkXPress 7 Resource Center

or

here - scroll around and find what is suitable

Adobe Print Resource Center

anything you can produce natively is always best. Old school is cool and works, but mdern is often quicker and more efficient. No point with Quark unless you absolutely have to.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Techboy

Hi All,
How many here has experience with printing drop shadows or other special effects in either InDesign or Quark? I'm old school. I was taught to do any artsy stuffs outside of layout apps. Does it still apply now?

Both InDesign and Quark 7 has their own drop shadow effects etc build into the latest of either program. This morning, we were having a problem with drop shadows not proofing correctly and this stuff just came back from outside designer. This stuff is still a crapshoot at best which is why I suggest the designer to do things the old way. Of course, he claims it will take up too much time for the job. Frankly, I rather have something done correctly than someone taking a shortcut and not realized the shortcut really isn't saving them much time.

How hard is it to create type with soft shadow in Photoshop, add a color background and flattening it for re-import? Takes like 5-10 min if one knows what's going on. This designer clearly don't.

This job is done using InDesign's drop shadow, but on color laser proof, it prints a light/faint tint of black around text/object boxes.

You answered your own question. FLATTENING is bad. The ultimate goal of all these fancy new tools is to have a page go completely from design concept to screened separations without ever flattening. They're getting there but it takes time. We can do it in Nexus right now but it's not the most productive workflow as it stands now but they'll get there. Plus your outside designer paid big bucks for those tools. I can't say I blame him. Gotta keep up with the times.

[prepress_vee]

I think the industry is in limbo currently regarding flattening.
It's not always bad, and not always good either. It depends on the software used to output.

I can send layered PDF 1.6 to Meta RIP, but it's going to flatten it - and do an excellent job even.
But I choose to flatten up front by writing .ps > X1a for over 90% of our work. Even files with many layers and lots of trans & dropshadows being used. Works a charm. Only when writing .ps and distilling produces unwanted results do I have my people export layered PDFs, when available. Quack will flatten right out of the gate - so no choice there.

I still think that if re-creating the art to produce the intended results works, do it. As long as it looks the way it should for your client, they don't know the difference in the end, and it works with your software and equipment. Go for it!!
After all, when it's all said and done - it's ALL pixels & all flat.
Vee