[What Is The Difference Between Indesign Cs5 Cs6 Serial Numberl
Amancio Mccrae
What I did was that I imported images already in CMYK, and then for text and graphic elements I used only CMYK colors (checked all in swatches panel, if I used accidentally RGB i changed it to CMYK via swatches panel).
But I'm completely lost in this "assign profile" and "convert to profile" settings"? Can somebody clearly explain why to use which, and what's the difference? And how my settings should look like, so I produce a "CMYK" PDF ready to print.
in more detail:If you have something that is looking wonky colorwise on screen, or printing strangely, the fastest, nondestructive way to see what might be going on is by assigning a different profile and viewing/printing again. Assign says all pixels keep your info, I'm just going to use a different set of instructions to decide what your info means visually.
Converting to a new profile does actually change data, color swatches, images, etc. will have new info created that tries to keep appearances as close as possible, but might have to invent new rgb/cmyk values to keep a semblance of the appearance in the new color space. It is destructive, actual information is changed and perhaps lost in the conversion. Think of it like converting an RGB image to CMYK in photoshop, you've actually changed the file and asked it to take the original 3 channels and convert them to the new 4 channel option. If you go back and forth between these actual conversions you start to degrade/seriously change the image/file.
Now, why there are two is for color management reasons. Convert is the correct way to ready something for print once all things are finalized, making sure the color profile is correct for your final print workflow. If you do need to convert the file to a new destination space, then I'd recommend saving an original, and making a new one with the converted space so you could go back readily if necessary.
Assign let's you tinker and at least visually try to figure out why what you're seeing on your screen is nothing like what you might have been expecting. It is not intended for a print workflow, its for helping you figure out what's what.
There are also some use cases where if something doesn't have a profile you want to first assign the one that looks best on your screen, then convert to the correct output one... Anyway, there are a lot of reasons for having both the assign and the convert options.
Why do the units and measures default to Picas. Who works in Picas? I normally work with Points and have to change the units of every new document.Basically, is there a way to make the default unit Points from when I open InDesign instead of having to change it every time? It drives me nuts!!!!ThanksTracy
I need it to stay on points so that when I open a new document I dont have to go into Edit>Preferences/Units/increments everytime, or when I close InDesign and reopen it remains on points.Can I make Points the DEFAULT?ThanksTracy
>Who works in Picas?
I always work in picas. I got in the habit when I worked in a high-end textbook composition shop. There it was sink or swim--if you couldn't make sense of the designer's notations on the style pages for a book, you sure learned quickly. As Dave said, it's easy to enter point values in pica format. In addition, pica values are smaller and easier to remember than points or inches. Once you're accustomed to it, 25p6 is a lot easier to work with than 306 points or 4.25 inches.Scott
Tracy, for us in Europe this question might just be the case, having to think in dodecadecimal or hexadecimal ways instead of decimal.
But as the others say, we had to learn use the Pica/point (along with Cicero/point and Didot/point, along with Foot/inch) because it makes much sense in typography.It's better to fit type height (always in points of pica) to leading of pica/point, than anything else and it's only logical then to measure the column height in pica/point.
In Europe where everybody uses cm as a unit, you can't expect an accurate fit in a column, if this is not measured in pica/point.thanks
GeorgeP.S. Who would think of measuring speed in furlongs per fortnight?
I never used Indesign before and now i have to learn to script to it,.. quite a challenge!But, back ontopic.
When i first used InDesign i thought let's use Points. That's pretty logical i think, becuase, when working on a screen, you think in points.
But after a while i changed to centimeters, becuase layout will be easier to understand.
I never got hold of those strange Inches and Picas??? Wow,.. i even never heard of them, hihihi.but as i read above, converting points and inches to picas is quite simple, so it should be the units to use if you want to be able to exchange your document with others?I guess the discossion about what units to use is endless, everybody had it's own favorite. Escpecially in the time, when computers can do layout of the page and convert if neccecary?
Since picas are the international standard units of measure in high-end
design and publishing, that would probably be the safest way to go.
As you know the standard page in Europe (and the rest of the metric world) is A4 (210 mm X 297 mm), then A3 e.tc.
So we define a A4 page size and then do we have to think of it as 49p7,276 X 70p1,89 ? (which is an approximation)This is an example of how 'international' a measuring system might beregards
George
Eelko:That's an excellent point--as long as you're the only person working on the files, it doesn't matter what units of measure you use. But if you're going to be collaborating with others, it's important to agree on basic conditions like units so everyone is speaking a common language. Since picas are the international standard units of measure in high-end design and publishing, that would probably be the safest way to go.Scott
That does add some complication, doesn't it? Too bad the point/pica system wasn't created until after metric sizing became the standard. We wouldn't be stuck with 8.5 x 11 in. (51p x 66p) as the default page size here in the U.S.Scott
But I find it better to work in picas in my scripts because that's what I think in, so I just have to divide the measurements that are in points by 12 when I need to include them in arithmetic expressions with other measurements.Dave
"Like other graphic-arts software from Adobe and other companies, InDesign
uses Postscript points, which don't correspond exactly to traditional
printer points. There are 72.27 traditional printer points in an inch, as
opposed to 72 Postscript points."k
The point is 1/12th of one of the following :
1. Pica
2. Cicero
3. Didot
These three being different in measure, a point can be any of three measurements. That's ambiguity's definition.You are right saying it kept developing (as a definition). The original typographer's pica was not an exact subdivision of the inch (actually it was less than 1/12th). Then sometime ago (18 years maybe) after dtp was invented, pica was rounded to an exact 1/12 of the inch, so later we had "a typographer's pica (the old traditional definition) and a Postscript pica at exactly 1/12 of the inch.
Then along goes the 'point' in the pica system. (and another 'point' in the Cicero and Didot systems).That's not important now, as long as we know what are we talking about.regards
George
Actually George, that isn't correct according to what I've read. The original pica WAS exactly a sixth of an inch. What happened was that the pica measure used as the standard was an actual working piece and over the years it wore down. When the problem was recognized, the piece was locked away to protect the standard, but by then the standard was what it was. Now because of DTP the original standard is back.
"Simon Fournier proposed a system of 72 points per inch ... and published a printed scale ... Depending on the weather, the printed scale changed in size. Since the ruler was used as a reference, printers and font makers suffered from inconsistent tools and measures. ... Franois Didot proposed a solution by defining a point as exactly 1/72 of a French inch."If the original point was defined as 1/72 of an inch, then why did Didot's proposal to define it later as 1/72 of a French inch solve the inconsistent ruler problem? Are we to assume that there was an absolute French inch that all printers had access to and that never changed whereas the only copy anyone had of the original inch was a weatherbeaten printed scale? Or maybe they'd just invented weatherproof rulers by then!PS. Why could a measure not be based "on a conversion from an existing measurement system"? What's the difference between saying there are 83pc to 35cm and a foot is "the length of the king's foot"? Must every measure be taken from something that is not originally a measure? So a centimetre must be defined not as 1/100 of a metre but as the length of a barley corn or what have you?
Just because any length can be measured in inches or in centimetres doesn't make the systems related. All measurement systems are initially based on something in the real world. The Imperial system was based on things such as barley grains or the length of the King's outstretched arm; Metric was an attempt to establish a system based on scientific principles (can't remember the specifics, but they screwed up a bit and had to fudge some of the values anyway.) Conversion is necessary because both systems are based on different fundamental values. If a new measurement system was based on a value from another sytem it would be a subset of the original, unable to be defined without reference to the original. The inch wasn't defined because 2.54 barley grains were needed to make a predetermined length, the inch was developed because a predetermined amount of whole grains came to a length that was then named an inch.
I just don't see the essential difference between basing a measurement system on something from the phsyical world and basing it on another measurement system. You say that the latter means that it is "unable to be defined without reference to the original" but then logically isn't that also the case for the former: eg, feet must always refer back to the King's foot (or whatever was first used)? Once a measure is defined, whether based on a physical object or a existing measure, it becomes valid and exists independent of its origin.Besides which, defining a pica as being 1/83 of 35cm simply means it's 1/83 of 35/100 of 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of the earth. So there's your physical object underlying the pica.And your view doesn't seem to be shared by those responsible for determining measures: in 1959, the National Bureau of Standards and the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey redefined an inch as being equal to exactly 2.54 centimeters (ie, a foot was exactly 0.3048 meters). Does this mean inches are now a subset of centimetres? And the reference posted does indicate that a pica was at one stage defined as 1/83 of 35 centimetres.