Sean Baker wrote:

Learning questions only:

Would InDesign not respect the Multiply blend mode?  I understood that with CS3/4 layer styles worked across the product line?

As to the original question, would reading Mr. Margulis' books provide the means to answer this, or another resource?

You would think that In Design should honor the blend modes, but in reality, according to the studio folks I deal with, they have to affect a work around to get the blend modes to work, and they do this at a significant cost in time. In Quark, you can completely forget about it working, again, this according to my clients.

Whether my clients are accurate or not isn't the question, if I don't know the answer, and it costs them time, they complain. If they complain about the same problem enough times, I'm out of a client.

Margulis touches on the problem, but he doesn't explain the topic in depth in his books. I picked up on the problem when I was an engravers apprentice. The problem is the same in films as it is in direct to plate from files.

Robert Randall wrote:
Whether my clients are accurate or not isn't the question, if I don't know the answer, and it costs them time, they complain. If they complain about the same problem enough times, I'm out of a client.

Margulis touches on the problem, but he doesn't explain the topic in depth in his books. I picked up on the problem when I was an engravers apprentice. The problem is the same in films as it is in direct to plate from files.

Thank you sir.  Points well taken; to include the need to spend more time in CMYK.

Sean Baker wrote:

Thank you sir.  Points well taken; to include the need to spend more time in CMYK.

Me too. I was watching part of Dan's instructional videos on LAB and that is very interesting as well.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I wonder if the portrait photographer could answer Bob's question.

If you are referring to the Atlanta guy, I would guess probably not. To give a bit of dimension to the question you raise, there aren't all that many people with the training and experience that would allow for an answer. If that makes you think I'm bragging, refer back to the thread that asked the question, "How do you rate as a retoucher", and note that while everyone in this place felt they were an A+ or an 11, I said I was a solid B. There are people out there that make me look like I'm standing still when it comes to knowledge and ability.

Robert Randall wrote:

If you are referring to the Atlanta guy, I would guess probably not. To give a bit of dimension to the question you raise, there aren't all that many people with the training and experience that would allow for an answer. If that makes you think I'm bragging, refer back to the thread that asked the question, "How do you rate as a retoucher", and note that while everyone in this place felt they were an A+ or an 11, I said I was a solid B. There are people out there that make me look like I'm standing still when it comes to knowledge and ability.

Go ahead and brag. Well earned.

I like your challenges. I'm not scared. The potential of learning something new far outweighs looking silly. I didn't see anyone else step up... Cowards!

Robert Randall wrote:
Question number 1.

You have a gradient background that runs top to bottom, comprised of a basic blue gradient of 80C, 40M, 10Y, 5K, fading to no Y and no K. The art director wants you to lay in a drop shadow using a value of black. What nominally should that black read in terms of value, and why?

Edit... make sure your drop shadow has a feathered edge.

have you seen the new raw gradient filter, that is rad. So if you created as an illustrator the drop shadow layer and then took it into the raw plug in you could easily create the gradiated color you are looking for. Just for the record, yes I took that design class to know the right color, no I don't care enough to look in my books to know.

My guess is some sort of yellow...

However, I don't do composting, and when specialties like that are asked of me I look up the knowledge because i know it is available to me. I know enough to know when i need to look something up, which is why i love Mr. Russell Brown, his quicktime movies have refreshed my memory so many times it is scary.

I also have experts I could call, like Rick Miller who is my friend, if i get really stuck.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I didn't see anyone else step up... Cowards!

I was brigged at the time and emailed Bob. Now I don't know enough about this, but I do know that the drop shadow color needs to make the blue black rather than be black it's self (or at least needs to get along with the blue) so that it would not only be the correct color but also not cause ink issues when it goes to print.

Again, I could be wrong, and I was wrong before, but there is more too it than just grabbing black.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

I was brigged at the time and emailed Bob. Now I don't know enough about this, but I do know that the drop shadow color needs to make the blue black rather than be black it's self (or at least needs to get along with the blue) so that it would not only be the correct color but also not cause ink issues when it goes to print.

Again, I could be wrong, and I was wrong before, but there is more too it than just grabbing black.

You are correct. If the drop shadow doesn't contain color generically in tune with the background, the edges of the shadow will go gray as they lay over the background. The work around would be to use some form of darkening blend, but as stated before, this can cause problems in the studio's workflow. As an aside, the people that assemble the images into layout programs at ad agencies, work in what is commonly referred to as the "Studio".

While Star may have something with the newer tool she posited, if it can't be used quickly in a layout program, (and it seems up until now, there are still compatibility issues between layered PS files and layout programs) it isn't going to fly in the studios. Most of the time, art work such as drop shadows, is delivered as a layered file so the studio can make last minute changes to the opacity of the shadow, based on their proofs and other changes they might have made to their back ground files.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
But Bob, doesn't that all depend on what the shaodw is?

Since with text and a few other things, you could do that in Quark/Indesign, and I would assume that the RIP would take care of any color issues that would come up. So it wouldn't be a big deal in that case to use a straight black.

Or did I miss something?

I only deal with images, I wasn't referring to type, which can be with in the province of the page layout program.

Robert Randall wrote:
I only deal with images, I wasn't referring to type, which can be with in the province of the page layout program.

But now, and maybe I'm not correct (it's been known to happen), but if the image was cut out, and if the gradient was done on quark/imageready, it may be easier to put a drop shadow on the image in the layout program rather than on the image it's self. (it's been years, but I'm assuming that drop shadows can be done on images)