Design best practices: image scale bars - separation bars in .tif file or as ID vector element?

[Daniel Geiger]

Greetings. This is a best practices question, not a how-to.

For scientific works (see inserted sample page below) with multipanel figures with scale bars, is it better to keep the bars in the .tif file, or add them on top of the image as vector lines in ID? The ABCs are added already as transparent little text boxes from library for consistency and sharper output.

- Reasons for keeping them in .tif: Everything is bundled together, no possibllity of elements shifting (I know about grouping, use it for the ABCs and image). 

- Reasons against .tif: layered master figures of variable pixel dimension/resolution (could be standardized, but PITA), so line sizes are tricky to standardize.

Reasons for vector elements in ID: standard line sizes easier to maintain. Vector graphics sharper than pixel lines in .tif file; effect most likely limited given that they are only horizontal and vertical lines.

Reasons against vector elements in ID: More work (only about 300 figures to re-do), possible screw up in production with more individual elements in a .pdf file.

Thanks for any pointers/opinions/experiences.

P.S. Just noticed Fig.

589B. Have to use a non-breaking space. 

 

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

I would do them with the layered TIFF or Photoshop file to make sure the line scales properly with the image. A straight line won't make any difference if it is raster or vector (unless you want rounded edges, but even then, it's too small). If you REALLY want vector, save the Photoshop file as a Photoshop PDF. Vector elements created in PS will stay vector.

[Peter Spier]

Personally I would do them as separate elements in InDesign. I think the advantage of having them locked in for the correct length in the image is outweighed by the flexibility of changing the location and maintaining a consistent stroke weight  when you have different magnification levels or need to zoom in.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

I would be concerned with the accuracy of the scale if creating it in InDesign. 

[Peter Spier]

I would be concerned with the accuracy of the scale if creating it in InDesign. 

By @Dave Creamer of IDEAS

That's definitely a consideration. One way to secure agains errors mimght be to include a scale rule on the edge of the image canvas outside the image area to be used for reference.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

That's what I was thinking too (but didn't bother to type it...). 

[Daniel Geiger]

Re accuracy of the scale bar, the one in the image file is already a derivative from the SEM machine generated one. I could import the image with .tif scale bars, add ID scale bars and lines at magnified views, group it all, then turn the scale bars and lines off in the master image, re-export, update image to avoid any duplicate/off-set lines. Scale bar off by a pixel or two is irrelevant. I took all the images, so can judge what is scientifically relevant.

If I need to rescale, then I can re-check by turning on scale bars in master image file, export, check, done. Will not be a common occurrence anyway. 

I rather see the trade off between consistency of line weight and elements moving around, any weird pdf problems.

[Daniel Geiger]

Thanks for the input. Two community experts, two opposite opinion. Interesting in its own right. At least it indicates there isn't an objectively correct answer, and I did not miss some major points.

- Importing the graphic as a pdf, intesting possibility, but certainly not. Too many possible problems when pdf-ing a placed pdf. That's just asking for trouble.

I use AffinityPhoto for images. I detest Adobe for their rental software. However, I am forced to use ID as no other book production tool can be configured for automatic-dynamic figure numbering and cross referencing. With hundreds of figures, I cannot do that manually. Only possible with VirginiaSystems InSeq plug in, only available for ID (no longer for QXD, not for Publisher). Sigh. Mindboggling that such an essential feature, perfect for automatization, is not available in tools allegedly suitable for long books. -- End rant.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Are you saying you _only_ subscribe to InDesign --or do you have the entire Creative Cloud? If you have the entire Creative Cloud, you would have access to quite a few Adobe programs, including Photoshop. 

The reason I mention Photoshop is because it has a measurements log in which you can set the scale and take scaled measurements on an image. 

[Daniel Geiger]

I only and reluctantly use ID, nothing else from the Adobe suite; I hate any rental software with a vengance. Don't use MS either, Mellel is a great wordprocessor, and Apple Numbers (Excel) and Keynote (Powerpoint) are prefect alternatives. Affinity is such a good deal, and for my purposes superior in some respects to Photoshop (used it from PS3 till CS6), e.g., non-destructive scaling. For my limited vector use, AffinityDesigner is perfectly fine, just for long books, Publisher is not up to the task because of figure numbering problem. Used QXP in the past, but unfortunately, VirginiaSystem is no longer compatible with QXP due to Mac OS architecture switch a couple of years back.

ID has its own flaws, such as unusably slow "performance"-crawl when using cross-referencing [I have a couple hundred cross references in the current 1200+ page project], and TOC not working on book [only first document is parsed], so have to use two more VirginiaSystem plug ins. They work great! Also adding text boxes on new pages inexplicably changes the text-box object style, so have to manually change that every time (or do a object style replacement in entire story). QXP with the auto-text boxes is much more user friendly in that regard. And when scrolling, frequently random color blocks appear over pages, and when copy-paste text, it looks like two lines of text are on top of one another. Have to scroll up/down then back to where I need to be to remove all those artifacts. 

For measurements, there is open source ImageJ, but for my purposes, typically a simple calculation is all I need.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Have you ever looked into Adobe FrameMaker?

[Daniel Geiger]

Briefly, but I cannot see whether it does automatic and dynamic cross referencing for sequentially numbered figures/tables. Additionally, given the unusable cross-referencing feature in ID, I have very little faith in Adobe to handle it. My current book as over 700 figures (cross-referenced across chapters/documents in book), the book before 1042 figures on 1291 pages. I don't think the VirginiaSystem plugins are available for FM. I only see sequential numbering option in FM, but no cross referencing option in text: "As shown in Figure DYNAMIC-FIGURE-REFERENCE, the color is green". The way the figure numbering function works in FM with a +1 function, it does not seem to be able to idenfify a particular caption. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I can see, FM is also inferior in typography (widdows orphants; though ID is not doing a perfect job either), not sure about GREP styles [the semibold outdent subheaders and *Figure* and ABCs in caption, plus all the O. xxxx and Oberonia xxxx in italics is done with GREP styles], or stylistic alternates in glyph palette for swash type faces [I use DreamScript for Chapter Openers in this book on orchid flowers].

Reflowing text for different screen sizes or similar is of no concern for me. This is for fixed format print production. Last but not least, I know where the bodies are burried with ID, don't know the problems of FM. And I am too far in to redo the entire 1200 page book. I think I am about 6 months out from pre-press. My next two books may be candidates, but only if there is clear evidence that it actually works and is advantageous. However, if Publisher or QXP catch up, I will jump the Adobe boat in a heart-beat.

[Joel Cherney]

Briefly, but I cannot see whether it does automatic and dynamic cross referencing for sequentially numbered figures/tables. Additionally, given the unusable cross-referencing feature in ID, I have very little faith in Adobe to handle it.

Frame's cross-reference system is so much better than InDesign's that the DTPTools cross-reference plugin is overtly advertised as being an implementation of Framemaker-style xrefs for InDesign. Worth a look, for someone in your shoes. That being said...

Last but not least, I know where the bodies are burried with ID, don't know the problems of FM. 

I find this argument to be completely airtight. I mean, over the long run, it might be to your advantage to do a bit of a grave-digging expedition, so you could look at your next massive publishing project with more than one layout app in your toolkit. (But sometimes the only way to know exactly where the bodies are buried is to be present when the deed was done, right?)

You can't wait for Publisher to catch up, as it's being sunsetted. I often wonder how much better InDesign would be if Quark were still a serious competitor to InDesign. But, as you note, its plugin ecosystem is no longer as healthy as it once was.

Lastly - have you considered some flavor of LaTeX? That's a traditional Layout Tool of Last Resort for major academic publishing projects that don't fit well within the Adobe toolkit. 

[Peter Spier]

@Joel Cherney I think he uses Affinity Publisher, not Microsoft (which I can't believe was ever up to the task of doing an academic book)

[Joel Cherney]

Sheesh. You're totally correct. (I mean, I'm willing to take considerably more than 50% of the blame here for my own poor reading comprehension, but I'd like to put at least some small fraction of it on whoever decided to name Affinity Publisher identically to another commonly used page layout app.)

[Conrad_C]

…I'd like to put at least some small fraction of it on whoever decided to name Affinity Publisher identically to another commonly used page layout app.)

By @Joel Cherney

Well, that problem will soon solve itself, since both Publisher product names are in the process of no longer existing.  🙂

Affinity Publisher no longer exists as a separate application; as of a few weeks ago it became the Layout module of the new, free* unified Affinity application where its Vector, Pixel, and Layout modules replace the formerly separate Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo, and Affinity Publisher applications. (*Free unless you want AI features, in that case it’s a Canva AI subscription app.)

Microsoft Publisher will reach end of life in October 2026. After that date, no more updates or availability in Office 365. 

PS. FM also has a tiny user community compared to ID. On one review site, there were ~4500 reviews for ID and 34 for FM. This is telling.

By @Daniel Geiger

That is true. But although it might be telling, it doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t already known for the last 35 years. That’s always been the relative size of the FrameMaker user base compared to PageMaker/InDesign and QuarkXPress. But for that entire period of over a third of a century, FrameMaker has continued to exist just because it appeals to a niche of industrial users who value structured documents and multi-channel publishing a lot more than freeform creative design. To them, there is still no other feature set out there that can match FrameMaker for the highly structured long documents they need to make and maintain. 

[Peter Spier]

I haven't done a Book Project since CS6, but I never had any trouble with generating the TOC across all files, so I'm surprrised you say that.

I also hate subscription software, and continue to do my production work in CS6 whenever possible. One of the big advantages to being a Windows user is the continuing ability to install and maintain older software if you are tech savvy and creative.

[Daniel Geiger]

I looked a bit more into FM. Seems to be more for Help Files and product documentation with highly standartized structure (DITA compatibilitity), many contributors and rather digital final product. While my books are long, they don't have standardized content, I am the only person working on it, and print is the final product. Additionally, FM is more expensive. I am just a retired scientists, who likes to write books.

Re DTP Tools, another rental piece. VirginiaSystems plug-ins I buy, I know they work.

Re TOC failure, I'm just as surprised as anybody else. Tried re-synching all styles, ditch book container and re-create book from idd files, but nothing worked. So in the end, I can either try to fuss around with no end in sight, or buy something that works. I tend to be more pragmatic in that regard.

Re CS6, would be nice to use that. This was possibly the point where I got annoyed with Adobe, as newer RAW/CR2 camera files (from a Canon 5Dsr) were no longer recognized, and Adobe tried to force users into rental software. Found DxO and Affinity, never looked back. I think I did my last two books in CS6.

LaTeX: I know about it, never used it. I think its strength is in math equations. I still don't know how I passed calculus in college. One of those great mysteries in life. I have a couple of small formulas in my current book. Only use positive/negative exponents plus some parentheses, fraction slashes, and dot-operator. Easy to do in pretty much any text-editor.

Looks like I'm sticking with ID, warts and all. I will be looking at AffinityPublisher (or the new Canva version) to see whether it might do the job.

Re the original question about scale bars in .tif files or as ID vector elements, I will try the ID vector approach for a couple of them. Move the figures around and see how it all behaves. There doesn't seem to be a clearly superior way one way or the other.

Thanks for the discussion and suggestions.

[Daniel Geiger]

PS. FM also has a tiny user community compared to ID. On one review site, there were ~4500 reviews for ID and 34 for FM. This is telling.

[Peter Spier]

Re the original question about scale bars in .tif files or as ID vector elements, I will try the ID vector approach for a couple of them. Move the figures around and see how it all behaves. There doesn't seem to be a clearly superior way one way or the other.

Thanks for the discussion and suggestions.

By @Daniel Geiger

It really is six of one, half dozen of the other and will come down to personl working style I expect.