How do I import vector graphics from Illustrator CC to Indesign CC?

[peternelson]

I'm brand new to InDesign and I'm using it to design an event card for my club.   Everything has gone well and the only thing I have left to do is add our logo to the card.    Our logo is an Adobe Illustrator (.AI) file and since ID also knows how to do vector art I thought it would be easy, but I haven't figured out how to do it.

I tried a suggestion from here to export it as an EPS file from AI and use the File | Place feature in ID to import it, but that turns it into a bitmap.  I want it to stay as vector art so I can resize it smoothly for our card.

BTW, I also tried Placeing it as a native .AI file but that still turns it into a groddy bitmap so it's no longer vector art and cannnot be smoothly resized by selecting it and grabbing a corner.  It's vector art in AI and I want it to still be vector art in ID.

How do I import vector art from AI?

Thanks in advance!

[Barb Binder]

Hi Peter:

You can simply use File > Place to place the .ai version of the logo onto your InDesign page. It may look pixelated, but vector files don't have resolution so that's just InDesign's way of quickly showing you the file. Printing will alleviate your concerns, as will View > Display Performance > High Quality Display.

This post will give you a little more information on how Display Performance works:

https://www.rockymountaintraining.com/?s=display+performance

~Barb

[peternelson]

I did try that and, as you say, it pixelates it and the resizing handles don't work.    How do I resize it, and also how to I display it as vector art?   I have other vector art in my card that I drew in ID and that looks good.  But the imported stuff looks too groddy to evaluate.

I'm new to ID but my understanding is that it's a native vector-graphics program.    So how do I take vector graphics from AI, which is also native vector graphics program, and just treat it like any other vector graphics in ID?  The Performance setting certainly helps, but I'm unclear why it's necessary for the imported art and not the art that was made in ID.

[Eugene Tyson]

I wrote an article on why Hi-res images look low resolution to give you a better understanding

https://indesignsecrets.com/high-res-image-look-low-res.php

In short - InDesign creates a proxy image which is a low resolution version of your file in-situ in your layout - there are controls to show a higher resolution proxy - but InDesign then only uses your Linked files to create the output file.

[Barb Binder]

Peter: when you place the .ai file (don't use .eps—it's an outdated format) you are placing vector art. It may look pixelated, but vector files don't have resolution so that's just InDesign's way of quickly showing you the file. You get enough detail to know that you have the right file.

"I'm unclear why it's necessary for the imported art and not the art that was made in ID."

That's how InDesign works. This is a user-to-user forum. We can explain how features work, but we can't explain why Adobe designed an application to work the way they designed it to work.

As a side note, my retina MacBook Pro defaults to High Quality Display because InDesign can see that it has the ability to quickly display high-quality images. Older systems with lower-resolution monitors still need to turn it on manually, as explained in the link in my first post.

"resizing handles don't work"

Unless the image is locked, or if you are trying to manipulate a master page object on a body page, click once on the logo—but not on the doughnut in the middle—and you can resize the frame. If you wish to resize the frame proportionately, add the Shift key as drag a sizing handle. If you wish to resize the logo and the image at the same time, add the Control key (Cmd key on a Mac). As a default, resizing a frame does not resize the content. 

~Barb

[peternelson]

Thanks but I'm still unclear on this limitation.   As I said, I'm new to InDesign, but I was trying it out to design the text side of a card my community art gallery hands out to announce next year's scheduled shows.   The card has a mix of photos, line (vector) art, and text.   I did the photo-heavy side in Photoshop, prepared the vector-art components, like our logo, in Illustrator, and I was doing the text-heavy side in ID.

As an ID newbie I was under the impression that ID did native vector art (like Illustrator), so I just assumed that ID could import vector art from Illustrator and then I could just treat it as another piece of vector art.   So I don't understand the necessity of this proxy relationship.

In the future should I stick to Illustrator for single-page text-heavy projects like this side of our card?   

[Barb Binder]

Hi Peter:

I'm still unclear on this limitation.

InDesign is happy to accept your vector artwork. There is no limitation on accepting .ai. files. As I have tried to say—Eugene, too—InDesign will display artwork quickly (does so with a low-res proxy) on a low-res monitor. This in no way impacts printing, which is why I twice recommended that you print it to verifiy that statement. And, when are bothered by how it looks on screen, turn on View > Display Performance > High Quality Display, which takes a few seconds longer but shows the detailed artwork. 

That's it. Go ahead and finish up your project, and when you have time, I highly recommend that you track down a class on InDesign, which will address this concern and any others you may have. 

~Barb

[peternelson]

There is no limitation on accepting .ai. files.

Not being able to treat it as a native vector-art image that I created in InDesign and can display and tweak just like some vector art I drew in ID  IS  a limitation.     InDesign already has simple editing tools for native vector art, but on the Adobe website it says, "Import the graphic using the Place command, and when you want to edit it, choose Edit > Edit Original to open the graphic in Illustrator."  I should be able to edit it in InDesign. (after all it's called "In Design" not "out-in-some-other-application Design"  8-) )   So I really think that's a limitation because it means you have two different collections of vector art in your project, some of which can be edited natively and displayed without a proxy, and some of which need to be displayed with a proxy and edited in a separate application.   But by comparison if I have a TIFF or JPEG image that I created in GIMP or some other tool, and I import it into Photoshop it becomes no different than an image I created IN Photoshop. 

And having to print it first defies the concept of WYSIWYG.   If I've calibrated my monitor properly I should be able to assume it will print the way it looks on the screen.   It would be a serious Adobe bug if it looked smooth on the screen but groddy in the print.  So normally for proofs, I send the electronic file, with separations and bleeds (if requested) to my printing company and they supply the proofs which are much more accurate than anything I print in my studio, especially because these will be offset-printed.   I've never had any problem doing that in the past.

I don't understand why you don't think of these as limitations.  I know you think I should take a class in ID, but from what I've seen of it I'm afraid I'll invest all that time and work only to discover that it doesn't give me anything that I couldn't do more easily in Illustrator.    I understand that InDesign is good for books but I'm not designing a book.

.  

[Eugene Tyson]

It's a very popular comment and many of us also wish it worked that way - you can make requests here for future updates https://indesign.uservoice.com/

I would support it. 

It's called InDesign - but it has nothing to do with designing in or out of the program. 

What we all need to do when using software is accept it's limitations and this and that - everything has ups and downs when using any piece of software. 

For what it's worth - you can Copy and Paste directly from Illlustrator to InDesign - however, be aware this is best only for very simple - and I mean basic - vector artwork.

Illustrator has a lot more features than InDesign - complex patterns, gradients, clipping masks, compound maks, etc and all these things are made completely differently by the Illustrator programme - and if copied into InDesign then InDesign would try to interpret them in the way it understands.

InDesign is designed to work exactly as it's working - Illustrator is the proper avenue to edit your artwork. 

If you have a piece of vector artwork on your page copied from Illustartor or created in InDesign - and you copy this to 100 different pages and need to make an edit to this image -  you'd have to make the change and then copy and place that same image 100 times.

If you build it in Illustrator and use File>Place and insert the file once - then you just have to open that image by using the Edit with>Illustrator command and edit the image and it will update 100 times as it's Linked to the document and the change is throughout your document.

I feel we're you're coming from - but you just need to get on board with how the programmes work. 

You can put in a feature request - but it could take years to make the final cut. 

For example, I campaigned for Spanning Footnotes across columns for about 5 years before it eventually made it into the edition you see now. That was me! I think? Maybe they were always working on it - maybe my campaign worked. 

Hey - if you want to edit your Vector artwork InSitu - the there are alternatives - try out Affinity - it has this ability - however, it doesn't have all the features of InDesign - it is missing a lot of features for long documents etc. 

But you're not stuck with using Adobe - there's other software out that that can work the way you want it to. 

Either that - or get on board with how it works.

[Eugene Tyson]

I'm going to address each point separately here 

Not being able to treat it as a native vector-art image that I created in InDesign and can display and tweak just like some vector art I drew in ID  IS  a limitation.    

It's not a limitation - there's no feature in InDesign to edit vector artwork created in another application as InDesign has basic vector tools - Adobe Illustrator is a much more complex programme and requires a different "engine" to run it. 

There are other programmes that allow vector editing in-situ - however, I think this is naive from these software companies as the Vector artwork holds much more information other than just then lines/shapes and etc. - it holds things like colour values, profiles, correct sizing calculations and other info. 

If you want to edit a PLACED file then you need to use the programme it was created in to make the edits - that is 100% is the safest way to edit any file - you wouldn't edit a MS Word file by opening it in Excel. Or you wouldn't edit an Excel file Open Office, as the Excel file might hold a calculation cell that is not supported by the Open Office software.

It's the exact same with any software - including Indesign and Illustrator. You can't edit PLACED artwork - you are LINKING to a file - this file holds all the goodness you created in that other programme.

Yes, InDesign creates a low-resolution proxy - it doesn't support showing the full vector image - it's a dumbed down version. Displaying the Vector graphic in InDesign, especially large volumes of it in InDesign will cause issues with lag.

Why?

InDesign is not an editing tool - it's "engine" is designed for page layout and it is geared towards working as a page layout tool.

Illustrator is geared towards displaying illustrations packed with vector goodness. 

Photoshop is geared towards displaying Photos and editing and all that goodness.

InDesign is the package that brings all these things together. 

InDesign already has simple editing tools for native vector art, but on the Adobe website it says, "Import the graphic using the Place command, and when you want to edit it, choose Edit > Edit Original to open the graphic in Illustrator."  I should be able to edit it in InDesign. (after all it's called "In Design" not "out-in-some-other-application Design"  8-) )   So I really think that's a limitation because it means you have two different collections of vector art in your project, some of which can be edited natively and displayed without a proxy, and some of which need to be displayed with a proxy and edited in a separate application.   But by comparison if I have a TIFF or JPEG image that I created in GIMP or some other tool, and I import it into Photoshop it becomes no different than an image I created IN Photoshop. 

There's a lot to absorb here. 

Yes, InDesign has some basic vector tools - and you can create and edit basic vector art - you can even copy and paste Vector art from Illustrator to InDesign - but very basic. As before, InDesign is not geared for heavy vector art, and it doesn't have the same features as Illustrator - so some features copied over would not translate to InDesign, as InDesign does not have that feature. The same way if you copied a complex calculation in Excel and opened it in another programme like say Word - the calculation would be broken because Word doesn't know how to handle it - however, nowadays it is set up to open Excel to make the edit to the calculation and saving it returns you back to Word. 

You don't have 2 different Vector art collections in your files - if you do - you shouldn't. I really don't understand what you mean - I presume you created the Vector art in InDesign to make edits to it when you need to - and now you have a bunch of linked Illustrator files that you need to edit? 

That's just a misunderstanding of Workflow between the programmes - as said, getting to grips to  how the programmes interact is paramount to utilising the softwares correctly. 

If it was this simple they would have just released Adobe Graphic Design - and it would be Illustrator/InDesign/Photoshop combined into 1 easy to use programme.

But they didn't - they released each separately - as InDesign is a tool for 1 thing - Illustrator for another - Photoshop for another thing - and you combine all your elements in InDesign.

The bold bit I highlighted above gets me - "if you have a tiff or jpeg that made in Gimp or somethingn else and import to Photoshop - it becomes no different than an image I created in Photoshop."

This is where you're 100% wrong. I don't even think Gimp supports CMYK or CMYK colour profiles - at least it's difficult to work with - and it doesn't support a lot of other features. 

Why would you use Gimp if you have Photoshop?

And having to print it first defies the concept of WYSIWYG.   If I've calibrated my monitor properly I should be able to assume it will print the way it looks on the screen.   It would be a serious Adobe bug if it looked smooth on the screen but groddy in the print.  So normally for proofs, I send the electronic file, with separations and bleeds (if requested) to my printing company and they supply the proofs which are much more accurate than anything I print in my studio, especially because these will be offset-printed.   I've never had any problem doing that in the past.

You missed the point here - printing it was to only show that the file is 100% ok. You could easily export it to a PDF to get the same clarity that the image is fine. 

And who said InDesign is a WSYIWYG editor? It's 100% not. 

A calibrated monitor doesn't mean anything - and assuming things in print is a sure way to make a huge mess of things. There's other things calibrated monitors wouldn't even catch - like transparency interacting with spot colours, white set to overprint etc. 

Assuming the way it looks on screen is wrong - and every single person will tell you that - a printed proof is done for a reason and is the workflow of 100% of the printers I use and I use up to about 20 different printing companies. 

All printing companies have different workflows, have different RIPs have different printing presses, makes models, inks, paper, substrates and all that stuff.

You can't assume it looks great on screen so it will great in print.

Sending separations to a printer - are you crazy? You're actually sending a separated file to the printer? Firstly, if this printer is asking for separations then you need to find another printer - this workflow has not been heard of in the last 20 years!

And of course their proofs are much more accurate - their proofs are calibrated proofs that match the colour coming off their printing presses - your studio printer is not calibrated to anything at a printers - colours you see on your screen and from your office printer are no relation to anything a professional printing company can produce.

I don't understand why you don't think of these as limitations.  I know you think I should take a class in ID, but from what I've seen of it I'm afraid I'll invest all that time and work only to discover that it doesn't give me anything that I couldn't do more easily in Illustrator.    I understand that InDesign is good for books but I'm not designing a book.

They are not limitations - it works this way for all the reasons I outlined earlier - as Illustrator is a much more robust and powerful piece of software, editing it from InDesign would mean Indesign would have to be loaded with all the bells and whistles from Illustrator - and this causes bloat in the programme.

Edit your illustrations in Illustrator - it's very simple. 

You can of course use Illustrator for your layouts - it's not an issues - tonnes of people do this. It's fine. 

1 page, double page, 4 page brochures, 6 pages, or a 10 page fold out etc.

It's when you get further along to 8 page brochures/12pp or 16 and up - that's where InDesign is a master.

[peternelson]

This is where you're 100% wrong. I don't even think Gimp supports CMYK or CMYK colour profiles - at least it's difficult to work with - and it doesn't support a lot of other features.

Why would you use Gimp if you have Photoshop?

I'm surprised you asked this question because in the business most of us are working on teams or parts of diffuse organisations where we receive content from many different sources and contributors.    I personally might not choose to use GIMP but some collaorators do.  So it's a good thing I can import an RGB image into Photoshop and convert it to CMYK.  My main activity is video editing in Premiere Pro, where I integrate content from a zillion different platforms in many different formats and codecs.    

In this particular example I received via email some art in the form on an .AI file and I wanted to make some tweaks to fit in among my InDesign content.   That would be a lot easier to do and visualise inside the InDesign page rather than opening it up in Illustrator and editing it all by itself without having the other art and text around it.

[John Mensinger]

"That would be a lot easier to do and visualise inside the InDesign page rather than opening it up in Illustrator and editing it all by itself without having the other art and text around it."

True perhaps, but then InDesign would need, what, all of Illustrator's features? Reading around these fora, you could see pretty quickly that on any given day, discussions like this one—about features—are in the minority among many more threads about performance problems, crashing, system bloat, etc. The last thing CC apps need is more code, let alone rolling all the features of one into another.

[Eugene Tyson]

But with Indesign you dont need to convery rgb to cmyk - it is and should be done on the fly exporting the file to a pdf from Indesign you can choose the cmyk conversion at this point. It is not as if they are colour critical and cannot be of created in Gimp.

It really seems like there is a diconnection on best workflow for you.

I highly recommend doing some online courses. Lynda.com has a free trial and I highly recommend this.

We cannot fix the system for you. We cannot change it. It works the way it works and a majority of users have zero issue with this.

Trust us, it works great. Most creative agencies in the world use Adobe and use immensely successfully.

Which means really you are not using it effectively.

Highly recommend the courses.

[Barb Binder]

Hi Peter:

"InDesign already has simple editing tools for native vector art, but on the Adobe website it says, "Import the graphic using the Place command, and when you want to edit it, choose Edit > Edit Original to open the graphic in Illustrator."  I should be able to edit it in InDesign."

I've been in this business since 1986, and old enough to remember when page layout, illustration and photo editing applications didn't play well together. I still think it's awesome that we can use Edit > Original to hop over to Photoshop or Illustrator to make an edit to the original art, hop back and see the update. We are both users, by the way, so neither of us have any control over how Adobe "should" do things. My role here on the forum is to explain how the features InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator work, but that's it.

Since we aren't getting anywhere on your original question, let's talk about your workflow. Illustrator is often used for simple layout jobs—business cards, flyers, postcards, etc. Why use InDesign at all? They both have a similar type engine—though InDesign has far greater type controls, as a brand new user, I'll wager a guess that you aren't using them yet.

Is there any reason you can't complete the job in Illustrator?

~Barb

[Papagordo]

Is it possible to see the vector piece you created? I've seen many a designer import a raster image into the AI design thinking it will magically turn to vector when saved out. This can happen to text that has been rasterized as well. Not saying it's what you've done at all ... just brainstorming.