Adobe Illustrator - What's the best way to maintain a bunch of illustrations for use in InDesign?

Author

What's the best way to maintain a bunch of illustrations for use in InDesign?

joe@emenaker.com

2006-08-11, 6:17 pm

I'm about to start composing a book in InDesign CS2. I've got a lot of
the text written and it's time to lay it out and include all of the
diagrams.

It's going to have a _lot_ of diagrams....

Up to this point, I've been refining my diagram designs in Illustrator.
Now that I've nailed down the look of the diagrams, it's time to start
pumping out the diagrams.

My original hope was that I could do them all in one monster
Illustrator file and then drag them into InDesign as *links* so that I
could update them if I ever wanted to make some changes to the diagrams
later. However, every time I drag a diagram into ID, it doesn't seem to
link it back to the Illustrator stuff.

So, now... I'm not sure what the best approach for this is. I do know
that I can do many of the Illustrator-ish things directly in InDesign,
but I'm initially averse to doing this because I want a better way to
manage all of the diagrams, and here's why:

The diagams are going to have "groups", where certain sets of diagrams
will need to have a consistent look. For example, let's say that I'll
have diagrams A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3 where all of the A's will have
a certain color scheme and all of the B's will have another. These
diagrams are going to be scattered over several pages and, even worse,
the same diagram (A1, say) will appear on numerous pages throught the
book.

So, you can see how I'd like to have one "repository" of my diagrams
where I can have all of the A's laid out next to each other so that I
can change the look of all of them later (if need be) and they'd be
updated throughout the book.

Anybody got any bright ideas?

- Joe

William F. Adams

2006-08-12, 3:16 am

joe@emenaker.com wrote:
> I'm about to start composing a book in InDesign CS2. I've got a lot of
> the text written and it's time to lay it out and include all of the
> diagrams.
>
> It's going to have a _lot_ of diagrams....
>
> Up to this point, I've been refining my diagram designs in Illustrator.
> Now that I've nailed down the look of the diagrams, it's time to start
> pumping out the diagrams.
>
> My original hope was that I could do them all in one monster
> Illustrator file and then drag them into InDesign as *links* so that I
> could update them if I ever wanted to make some changes to the diagrams
> later. However, every time I drag a diagram into ID, it doesn't seem to
> link it back to the Illustrator stuff.
>
> So, now... I'm not sure what the best approach for this is. I do know
> that I can do many of the Illustrator-ish things directly in InDesign,
> but I'm initially averse to doing this because I want a better way to
> manage all of the diagrams, and here's why:
>
> The diagams are going to have "groups", where certain sets of diagrams
> will need to have a consistent look. For example, let's say that I'll
> have diagrams A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3 where all of the A's will have
> a certain color scheme and all of the B's will have another. These
> diagrams are going to be scattered over several pages and, even worse,
> the same diagram (A1, say) will appear on numerous pages throught the
> book.
>
> So, you can see how I'd like to have one "repository" of my diagrams
> where I can have all of the A's laid out next to each other so that I
> can change the look of all of them later (if need be) and they'd be
> updated throughout the book.
>
> Anybody got any bright ideas?

Use FreeHand. Set each diagram on its own page, using one file per set.
Export to .eps files.

Use AI, make each set of drawings in a file on a grid sized to the
largest drawing and either place the file once for each one adjusting
its placement in the frame --- alternately make a tiled file, one
drawing per page tile, print to a .pdf, then place each page either
from the .pdf or by saving the .pdf pages out as .eps files.

If the changes only involve colour, tints or shades, use spot colours
for each in AI, then use ID's ink manager to determine their appearance
and to convert all to CMYK.

Lay out the book in TeX and use a programmatic tool like METAPOST to
create and update them.

Simplify all the documents to say AI v3 and use sed and other scripting
tools for batch changes.

If it's specific elements of the drawings make them as separate
graphics and composite in ID --- update the source graphic and the link
to change.

Make each set of stroke weights and colours unique --- use Pitstop
action lists to batch process after making a .pdf.

Or some combination of any or all of the above.

William
(who has used all of the above for various projects)

CMP

2006-08-12, 6:16 pm

In article <1155334530.899140.114160@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<joe@emenaker.com> wrote:

> My original hope was that I could do them all in one monster
> Illustrator file and then drag them into InDesign as *links* so that I
> could update them if I ever wanted to make some changes to the diagrams
> later. However, every time I drag a diagram into ID, it doesn't seem to
> link it back to the Illustrator stuff.

I'm not 100% sure what you meant by changing the "A's" and so forth,
but I can tell you how to link to AI . . . *place* the artwork using
the "Place" command (File>Place). That will place the file as a dynamic
link. Each time you update the Illy file, InD will prompt you to allow
it to update the link (though if I remember correctly that prompt can
be disabled).

When you drag and drop artwork from Illy into InDesign, you're
essentially just copying and pasting (without all the keyboarding).
It's not going to be dynamic using that method.

I don't think I answered your complete question . . . but hopefully
that bit of confusion is sorted! : )

HTH!

--
Connie

Papa Joe

2006-08-12, 10:16 pm

I'm not positive but make sure you don't scale the artwork in indesign
if you plan on revising/update between ID and AI. it won't keep the
scale and boost it to 100%. Pain in the a@@.
By rights all artwork should be 100%, but it's abused a lot by many.

On 2006-08-11 19:15:30 -0300, joe@emenaker.com said:

> I'm about to start composing a book in InDesign CS2. I've got a lot of
> the text written and it's time to lay it out and include all of the
> diagrams.
>
> It's going to have a _lot_ of diagrams....
>
> Up to this point, I've been refining my diagram designs in Illustrator.
> Now that I've nailed down the look of the diagrams, it's time to start
> pumping out the diagrams.
>
> My original hope was that I could do them all in one monster
> Illustrator file and then drag them into InDesign as *links* so that I
> could update them if I ever wanted to make some changes to the diagrams
> later. However, every time I drag a diagram into ID, it doesn't seem to
> link it back to the Illustrator stuff.
>
> So, now... I'm not sure what the best approach for this is. I do know
> that I can do many of the Illustrator-ish things directly in InDesign,
> but I'm initially averse to doing this because I want a better way to
> manage all of the diagrams, and here's why:
>
> The diagams are going to have "groups", where certain sets of diagrams
> will need to have a consistent look. For example, let's say that I'll
> have diagrams A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3 where all of the A's will have
> a certain color scheme and all of the B's will have another. These
> diagrams are going to be scattered over several pages and, even worse,
> the same diagram (A1, say) will appear on numerous pages throught the
> book.
>
> So, you can see how I'd like to have one "repository" of my diagrams
> where I can have all of the A's laid out next to each other so that I
> can change the look of all of them later (if need be) and they'd be
> updated throughout the book.
>
> Anybody got any bright ideas?
>
> - Joe

--
Listen to Papa Joe

Lee Blevins

2006-08-13, 3:16 am

<joe@emenaker.com> wrote:

> I'm about to start composing a book in InDesign CS2. I've got a lot of
> the text written and it's time to lay it out and include all of the
> diagrams.
>
> It's going to have a _lot_ of diagrams....

Not at all an odd situation, many books have lots of diagrams.

>
> Up to this point, I've been refining my diagram designs in Illustrator.
> Now that I've nailed down the look of the diagrams, it's time to start
> pumping out the diagrams.

Good, so the look of the diagrams is standardized.

>
> My original hope was that I could do them all in one monster
> Illustrator file and then drag them into InDesign as *links* so that I
> could update them if I ever wanted to make some changes to the diagrams
> later. However, every time I drag a diagram into ID, it doesn't seem to
> link it back to the Illustrator stuff.

I would not suggest doing them all in one file. This would cause a link
update to too many items should you need to change only one diagram. Do
each diagram as a separate Illustrator file. The key here is naming
convention. Make sure the naming convention would identify the
particular diagram and it's page postion in the book.

I strongly suggest that each file not start with the same characters. If
a standard character needs to be use, have it at the end of the file.

The reason for this is to make it easier to find/place the diagram by
entering the directory where it is and starting to type it's name. If
all the files start with 123-abc... you'll find your self scrolling
through a lot of files to find it.

>
> So, now... I'm not sure what the best approach for this is. I do know
> that I can do many of the Illustrator-ish things directly in InDesign,
> but I'm initially averse to doing this because I want a better way to
> manage all of the diagrams, and here's why:
>
> The diagams are going to have "groups", where certain sets of diagrams
> will need to have a consistent look. For example, let's say that I'll
> have diagrams A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3 where all of the A's will have
> a certain color scheme and all of the B's will have another. These
> diagrams are going to be scattered over several pages and, even worse,
> the same diagram (A1, say) will appear on numerous pages throught the
> book.

I'd suggest creating directories that group the files. All the files of
the A1 group in one directory, A2 in another and so on.

>
> So, you can see how I'd like to have one "repository" of my diagrams
> where I can have all of the A's laid out next to each other so that I
> can change the look of all of them later (if need be) and they'd be
> updated throughout the book.

The devil is in the details. It's all about how many of each diagram
there is. A lot to you might not be a lot to someone else.
>
> Anybody got any bright ideas?

The key to any large project is planning. You plan on paper before you
start constructing. It's like computer programming. If you start at the
keyboard and just start programming that is often called "hacking" as
opposed to programming.

In composition it's the same. To start a project at the keyboard with no
planning is more hacking than design. Developing color schemes,
paragraph and character styles, chapters, etc. should be worked out
before the actual document construction.

That being said. we all hack sometimes. It depends on the size of the
project and how much time we have.

Your project sounds like it's complex enough to warrant some
pre-planning.

By asking advice from professionals you've shown that you're ahead of
the average hacker.

I sympathize with your need to manage the illustrations en masse but
this might be a limit of desktop publishing programs as opposed to
professional publishing systems. In a more rubust system your diagrams
might be created by a database where they can be managed as a central
repository.

Trying to do this by putting them all in one Illustrator file is risky.
A change to a single diagram could trigger a complete reproofing of the
range of pages effected by the update of all the diagrams because you
changed only one. Positions could shift where you don't expect it
because a bounding box might be increased to fix one single diagram.

There are many ways to try to avoid this but there are also as many ways
it could fail.

I've seen far to many botched print jobs put myself in postions where
anything risky could happen. Better safe than sorry.

Willam Adams mentioned in his post some very clever ways of trying to
manage this issue. Depending on your skill and experience (his is
considerable) you might want to consider some of those options.

But, as I said before, the devil is in the details. It's all about how
many diagrams there are and how many pages and how many diagrams per
page and how complex the diagrams are.

>
> - Joe

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-08-13, 6:16 pm

In article <1hjzfx5.1eka5nr1kfnmviN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> Your project sounds like it's complex enough to warrant some
> pre-planning.

As opposed to planning.

???

What is "pre-planning" and how does it differ from planning?

If he pre-plans the project, does that mean the next step is to plan the
project?

Jono

2006-08-13, 6:16 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> What is "pre-planning" and how does it differ from planning?

Hehehe - I've noticed this happening a lot lately, usually with
"existing" as in "he had a pre-existing condition".

Jono

2006-08-13, 6:16 pm

Papa Joe wrote:
> I'm not positive but make sure you don't scale the artwork in indesign
> if you plan on revising/update between ID and AI. it won't keep the
> scale and boost it to 100%. Pain in the a@@.

I don't believe I've ever observed this behaviour.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-08-13, 6:16 pm

In article <1155486553.670348.217880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Jono" <jono.moore@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>
> Hehehe - I've noticed this happening a lot lately, usually with
> "existing" as in "he had a pre-existing condition".

It's the idiotic human tendency to try to want to make things sound
better, or worse, than they actually are.

Don't plan it; pre-plan it. Oh, that wasn't merely a simple existing
condition; oh no, that guy's cases are special. He gets PRE-EXISTING
conditions.

Teachers aren't happy being certified; no, a teacher will tell you that
he's "certificated". I guess that's better than certified.

AES

2006-08-13, 6:16 pm

In article <1155486553.670348.217880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Jono" <jono.moore@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

Maybe it's the patented neocon/Bush administration approach: Pre-plan
to not do any planning for foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences of
your intended actionss. That way, you simply don't have to worry about
them, then or later.

michael adams

2006-08-14, 6:16 am

"Jono" <jono.moore@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:1155486553.670348.217880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Hehehe - I've noticed this happening a lot lately, usually with
> "existing" as in "he had a pre-existing condition".

Anyone claiming on health insurance for conditions such as heart disease
or cancer, is already claiming for an existing condition. That much is
true.

However, anyone claiming for conditions which already existed before
they took out that insurance, is claiming for a "pre-existing" condition.
Which if found to be proven, may well invalidate their insurance
policy.

There are many circumstances in projects where there are numerous
development stages, where it's useful to distinguish a "pre-planning"
stage.

michael adams

....

Neil Gould

2006-08-14, 6:16 pm

Recently, michael adams <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> posted:

> "Jono" <jono.moore@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
>
>
> Anyone claiming on health insurance for conditions such as heart
> disease or cancer, is already claiming for an existing condition.
> That much is true.
>
> However, anyone claiming for conditions which already existed before
> they took out that insurance, is claiming for a "pre-existing"
> condition. Which if found to be proven, may well invalidate their
> insurance
> policy.
>
Hmmm. Wouldn't that be a "pre-*Insurance*" claim of an _existing_
condition? It would seem that the "pre-existing" condition would be not
having the problem at all.

> There are many circumstances in projects where there are numerous
> development stages, where it's useful to distinguish a "pre-planning"
> stage.
>
After the "initial planning" stage, there may be subsequent plans made.
However, similarly to the above, it would seem that the "pre-planning"
stage is not to have planned anything.

Neil

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-08-14, 6:16 pm

In article <4kb0ctFavfkeU1@individual.net>,
"michael adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> There are many circumstances in projects where there are numerous
> development stages, where it's useful to distinguish a "pre-planning"
> stage.

no, there are no such circumstances. "Pre-planning" has nothing in
common with "pre-existing" as you described it.

michael adams

2006-08-15, 3:16 am

"Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:HCYDg.8138$kO3.5913@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Recently, michael adams <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> posted:
>
> Hmmm. Wouldn't that be a "pre-*Insurance*" claim of an _existing_
> condition?

Eh ? (rhetorical)

> It would seem that the "pre-existing" condition would be not
> having the problem at all.

It sometimes transpires that the condition pre-existed the obtaining of
the insurance. And thus invalidates it.

>
> After the "initial planning" stage, there may be subsequent plans made.
> However, similarly to the above,

Eh? (rhetorical)

> it would seem that the "pre-planning" stage is not to have planned
anything.

That's correct. The pre-planning stage often involves gathering the kind
of information on which any subsequent planning decisions can then be made.
Costings etc. Planning decisions are likely to work out more satisfactorily
when they're based on accurate and unbiassed information. Rather than if
such
information is obtained afterwards - if at all - in order to try and justify
decisions which may have already been made.

michael adams

....

>
> Neil
>
>

michael adams

2006-08-15, 3:16 am

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-487F38.09171114082006@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
> In article <4kb0ctFavfkeU1@individual.net>,

> "michael adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
> no, there are no such circumstances.

Obtaining as wide a variety of costings as possible, would be a good
example of a pre-planning stage. The difference between the pre-planning
and planning stages of a project, is that in the latter there should be
no radical changes of direction.

> #"Pre-planning" has nothing in
> common with "pre-existing" as you described it.

I never claimed that it did.

michael adams

>

Neil Gould

2006-08-15, 6:17 am

Recently, michael adams <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> posted:

> "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
>
> Eh ? (rhetorical)
>
>
>
>
> It sometimes transpires that the condition pre-existed the obtaining
> of the insurance. And thus invalidates it.
>
In this case, the object is the insurance, not the condition, i.e. the
condition existied, the insurance did not. The "condition" can not
"pre-exist"... it either exists or it doesn't. So, it would seem that
proper usage would call such a "pre-purchase" condition (ergo,
"pre-insurance", above).

>
>
> That's correct. The pre-planning stage often involves gathering the
> kind
> of information on which any subsequent planning decisions can then be
> made. Costings etc. Planning decisions are likely to work out more
> satisfactorily when they're based on accurate and unbiassed
> information. Rather than if such
> information is obtained afterwards - if at all - in order to try and
> justify decisions which may have already been made.
>
The issue is not what one does in an initial planning stage, but what one
calls such a stage. It would seem appropriate to consider the collection
of data as part of the initial planning process, as that collection is
clearly goal-directed. Non goal-directed data collection is not part of
any planning process, so it would render the idea of calling it
"pre-planning" as meaningless as one's elementary education, for example.

Neil

michael adams

2006-08-15, 6:16 pm

"Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:PVgEg.10097$FN2.3585@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Recently, michael adams <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> posted:
>
> In this case, the object is the insurance, not the condition, i.e. the
> condition existied, the insurance did not. The "condition" can not
> "pre-exist"... it either exists or it doesn't.

....

What's in question is how long it existed in the past.

If it already existed when the policy was taken out, then it
clearly pre-existed the policy.

Just as your parents clearly pre-existed you.

....

> So, it would seem that
> proper usage would call such a "pre-purchase" condition (ergo,
> "pre-insurance", above).
>
> The issue is not what one does in an initial planning stage, but what one
> calls such a stage.

....

You're already begging the question, by calling it a "planning stage".

....

> It would seem appropriate to consider the collection
> of data as part of the initial planning process, as that collection is
> clearly goal-directed.

....

The gaol is to facilitate the planning process, not deliver the
project. Pre-planning involves assembling all the resources, in terms
of information, and maybe manpower and facilities which will be
needed in the planning stages which follow.

....

> Non goal-directed data collection is not part of
> any planning process, so it would render the idea of calling it
> "pre-planning" as meaningless as one's elementary education, for example.
>

No. It is indeed goal directed. That goal being to facilitate the planning
which follows afterwards. Which is why it's called pre-planning.

michael adams

....

> Neil
>
>

CMP

2006-08-24, 3:16 am

In article <HCYDg.8138$kO3.5913@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Neil Gould
<neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:

> Hmmm. Wouldn't that be a "pre-*Insurance*" claim of an _existing_
> condition? It would seem that the "pre-existing" condition would be not
> having the problem at all.

In any case, the end result would normally be the same: not covered. : )

--
Connie

Neil Gould

2006-08-24, 10:16 pm

Recently, CMP <cmpierce@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> posted:

> In article <HCYDg.8138$kO3.5913@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Neil
> Gould <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
>
> In any case, the end result would normally be the same: not covered.
> : )
>
Of course, but the issue here was not the status of insurance coverage,
it's the use of language. ;-)

Neil

CMP

2006-08-25, 3:18 am

In article <EghHg.12527$kO3.2127@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Neil
Gould <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:

> Recently, CMP <cmpierce@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> posted:
>
> Of course, but the issue here was not the status of insurance coverage,
> it's the use of language. ;-)
>
> Neil

Then that can be just as easily summed up - if you understand the
language, you're an insurance agent or rep. If you can't, you're a
subscriber. ; )

--
Connie