Manual kerning/tracking in Incopy looks different in Indesign

Does Incopy handle kerning and tracking differently than Indesign? Editors are
opening INDD file in Incopy and using manual kerning and tracking to copyfit. However, when the INDD file is opened in Indesign, the kerning and tracking appear not to have taken. Text is not flowing the same when opened in Indesign as it did when opened in Incopy.

After looking at the paragraph(s) in questions, I found that the editors had
applied MANY overrides to the style sheet in order to copyfit, including
various amounts of kerning, tracking, they changed the type size and
leading, they also changed the horizontal scaling. Yikes, It's a mess to say
the least. Of course their point is that whatever they do in Incopy, it
should look the same in Indesign. I think anything done to this type at this
point could jeopardize it's stability.
Judy Hewitt
Senior Lead Publishing Technology Specialist
Digital Media & Publishing Solutions
LifeWay Christian Resources
615-251-5924

Similar Messages

MY FONT LOOKS DIFFERENT IN INDESIGN PAGES PLEASE HELP!!!!!

Hello, I have a majo problem here. I have all my pages written in one font, Arial Narrow, however the width of the font looks different from page to page, it looks bold on page 1 and 2, and on page 3 it looks fine, is there any invisible setting applied to the whol page? why does it look bold? I did try toprint them, they do look different, also, there is no stroke set, i checked, and color is set to black not registration. Is there anything else I am missing???? Please help!!!!

Transparency isn't something you would adjust, per se.
Imported art may have transparency in it (like a transparent background), or you may have applied an effect like a glow or a drop shadow, or used a blending mode (all of which are transparency effects) on an object on your document page, or even adjusted an object's opacity in the effects panel to make the background show through (this is true tranparency inthe classic sense). Any of these things will result in ID redrawing the page and "emboldening" the type on that page.
There is no way to remove the eefect other than to remove the transparency from the page (if you are showing the icons for it in the pages panel, whcih you set in the panel options, you'll see a small checkerboard next to the page icon in the panel if there is transparency in use). To assure that all pages look the same if you are going to use transparency on any page, you can add a transparent object to the master page.

Font Different in InDesign & Pages

Hello. I'm new to InDesign and this forum, but I'm having a problem and thought somebody might be able to help.
The problem is with a book I've laid out and am in the process of printing in InDesign CS4 (for Mac)...The typeface (Baskerville) looks different in InDesign than it does in Apple Pages or MS Word. I'm using the same typeface at the same size. Neither is bold or italic. The difference, which is much more pronounced on the printed page than onscreen, seems to be mostly in the thickness of the letters. In Pages and Word, most of the lines are thin and there's a large contrast between thin and thick lines. In InDesign, the thin lines seem thickened and there's less contrast, as if the text were semibold.
This is disappointing, because I greatly prefer the way the text looks in Pages and Word.
Is this an issue that anybody else has come across?
Thanks for the help,
Ben

bennnh wrote:
Hello. I'm new to InDesign and this forum, but I'm having a problem and thought somebody might be able to help.
The problem is with a book I've laid out and am in the process of printing in InDesign CS4 (for Mac)...The typeface (Baskerville) looks different in InDesign than it does in Apple Pages or MS Word. I'm using the same typeface at the same size. Neither is bold or italic. The difference, which is much more pronounced on the printed page than onscreen, seems to be mostly in the thickness of the letters. In Pages and Word, most of the lines are thin and there's a large contrast between thin and thick lines. In InDesign, the thin lines seem thickened and there's less contrast, as if the text were semibold.
This is disappointing, because I greatly prefer the way the text looks in Pages and Word.
Is this an issue that anybody else has come across?
Thanks for the help,
Ben
Because InDesign treats text characters like a hybrid of text as you know it, and also as objects - that is, a character has a path around it (like an outline or border) and a fill inside the path - it's possible to set a line property for the path that's independent of the fill. (Sometimes the path is called "stroke;" a bit ambiguous, because applying a line property to a path, such as thickness, color, pattern, and some others, is called "adding a stroke to a path," or simply "stroking a path.")
What this means for your situation is that if the paths of the text characters have picked up a stroke property, they'll look thicker and blockier; open spaces in letters like o, c, e, a, and so on, will fill in. Select some text and check its stroke property anywhere the stroke can be measured, such as the Stroke panel, or the Character Color property pane of the Character Styles or Paragraph Styles panels.
The washed-out lower-contrast may be due to the setting of the Preferences setting for Appearance of Black. I think it defaults to Rich Black rather than 100% Black.
These setting differences may occur with text that's created in another application and placed/imported into InDesign.
Look up stroke characters and appearance of black in InDesign help.
EDIT: I forgot to say that usually you want no stroke (zero points) on text. The appearance of black is more a personal taste issue.
HTH
Regards,
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

CS5 KERNING/TRACKING type problem

i googled this and it's impossible, but it seems i'm the only one having this problem.
this is the case
for example i have one word EXAMPLE, and when i change tracking on the whole word, tracking on every letter changes. but when i then try to change tracking or kerning on just one letter, it changes tracking on all other letters for first like 60 points.
in detail, i click on the kerning or tracking number box and go with arrows up/down to change the number used, and it changes the numbers by 20 (tracking) and by 10 (kerning). the first three taps on arrows up or down changes not only the kerning/tracking on one letter but messes up the whole word and all other letters, and only after the first three taps in one direction when i go on does it work normal changing that letter kerning while all other letters have constant kerning. as you know, kerning and tracking is usually a very delicate job where you don't need to change much, so when i can't normally see what is happening on first 60 points, it gets very iritating.
what is even worse, this is not just a preview problem. how i see it when i change the kerning with like two taps on upper arrow, when the rest of the word gets messed up, whey i click yes checksign, it stays like that
english is not my native language so i don't know if i succeded explaining this the right way, but if it doesn't work, i gzuess i'll have to make a video of this thing happening
is there a solution for this problem?
thank you

Hi.
Rick (and I think Komeci) have it right. The only way to adjust kerning manually is to set the cursor between the two letters. Then set the value from the dropdown menu or use Alt+Arrow.
If you highlight two adjacent letters, there are only two kerning options, Metrics & Optical, both automatic. The default is Metrics. Metrics uses the font's built in kerning. Quality of results will depend on the quality of the font set. Mileage highly variable. Set to Optical, Ps looks at the shapes of the two glyphs and optimizes the spacing independent of the kerning metrics of the font.
Below you can see the difference. In both I selected the whole word and set the kerning mode.
With metric kerning, in this font, Lucida Sans, the E is too close to the X, and the L is too far from the E, among other things.
The optical kerning looks better. The spacing is more uniform. The M and P might still be a little too far apart. But much better than metric. And reason to consider leaving your kerning set to Optical instead of Metric.
Anyway, you can automatically kern letters, words, or whole texts by selecting them. You can only manually kern two letters by clicking between them. If you select any number of letters or words, and use the arrow keys, you are adjusting tracking. The kerning dropdown will show two options, Metrics or Optical. Numerical values are greyed out.
When you click between two letters, Alt+Arrow adjusts the spacing between the letters.
When you select any number of letters, Alt+Arrow adjusts the tracking of the selected letters.
I'm pretty sure none of this helps you, Komeci. Sounds like something's broken. I'm a Ps driver, not a Ps mechanic. Good luck.
Peace,
Lee

Create DNG Profile - Why does it look different in the DNG Editor vs LR/ACR?

Hi everyone, I am sorry if this has been covered before -- perhaps you could give me a link to the relevant info.
I have a client who shoots with a Leica DMR. The reds are way to saturated and magenta. We created a new camera profile in the DNG editor using a color-checker chart, shot at D6500 and Tungsten. Looks great, and Lightroom recognizes it. The issue: when we look at a photograph in the DNG editor with this profile, it looks much better. When we look at the same photograph in LR/ACR with the profile selected, the reds are still too saturated and magenta (though way better than without our profile). Why would a photo look different in the two applications, with the same profile?
As shown in DNG Editor:
As shown in LR:
Thank you for any light you can shed on this.
Laura Shoe

Here is an additional comparison further highlighting the magenta issue (amongst others). Shot with Leica R9 w/DMR(firmware1.3) using Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70mm at ISO 100, f/4.8, 1/60. Manual WB=4912K, no Exp Comp.
Here is screen shot of same DNG image. Un-altered in either app., no presets, no sharpening, or noise reduction. CaptureOne (v4.8.3) on the left, and LR2 (v2.6)
Here is what the above screen shot looks like thru CS3:
you must click on image to see CS3 rendering - browser is not accurate
Anyone no what's going on?
PS the images were shot just shy of perfect focus to test sharpening in both apps, same levels applied to both images (C1 on left, LR on right). Here are the results:

Why do certain clips (photos), viewed in preview, on Adobe Premiere 11 look different on YouTube?

Hi folks,
I've posted, via Adobe Premiere 11, two different music videos on YouTube and on my Facebook page. The first one, "Back In The Day", looks the same on YouTube (and Facebook) as it did when I viewed it (previewed it) on Premiere 11. But the second video, "Wicked World", that I posted on those internet sites, has certain clips (photos) that look different than what's seen on Premiere 11.
With "Wicked World", it almost looks like certain Panned & Zoomed photos are bigger in size than what the YouTube screen can show?
I used Pan & Zoom on some photos in both videos. But maybe with "Wicked World", I always set the "Hold" times to zero (0) when using Pan & Zoom on some photos. Or could it have something to do with the Track Size on the "Wicked World" Premiere 11 video? BTW, I see that by right clicking in an empty part of the track, the Track Size choices come up as small, medium or large.
Or is it something about upload choices on YouTube? Two different friends helped me with uploads to YouTube for each video, so maybe the first one, "Back In The Day", looks OK because that friend chose proper upload choices?
If you have time, or the inclination to see the difference for yourself, you can go on YouTube and type in on the search bar, "Wicked World Bob Fuchs". You'll see both a head shot of me playing harmonica for one YouTube choice, and a painting of Van Gogh as another way to get to the "Wicked World" problem video, and the "Back In The Day" good video.
Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. Once I find out why "Wicked World" photos slide partly off the YouTube screen, I will delete it from YouTube and replace it with an issue free one.
I just want to learn what caused that, hopefully, so I can avoid that problem going forward.
Thanks!
Bob Fuchs
[email protected]

A.T.please note:
After sending you a previous email reply to your latest response, I am forwarding a new thought.
I just tried out something you had suggested. I think it may solve the issue I have with the panned & zoomed photos on my "Wicked World" video - the ones that look weird when I view the video on YouTube (and Facebook).
So, in case you also think the following may be the answer, I will now copy and paste relevant parts of my previous email, PLUS include my new thoughts - in order not to waste your valuable time looking into an answer I may already have.
Here goes:
The Premiere 11 Edit area monitor Magnification had already been set to "Fit".
In Edit Menu Preferences General, I already had a check mark on "Default Scale to Frame Size".
The properties of the first file (a Title screen) that I dragged into the Timeline are 1920 Horizontal, 1080 Vertical. But properties of subsequent photos, some of which I panned and zoomed, are mostly only around 648x599.
Upon viewing my "Wicked World" video carefully on YouTube, I see that what actually happens is that the box-like area where my video is shown (probably the same size of my Premiere 11 screen edit area?) is smaller than the YouTube's screen viewing area. That does not bother me. However, when the panned and zoomed photos occur, my smaller box area, within the YouTube screen, itself moves along with the panned & zoomed movement of the photos! That inner box moves slightly vertically, either up or down, and to lower right or left, depending on which direction the pan and zoom of each photo is going. And an empty border around the video area hangs there, within the YouTube viewing area.
So ... as you talked about, I tried something: I replaced an existing panned & zoomed photo (clip) in the Timeline with the same photo, and then I clicked on "Scale to Frame Size". The photo got bigger. I then did a new pan and zoom on it, and reduced the duration of how long that photo clip plays. Therefore, although the pan and zoom happens faster, it cues to the proper places in the music (audio) track. And I'm guessing that the larger "Scale to Frame Size" on that photo will now show properly in the YouTube viewing area, without the smaller inner box area moving too, along with the panned and zoomed photo?
I have only done this on one of my previously panned and zoomed photos in the video. But if you think this may solve the viewing issue on YouTube, that I described above, then I'll do the same with all the previously panned and zoomed photos in my video, and save it as a new version on Premiere 11.
I guess I'd then try and delete the existing "Wicked World" video from YouTube, and replace it with the new, hopefully issue-free version.
What do you think? Should I try this, and then replace the old one on YouTube?
Best Regards,Bob [email protected]

Templates look different in FCE HD than in LT

I'm starting to use templates in LT in a project I'm working on to jazz it up a little.
I use 2 LT stock templates, modify the the background colors, adjust some font sizes, add a drop shadow here & there, do a little extrusion on some of the LT fonts, and it looks great when I save and render it in LT.
I play back the LT render file in LT and it looks just like I want it.
After I import the render file into FCE HD (3.0), place it on the time line, render it, and then finally get to see what it looks like, some of the font colors are wrong and there appears to be some aliasing happening on the fonts themselves making the whole thing look second rate - not sharp and crisp like it was in LT.
Is it a no no to extrude fonts?
I also get aliasing on the stock non-animated fonts when I change their color. In one case from black to a dark green . In this case I also put a .5 px stroke around the font to help with contrast against the background.
Could the .5 px stroke be aliasing?
The dark green also comnes out looking grungy and frazzeled.
Any help would be appreciated. This has happend in several templates now.
Ken

I have never tried importing the .ifr file from LT because I want to see what it looks like before it goes to FCE.< </div>
You get used to estimating timing and anticipating your results with experience.
Tom said that basically it doesn't play well in the time line because it gets compressed by a factor of 5 when it goes to DV AND that even though I'm using a 19" Apple Studio Display, that the display is not showing it like it would play from a DVD to a TV. < </div>
Tom Wolsky knows all this stuff inside and out.
And interlacing gets in the way or something like that, and yeah I'm so newbee my wings are still tired just getting to this hive.< </div>
We were all new at this at one time or another. Welcome tot he family.
But this brings up another question. Since exporting the sequence to a QT self-contained movie and burning it on a DVD means that it gets even further compressed into mpeg, how is that the LT scenes actually display much better on a TV (which is way larger) than in the canvas? Is that where the interlacing thing comes in? < </div>
Umm, no.
I have never really understood why video has 2 images in one frame when film gets buy just fine with one. Can you point me in the right direction to learn about that?< </div>
Different universes of time. But when film gets transferred to vidoe, those single frames get interlaced and interleaved with a process known as 3-2 Pulldown. That will give you a headache because there are many different types of pulldown.
Anyhow, why buy a video monitor if it's all going to sort itself out in the bake and shake process going to DVD? < </div>
That's a stylistic question you will answer for yourself in a few months.
And if one really should have a "video monitor" are there any decent ones that aren't megabucks? My understanding is that it's going to look different on the TV any how, correct? < </div>
It's not that easy, TV and video are different, too.
So does this mean that when we create in LiveType, we are creating a NON-Interlaced image that looks so sharp & clear on the non-interalced computer screen? And that the interlacing gets put in during the rendering process in FCE? And that interlacing makes the LiveTyp image look like it's got ants in its pants (fuzzy)on the computer screen? < </div>
There's an option in your prject settings to use NONE, LOWER or UPPER fileds for your movie. Set it to LOWER. If you use NONE< you will get a progressive render.
<div class="jive-quote">Do I have it or do I have to go back to school?< </div>
It might help but we do that every day around here. Don't sweat the small stuff but, now that you have some fundamental grounding in video basics, you could benefit dramatically from reading the LT manual and doing the tutorials one more time. They'll make some sense this time around.
Bogiesan

The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
[img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

HT1535 the devices sidebar is not present on my itunes anymore. looks different and I cant find anything

My itunes looks different. No sidebar on the left so I cannot pick divice and do anything manual. I had used cloud for a month, hated it, plus iphone died. How do I configure the itunes program to be like before?
ignore, I figured it out. Genius.

Go to the View menu and select Show Sidebar and Show Status Bar.

Photos synced through iTunes look different colours

After I sync my iOS devices (iPad 3 & iPhone 4S) with iTunes (Windows 7), the colour profiles get altered on the iOS devices. Here is an example:
Original photo:
Photo after iTunes sync:
I've tried removing all photos from the devices, deleting the iPod photo cache in Windows & uninstalled/reinstalled iTunes but it hasn't helped. If I manually copy the photo back to PC, it looks fine, but if I take a screenshot of altered image on iOS device & copy to the PC, it looks like the (altered) image above.
PLEASE HELP!!!!

Just to clarify. When you compare the exported image to the original inside LR do they look the same when viewed together in the Library module, and how about when both are viewed in the Develop module? Are you using a wide gamut monitor and do you also use a hardware monitor calibrator? All of these things affect how images looks in LR and some are fixable, but others are not as Web Weaver posted.
There is also another issue that can cause the Library module view and exported images to look different than they do in the Develop module:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/afm8rbh6tnc31
The solution is to view the image at 1:1 (100%) view size. You can also use more conservative Sharpening settings (i.e. lower) and more aggressive Luminance Noise Reduction settings (i.e. higher), which will significantly decrease the view difference.

PDFs look different in Adobe reader and Acrobat professional compared to the built in PDF viewer on windows 8

Hi there,
I have been trying to narrow down an issue we have been having for some time in printing PDF files and finding that they look different on paper compared to screen. Up until today our big KIP plotter got the blame, but as I have been collecting notes on a little windows 8 tablet I noted that PDFs opened in the windows PDF viewer have the same visual defects as the printouts. My example today is that on a CAD drawing there is a small box/frame with a number in their, I tried printing and the frame was completely blacked out. As a test I tried saving the PDF as a TIFF file from Adobe Acrobat professional and this file had the same fault as the printed copy. When I open it in the windows 8 pdf viewer I can see that there is a shading within this box that does not show on Adobe Reader (latest version 11.0.10.32), the adobe reader and acrobat pro version both show a white background to the box. We have been having lots of issues with sections being missing from drawings and overly feint lines.
I am not sure where to start trying to narrow down why we are getting different results in different PDF readers. Is there anyone who maybe able to point me in the right direction? It almost feels like the shading or colour density is not being consistent when PDFs are being opened in different packages.
Thanks in advance
Andy

Some PDF viewers comply with the PDF ISO Standard (ISO 32000) "just enough" while others (such as Adobe's) fully comply.
As with anything there's a cost to using anything that comes from a "just enough" approach.
Be well...

Photos in Develop module look different when switching to library module

Hello everyone this is my first post on adobe. I ran into a problem today for the first time using lightroom 5. I recently purchased lightroom 5 about 2 weeks ago and have been in love using it. I have ran into 0 problems until today. I uploaded some new photos and was going through them under the develop module editing the photos and what not. When I am done editing I usually go to the library module and export them.
Today I tried to do that exact thing and ran into this issue: the colors in the photo are changing ever so slightly when I switch to the library module and are not exporting exactly as I edited them in the develop module.
I have tried changing the contrast/clarity to see if it would remain when switching and it does. But for some reason the yellow on the flower in the picture becomes less vibrant when seen/exported from library module. It is very frustrating because I spend alot of time editing the photo in a develop module and every transfers but the colors it seems. It becomes more dull and less vibrant.
It is not the photo itself. I think it is something wrong with my lightroom? I uninstalled and reinstalled and the same issue keeps happening.

Just to clarify. When you compare the exported image to the original inside LR do they look the same when viewed together in the Library module, and how about when both are viewed in the Develop module? Are you using a wide gamut monitor and do you also use a hardware monitor calibrator? All of these things affect how images looks in LR and some are fixable, but others are not as Web Weaver posted.
There is also another issue that can cause the Library module view and exported images to look different than they do in the Develop module:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/afm8rbh6tnc31
The solution is to view the image at 1:1 (100%) view size. You can also use more conservative Sharpening settings (i.e. lower) and more aggressive Luminance Noise Reduction settings (i.e. higher), which will significantly decrease the view difference.

After connecting my MBP to a projector, my display screen looks different...any ideas on how to fix?

I used my MBP today at work to present a PowerPoint presentation using the projector my office has. I have no idea what the brand of the projector is -- but now the appearance of all of my programs and desktop is different.
The sizing is not what it was set to, and swiping larger or smaller does nothing to fix it.
The font looks different, bolder, messier.
Does anyone know how to fix this? Or why it changed after being connected to another device?
Help! This is a trivial question -- but I loved the settings I had -- and the options in the setting menus don't have anything helpful.

I didn't even notice that. I think that fixes it. Thanks.

Team Blog: Why does my page look different in BrowserLab?

Duane O'Brien, engineer on the BrowserLab team has a new blog post on the BrowserLab Team blog that you might find interesting. It covers when/why you might see rendering differences between the BrowserLab browsers and your local browsers. Good info.
http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab/2011/07/11/why-does-my-page-look-different-in-browserlab /
Bruce
Bruce Bowman
BrowserLab product manager
BrowserLab Team Blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab
Twitter: @brucebowman, @adobebrowserlab

As Wyodor indicated IE is not the most advance, up-to-date browser out there.
See Roddy’s tips for making iWeb pages more compatible with IE.
OT

Pdf color looks different in preview and acrobat?

I notice that the colors in various PDF files I have look different in Preview and in Acrobat. Is there some weird color profile issue?
To be specific, I can create a PDF file in various ways, of a slide deck I originally created using Keynote. It has various different color blocks in the slides. In particular some acid green colors look very different depending on whether I open the PDF in Acrobat or in Preview.
Preview shows the colors as they were in the original keynote application. But Acrobat shows them far more muted.
I learned from another post that if I create the PDF by first saving to postscript and then creating the PDF using Acrobat, the issue seems to go away. However this is very inconvenient.
In short, it seems as though there is some peculiar difference between the way Preview and Keynote (and probably Pages ) handle color and the way Acrobat handles color.
Is there some way to fix this using some setting in one of the programs?
By the way, this is not a new problem. I noticed it with previous OS's as well as previous versions of Keynote. I am currently using the latest version of everything.

Same problem here. I was printing a PDF that my designer had sent me. Before I have always used Acrobat, but I've started using Preview in Leopard since it's faster and more powerful than before. But the colors were seriously wrong, often reversed completely. I believe this file was originally created in Illustrator.

Manual kerning/tracking in Incopy looks different in Indesign

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for