Has anyone heard of cleaning numbers to make smaller files?

[juliek33]

I need help resolving an issue at my workplace concerning prepping files.
Has anyone ever heard of cleaning your numbers on design files?
In other words…clicking on an image placed on the page whose coordinates are 5.0335…..and removing the last few decimal points so that it is a strait 5?
The whole purpose of this would be to have a smaller file size when making a PDF.
Right now I work at a company who insists that every single item placed on the page have clean coordinates/numbers.
Is this something that used to be done in the past? Is it a myth?
Is this a common prepress practice?
Someone please help! I have never heard of this practice and I am trying to argue my point.

 

[zoran]

So just do a test and prove them wrong

 

[juliek33]

I did do a test and ironically the un-clean file was smaller. I guess I wondered if anyone has ever heard of this practice before or if the people I work with are just crazy?

 

[DCurry]

Sounds absolutely nuts to me. Even if it did make for smaller files, I can't imagine the difference would amount to enough to justify the time spent and risk of human error resulting in a reprint. Disk space is cheap these days, and modern workflows eat up PDFs fast.

If I were your customer and caught wind of you messing with my files in this manner, I'd be pissed.

 

[Joe]

I did do a test and ironically the un-clean file was smaller. I guess I wondered if anyone has ever heard of this practice before or if the people I work with are just crazy?

Without a doubt...you are working with crazy people.

 

[rich apollo]

"Under the hood" PDFs are defined in points.

Sounds like they're equating graphics files to the Y2K issue. I don't think there's any correlation.

 

[jminrod]

This sounds like someone with an OCD. The closest thing I have heard was cleaning up points in Illustrator files so it would make a better dieline, but as mentioned prior the new computers are crunching this information so fast it isn't worth the time spent to clean those up

 

[dabob]

IMHO this proceedure should be filed in the box with the 1/2 tone dots and stored on top of the paper stretcher. . . . .

 

[CathieHarris]

HOWEVER...If you take a photo that's in Photoshop that's 72 dpi and 30"x24", then take it in to InDesign and resize it to 5x3, that would eat up space. You've just created a graphic that's 900+ dpi.

Removing the .000003 (or whatever) makes absolutely no difference, but sizing a graphic/photo in Photoshop to be the approximate size you'll eventually need in InDesign and making it 300 dpi will make a huge difference.

Just sayin'....

 

[Stephen Marsh]

HOWEVER...If you take a photo that's in Photoshop that's 72 dpi and 30"x24", then take it in to InDesign and resize it to 5x3, that would eat up space. You've just created a graphic that's 900+ dpi.

Removing the .000003 (or whatever) makes absolutely no difference, but sizing a graphic/photo in Photoshop to be the approximate size you'll eventually need in InDesign and making it 300 dpi will make a huge difference.

Just sayin'....

Agreed Cathie on the effective resolution of raster images, however when it comes to rounding vector values - they are two different things and one should not compare the two.

I can duplicate this with a simple uncompressed text file, one does indeed save some very small amount of space with “simple numbers” vs. “complex numbers” (kB). That being said, the file size savings are so small that I doubt that they would come into play in any meaningful way in a PDF file, even more so once document compression and or or optimisation are applied.

P.S. One can sometimes make significant file size saving in a print ready PDF by judiciously applying the Acrobat Pro PDF Optimizer - even without affecting resolution or compression (removing obsolete “junk” or other elements that a RIP may not need).


Stephen Marsh

 

[CathieHarris]

True enough, Stephen, on raster vs. vector. I've also heard the same about PDF Optimizer. Thanks for clarifying that for our friends here.

 

[DCurry]

Removing the .000003 (or whatever) makes absolutely no difference, but sizing a graphic/photo in Photoshop to be the approximate size you'll eventually need in InDesign and making it 300 dpi will make a huge difference.

True, but if your PDF Export setting downsamples your images to 300, is there really any savings?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Dan, manually resizing in Photoshop first can lead to better results, although it is not as productive as letting it happen during export.

Stephen Marsh

 

[DCurry]

Yes, I understand that the results can look better when all scaling is pre-done in Photoshop, but since the point of this thread was about controlling file sizes, I was really referring to any file size reduction when pre-sizing in PS versus downsampling during PDF export.

 

[rich apollo]

Dan, manually resizing in Photoshop first can lead to better results, although it is not as productive as letting it happen during export.

Because of the type of sampling? And, what do you mean when you say "better results"?

Resizing in PShop means that you can only use the image at that size or smaller. Next week, when you need it at a larger size, you've got a problem.

 

[Mark]

You get better PDFs if you wear red socks on even days and blue socks on odd days (reverse if in the southern hemisphere)

 

[DCurry]

Because of the type of sampling? And, what do you mean when you say "better results"?

If you have an oversized image, place it in InDesign and scale it down, say 50%, then you will lose the benefit of any sharpening you might have applied to the original image. Sharpening is best applied at output size, or as close to output size as possible.

Stephen might have other thoughts in mind as well, but this is what my real-world experience has shown.

 

[CathieHarris]

Because of the type of sampling? And, what do you mean when you say "better results"?

Resizing in PShop means that you can only use the image at that size or smaller. Next week, when you need it at a larger size, you've got a problem.

That's why you NEVER get rid of or replace the original image. I always have a PS file with layers and photo to size and downsize my tif file with no layers, thus saving space and maintaining the size of the original photo. I also do this if I'm going to apply effects. I'll always have my original layer (Layer 0) that will maintain all aspects of the original photo in case I need to do anything with it later. Manipulating the photo on another layer while maintaining Layer 0 will always allow you to go back and redo the color if your adjusted layer turns out not to be what you want once you print.

 

[Russ_G]

WOW!! Craziest thing I've ever heard in 25+ years in prepress!!

 

[pacart]

Is the reason for making a smaller pdf for email proofs or for faster ripping or for storage space?