Indesign/PS > help!
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- PaulM740
imported in illy - I've drawn the box underneath to demonstrate transparency of multiply layer
- PaulM740
same file imported into a box with no fill in indesign...
- Gucci0
I've had to do this a lot. IND doesn't recognize PSD layer effect imports (ie: multiplies) via PSD.
The best way I've found to work around the issue is to use the same image twice and multiply from there.
1. Make sure your main image (the kid) is on a transparent background or has a clipping path around him.
2. Make sure the shadow is how you want it to appear behind the kid. You should - in theory - have two layers. One boy, one shadow layer.
3. Go into INDD and import your image, then copy and paste it in place. Now you have 2 of the same image sitting on top of eachother
4. Select the topmost of the two identical images in INDD, right click and select "Object Layer Options" in the contextual dropdown menu.
5. Click off the shadow layer. Only the boy layer will appear.
6. Now, select the image just beneath the top one. Do the same as in step 4, but this time for the boy layer.
7. In INDD, go to your layer effects panel and put a multiply effect on the shadow layer.
Done.
- suc,ks because InDesign recognizes multiply layers in placed InDesign filesdoublespaced
- In placed indesign files?Gucci
- yes, you can place an InDesign file into an InDesign filedoublespaced
- I know you can do that, but the fact that it honors transparency at that point is no surprise. It's basically a flattened PDF.Gucci
- hence, it sucks, because ID should really support the PSD transparency...it's essentially the samedoublespaced
- < mono... is that you?goldieboy
- agreed. it does suck.
and judging by breadth of knowledge of INDD, yes... it's mono.Gucci - who?doublespaced
- ;)doublespaced
- *waves at monoduckofrubber
- This is also how I accomplish this.duckofrubber
- Sandman_19820
^ That's what I was trying to explain on page 1. Worked for me in the past in CS3.
- saw that after the fact. props to you for saying it first.Gucci
- You probably explained it better than I did anyway :-)Sandman_1982