Prior to today I had always presumed the use of Raster EPS files was desired only in situations mentioned, “The only reasons for using EPS in preference to TIFF are images with spot colour channels and duotones.”. I rarely need to use spots or duotones in raster images, so rarely use EPS. Today was different. I received some product photography from Coca-Cola in Raster EPS format. I typically receive TIF files from vendors, but figured I could work with Raster EPS as well, I’ll just convert to TIF via Photoshop. This is where I was surprised.

I received a CMYK Raster EPS that was 4.6MB. Bridge CS3 shows the resolution at 516×1024 and 300ppi. I think, “boy, this is only going to be good as a placeholder image”. I open the file in Photoshop CS3 to convert to TIF and am quite surprised to see that PS shows the opened file as 2446×4848 and 300ppi. What?!

I’m surprised at two levels…
1) What is Bridge thinking? Why is it so far off in showing the file resolution? It has not been wrong before? (though I haven’t used Bridge with Raster EPS before either).
2) Wow, I didn’t know EPS has such incredible file size reduction? In fact, my memory seems to recall that it was typically larger than a corresponding TIF of the same image? I saved the EPS as a TIFF with LZW compression and it was 18.3MB?! This rocked my presumptions, EPS = 4.6MB and TIF = 18.3MB – EPS is 4x smaller? This just sounds wrong, yet that’s what I have in front of me.

This is what started my Google search for EPS and TIFF and led me to this site. I’m curious to hear other designer’s thoughts and experiences on this subject. Has something significantly changed in Raster EPS files?

PS. While I think PSD and Ai files have some potentials, I still avoid their use in InDesign (at least CS3). Here are my reasons.

Ai file imports bring corresponding color swatches that are often (always?) uneditable (spot to process) in InDesign. I use PDF import instead which has the same advantages of modifying top-level layers, but doesn’t bring the corresponding color swatch problem (as long as no spots are in the PDF). The other benefit is that by creating a PDF for every Ai file I allow access to non-designers (and non-Adobe suite users) to those assets.

PSD file imports in CS2 were great! I loved them, and started changing my entire workflow because of the layer and layer comp modifications possibilities from within InDesign. Then CS3 came out. After upgrading I noticed that a number of the INDD files I opened either forgot or reassigned my layer prefs for the PSD’s and/or they had severe PDF output problems (crashing, not completing, not printing) due to the linked PSD’s. From that point I decided to stick to my old workflow of raster TIF and vector PDF linking. I really enjoyed the PSD capabilities, but I cannot have it effect my production and the assumptions I rely on in my workflow.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I’m curious about other designers experiences. Thanks.

The points are indeed still valid. TIFF and EPS are still widely used, but PSD and AI have distinct advantages that are quickly taking hold in the industry.

Text is vector and when it’s small it’s one more reason not to rasterize it by saving your file as a TIFF.

If you save as EPS remember to embed or outline the fonts, or send a copy to the printer (watch out for license restrictions).

Can you elaborate on these two file formats in layout programs.

Sure you can! And yes PSD allows you to have layers, but so does TIFF, if you are using any version of Photoshop from 6 onwards.

We have a couple of articles that tell you what you can do with PSDs and PDFs. Read them and let me know if you still have any questions. I’ll be glad to help you out.

Here are the articles:

Desktop Publishing with Photoshop PDF

PSD, Photohop’s Native Format

Thanks for the response!

This article was simply showing the differences between the use of EPS and TIFF and it took into consideration that not everyone uses InDesign, so they might need to use those two formats.

With QuarkXPress 7, chances are that also QuarkXPress users will use more the PSD format and of course there are those who use none of those two applications.

“On the newer rips that printing companies are using this is true – but there are some rips out there that will not convert type to vector. I worked on one that the vector information did not hold and it became rasterized. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up on this.”

I then questioned him on the fact that a RIP doesn’t convert to vector, as type already is vector. I also told him that RIPs will rasterize type anyway, but being vector, it will rasterize at the RIP’s highest resolution, instead of the resolution set beforehand by the designer. He answered back saying:

“On the one rip that I worked on a Brisque which is made by Creo/Scitex – in a nut shell, A photoshop PDF file be it placed in Indesign or ripped as a PDF not placed in Indesign rips in 2 layers see below. This rip does not recognize Photoshop type as vector.

“Now the Printergy workflow that I am using the type will rip as vector like you talked about in your 1st post. I just wanted to let people know that there are some rips out there that will not rip Photoshop type as vector.”

So Photoshop PDFs do the job but not always.