Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

OwlBoy · Mar 25, 2003, 06:27 PM

QuarkExpress really is a shitty application!

I was just introduced to it today, and man this thing is Cria System 7.0.

wow, I am so gonna avoid this and go with Indesign.

-Owl

MikeM33 · Mar 25, 2003, 08:39 PM

Was there even a point to posting this except as flame bait?

MikeM

godzookie2k · Mar 26, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
QuarkExpress really is a shitty application!

I was just introduced to it today, and man this thing is Cria System 7.0.

wow, I am so gonna avoid this and go with Indesign.

-Owl

liar.

designbc · Mar 26, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
liar.

Why? Let the guy express his point. He doesn't like Quark. That's it. It is true that Quark looks and feels OLD. It doesn't even have shortcuts for the tools. It could be good, it can print great, it can be safe, but FEELS OLD. And don't mention not being OS X native.
I've used Quark for a while and I'm also considering InDesign. Does that make me a liar?
InDesign is doing to QuarkXpress tha same QuarkXpress did to Pagemaker. And I'm glad for it. At the end we will have better tools to do our job.

godzookie2k · Mar 26, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by designbc:
Why? Let the guy express his point.

Let the guy express his point in one of the ten thousand other threads on the same topic. This was flame bait and I was just biting at the hook. Its not like there was any wise, age-old, drop dead, jaw-dropping, intelligent insight into why he thinks Xpress is 'shitty'.

Streamline 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native streamline.

Fontographer 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native Fontographer.

Distiller 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native Distiller.

Director FINALLY became X native after how long? It still doesn't have shortcuts for all of its tools. And it carries with it basically the same interface elements it has always had. And it works well, no one bitches about that.

Flash's keyboard shortcuts work maybe, once or twice out of every 10 times you try, there are no flamefests about that.

Bitching about Quark by people who don't have a clue or even use the program has apparently become the ****ing cool thing to do these days right up there with whippets. Frankly, I'm just ****ing sick of it. Bitch about Quark if you have a leg to stand on, otherwise, get off the podium because your opinion on a program you don't know how to use doesn't matter anyway. So many Maclots moan and complain about a non-native Xpress when the reality is that the Print world isn't trying to move to X in droves, ANYWAY. So why not give quark the time to build a decent solid version of Xpress, they sure as hell have the time judging by the number of 603, 604, and low end G3's that are used in this business. (None of which are capable of running X good enough for a production environment.)

godzookie2k · Mar 26, 2003, 09:49 AM

Throw FlightCheck into that list of programs that 'feel' old and are non-carbonized but still do a damn great job.

designbc · Mar 26, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
Let the guy express his point in one of the ten thousand other threads on the same topic. This was flame bait and I was just biting at the hook. Its not like there was any wise, age-old, drop dead, jaw-dropping, intelligent insight into why he thinks Xpress is 'shitty'.

Streamline 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native streamline.

Fontographer 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native Fontographer.

Distiller 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native Distiller.

Director FINALLY became X native after how long? It still doesn't have shortcuts for all of its tools. And it carries with it basically the same interface elements it has always had. And it works well, no one bitches about that.

Flash's keyboard shortcuts work maybe, once or twice out of every 10 times you try, there are no flamefests about that.

Bitching about Quark by people who don't have a clue or even use the program has apparently become the ****ing cool thing to do these days right up there with whippets. Frankly, I'm just ****ing sick of it. Bitch about Quark if you have a leg to stand on, otherwise, get off the podium because your opinion on a program you don't know how to use doesn't matter anyway. So many Maclots moan and complain about a non-native Xpress when the reality is that the Print world isn't trying to move to X in droves, ANYWAY. So why not give quark the time to build a decent solid version of Xpress, they sure as hell have the time judging by the number of 603, 604, and low end G3's that are used in this business. (None of which are capable of running X good enough for a production environment.)

Ok, if all those programs "feel" old and nobody complains, then the problem are not those programs. If there are so many people complaining abouth Quark (and notice I wrote complaining, not bitching), then there should be something wrong with Quark. They know that and they haven't done anything about it. You know version 5 is garbage.
Why not give Quark the time?... How much do they want? 5, 10 Years? They've had all the time of the world to build a new version, just cross your fingers and prey it is more decent than the last version.
Who said the print world is not trying to move? The whole world tries to move and I know of many can't because are stuck with Quark.
Ah, by the way, complaining (not bitching) about Quark is not the cool thing to do these days. The difference is that these days we have another choice, Quark doesn't have the monopoly anymore.
And I'm writing from my own experience. I've been using Quark for about 5 years now. And since the beginning I didn't like the program. I had to use it because there was nothing else, but never felt comfortable with it. Now, I haven't switched to InDesign, but I'm testing it to CHOOSE.
As I said before, NOW WE HAVE CHOICES. And that's good. Now Quark is gonna be pushed to give us, as you said "a decent version". Let's see how version 6 works.

zubro · Mar 26, 2003, 01:18 PM

Mr. godzookie2k I think that you didnt realy think that OwlBoy is probably a kid! ;o) koz to use Quark for the first time,...

Anyway, shure that if quark doest come up with a Real good app and a similar price as ID, well, I am working with many Co. that are under 4.1, but use the last photoshop and illustrator... And when u know how easy ID is!...

iT4c0 · Mar 26, 2003, 02:28 PM

godzookie is well known as quark supporter

I believe the softwares you list that no one complain about because there is no compitition for them. I am taking Indesign class right now but i have not taken quark yet. As far as I heard from my friends and classmates who took the quark class. They prefer Indesign 100%. I am not saying quark is bad but there must be a reason why people complain about quark and went for Indesign. we respect you as a active member here godzookie but please dont get too upset when people complain about Quark. Excuse my poor english here.

p.s. I still love you godzookie, u are the best

godzookie2k · Mar 26, 2003, 06:21 PM

I never said Quark weren't a bunch of bastards. God knows they invented horrible tech support. (I hear, I've never had to call personally but i've heard enough horror stories). And Xpress 5 isn't the bees knees. MY problem with this whole thing is people bitching---erm COMPLAINING about quarkXpress who DON'T HAVE A EFFING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. And I'm tired of hearing "oh quark sucks, I double clicked the application and I didn't like the color of the non aqua start up screen so its stupid" I mean for ****s sake. IF you [non specific 'you'] have used quark for some degree of time, you are granted a license to bi--complain-- about Xpress. Until then, shut the hell up and get off the bandwagon. Every designer I know bitches about Quark. But Xpress is damn good at what it does. I keep 'hearing' Adobe's rhetoric about studios switching in droves, but I haven't seen it. I've seen alot of single license freelancers trying it out, I've heard alot of students who haven't set foot in a real world production environment in their lives say they like it, but I don't see many studios switching to it. Why? Because OSX is a major cost to jump to (both in dollars and technical problems) and imho its not even ready to handle a major production workflow. There is still a lacking competitor to ATM deluxe, there *is* no flightcheck solution, there *are* still legacy hardware issues, and there IS no distiller replacement. (and if someone mentions the slack ass built in pdf creation abilities they are going to get punched.

) Quark isn't the only one holding up the game here. ID2 is a good start, and I'm sure that ID3 will be a damn good competitor, but for now ID2 has way too many glaring issues to make it a really strong competitor. But thats a whole other rant for another thread.

You know what, skip all that crap above. All I'm saying is don't complain about quark if you don't use it. Even on this little boards microcosm of the mac world, there are way too many idiots blaming quark for why the print industry won't switch to osx, when they aren't even in it, or don't use quark at all, and I'm sick of hearing it. If you're a student and you like ID better, sure what the hell I don't care use ID2. But before you completely ignore even learning and using Quark, go do a monster.com search for jobs requiring Quark versus jobs requiring ID. Hell, do that in 3 years and I guarantee you, you will still get more Quark results.

designbc · Mar 26, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I never said Quark weren't a bunch of bastards.

I agree

MY problem with this whole thing is people bitching---erm COMPLAINING about quarkXpress who DON'T HAVE A EFFING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The guy just said that he tried it and he didn't like it. Neither did I years ago and I still use it.

And I'm tired of hearing "oh quark sucks, I double clicked the application and I didn't like the color of the non aqua start up screen so its stupid" I mean for ****s sake.

Totally agree

But Xpress is damn good at what it does.

You know what? I have to agree (and God knows I don't like it). But working with the program is what a lot of people don't like.

I don't see many studios switching to it. Why? Because OSX is a major cost to jump to (both in dollars and technical problems) and imho its not even ready to handle a major production workflow.

Right

There is still a lacking competitor to ATM deluxe, there *is* no flightcheck solution, there *are* still legacy hardware issues, and there IS no distiller replacement.

Right again

All I'm saying is don't complain about quark if you don't use it. Even on this little boards microcosm of the mac world, there are way too many idiots blaming quark for why the print industry won't switch to osx, when they aren't even in it, or don't use quark at all, and I'm sick of hearing it. If you're a student and you like ID better, sure what the hell I don't care use ID2. But before you completely ignore even learning and using Quark, go do a monster.com search for jobs requiring Quark versus jobs requiring ID.

Agree

Hell, do that in 3 years and I guarantee you, you will still get more Quark results.

Well, that we will see.

OwlBoy · Mar 27, 2003, 11:26 AM

I'm sorry, I never ment to piss anyone off. But I agree quark can prolly print great, and do nice things, its just the interface that you have to use sucks.

This comes from someone who has gone though 7.6 to X 10.2.4 and I have become spoiled by nice interfaces (not JUST nice looking, though that has a small effect) thats are intuitve, are flexible etc...

And flamebate? Hmm, dunno bout that.... I was just expressing my optinion and wondering if it was just people I know at school who argee.

I'd say

. At the end we will have better tools to do our job.

sums it up.

-Owl

Griggsy · Mar 27, 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
So why not give quark the time to build a decent solid version of Xpress

Are you kidding -I'll die before I ever see a stable version of Quark.

Its just one of those things - Quark is not stable and even when it is its because its been set up by someone who knows what they are doing.

With most Apps an install does the job, with Quark you need Atm and a decent font manager. The question isn't about switching to OS X for most Quark Users its about switching to Version 5.

We still run 4.1 at my studio because we all remember the disaster that happened when 4 was rolled out, no one upgrades because Quark has never been stable, people find a release that works and stick with it.

boardsurfer · Mar 27, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
I'm sorry, I never ment to piss anyone off. But I agree quark can prolly print great, and do nice things, its just the interface that you have to use sucks.

This comes from someone who has gone though 7.6 to X 10.2.4 and I have become spoiled by nice interfaces (not JUST nice looking, though that has a small effect) thats are intuitve, are flexible etc...

-Owl

Ok, so the interface isnt anything nice to look at. I agree. But to say it isnt intuitive I do not agree with. Now granted, you dont know how to use it yet, that is why it is all foreign to you. I have used Quark for 5 years, and I love the fact that I can have nothing but my document and 2 minimal tool bars on my screen. Nearly all of the menu items are accessible through a keyboard shortcut - I love that. Once you know all of that, everything suddenly steps out of your way and it is just you and your design. I havent used ID enough to know if that level of efficiency is available. anyway, my .02

chris v · Mar 28, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
No one bitches about a non-native streamline.

Yes, we do. It crops up here once a month, or so, and over at the Adobe forums, too. I bitch about it all the time at work. Ask my staff artist.

CV

MikeM33 · Mar 29, 2003, 02:29 PM

I think most people that do complain about XPress have only been used to using stuff like Photoshop or Illustrator first. So when these people have to get behind the wheel of XPress they're like "Okay well why are all the keyboard commands so different?" or "Why do I hit the control key to zoom instead of Z?" etc., etc. It's like an American trying to get used to driving in England on the opposite side of the road with the wheel on the opposite side of the car.

In the end I agree, whatever gets the job done. I started working professionaly with XPress. Before then I'd "played with" Photoshop/Illustrator a bit, but the majority of what I do for real cashola involves typesetting and layout. I also use Painter at home which happens to be my all-time personal favorite application. It's user interface is nither Adobe-like nor Quark-like, but I love illustrating and painting in it

FWIW I do find InDesign to also be a great application (much better than thier former, one and only, "layout application" PageMaker.......excuse me while I HURL!! ). The thing is, I'm just used to XPress. Stability issues? Never had any with XPress at all. 90% of any issues with application stability I face have been from either using OS 9.x or below, or running Adobe applications that eat-up a crap-load of resources. Meanwhile XPress chugs along exquisitely at less than 50 MB allocated.

I've had many problems with outputting from InDesign as-well, which I've never, ever had from XPress. I can output from XPress to any device (printers, imagesetters, platesetters, etc., etc ad-infinitum) and never a problem.

XPress 6 is (finally) coming. This is great for the early "Must have OSX application" adopters, but I wouldn't expect anything better or worse than what Adobe's put-out in thier "first for OSX" releases. There's been tons of complaints about ID 2, Illustrator 10 and PS 7. Why? BECAUSE they're the first OSX versions, of course there will be issues.

I'm not saying it doesn't RAWK!!11!! that there will (finally) be an OSX version of XPress, but I'm also not getting my hopes too high that it's going to be super-awesomely-scrumpdiddlyishiously-great either.

MikeM

Mac Guru · Mar 31, 2003, 12:24 AM

Fontographer 'feels' old and it still does a damn good job. No one bitches about a non-native Fontographer.

yeah we don't bitch because there is FontLab.

Fontographer is dead, so there's no room to complain, since it's been dead for some time. People have no room to complian if it's been made clear that program X is no longer being develped.

Mac Guru

purplenerple · Apr 4, 2003, 01:10 PM

I have been using Quark for 10 years. I LOVE IT!!!!! It does everything I need for the most part. Of course, would love to be a fly on the wall when they're writing new ones to add a few features but do get around them for now. Yes they are releasing one for OSX but like anything, first versions are never the best. Granted I have never even looked at InDesign so I don't know how it compares but I would be absolutely lost without Quark. We use Quark to build 4 newspapers every week, build a pdf from there and send to our printer who uses Acrobat to print to neg. Works out beautifully. I'm not saying that Quark is perfect as no application is but I for one think it's the best for layout! Yes you do need to use a font manager but I image you would need that for anything. No conflicts here for me.

aliendezines · Apr 9, 2003, 08:26 AM

I totally agree with Perplenerple...

I went from using Pagemaker to a job that required the use of Quark. NEVER used it before. But I LOVE Quark! It's a matter of getting used to and working out the old habits of an old app.

And as far as it being stable... I've never had any problems with it, at home or at work and I have a PC at home. And the problems I did come across while working in Quark were 99% OS issues not the app itself.

Sure, I've never layed a keyboard stroke with Indesign, but it doesn't mean that I'll hate it. It just another app to work with and get used to. Different apps for different jobs. One will do best for one design, the other for something else.....

designbc · Apr 9, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by aliendezines:
I Different apps for different jobs. One will do best for one design, the other for something else.....

Nooo... Different applications to do THE SAME JOB.
And you can love Quark, the same way some guys can like their wife of 20 years better than Aria Giovanni (No offense to the good old wives).
I just say that any time I open Quark (which is everyday) it seems that I'm back in time.
And don't say Quark didn't upgrade because it is perfect. It's not perfect and they haven't upgraded just because they felt they were the emperors in this market. And yes, they WERE, not anymore, now they have to fight hard to keep this same market.

And I personally HATE when I have to stop what I'm doing and go to the tools menu to choose a tool than in evey other application can be selected with a simple keyboard combination. I don't mention de UNDO possiblities because it seems that Quark thinks that to use their software, you have to be good enough to do the whole job without making mistakes, even without changing your mind.

purplenerple · Apr 9, 2003, 09:11 AM

I think if you dig a bit you will find that there are a couple of keystrokes to change to a couple different tools. There's also an extension (sorry, don't know the name) that will allow you to change a picture box to a text box. I think it's all in getting used to it. I don't remember that Pagemaker had any tool changing shortcuts either. Maybe InDesign does. I don't find this cumbersom as I just go on autopilot.

BigBassDaddy · Apr 9, 2003, 11:56 AM

OK, after reading this string of e-mails I need some direction. I need to get Quark this summer. Do I go with Version 5 or look for 4. I assumed the upgrade would be better, maybe not? In Design is not an option. thx

andi*pandi · Apr 9, 2003, 01:33 PM

art director, and any others who've used it, will tell you 5 is crap. Stick with 4, wait for 6, or try indesign. Or there is also the chiseling letters from a brick option!

purplenerple · Apr 9, 2003, 02:05 PM

I would stick with 4. Only difference I see between 4 & 5 is that 5 collects font and is more web designer friendly. Careful of 6 you won't be able to open anything older in it (that's what I've read at least) Remember that most of the world that I've come across is still on 4 some on 5. It's much easier to stick with what people are using out there rather than go beyond too fast. Good luck!

godzookie2k · Apr 9, 2003, 02:18 PM

6 opens anything older, it just can't SAVE to anything older to 5. So you can open a Quark 3 document in it, work it up and save it as a quark 6 or a quark 5 document, but you couldn't save your changes back to a quark 3 document.

OwlBoy · Apr 10, 2003, 08:11 AM

Yeah, my School uses 4, I was wondering why... If I dislike this and 5 is worse? hehe

-Owl

purplenerple · Apr 10, 2003, 10:46 AM

Yep you're right...6 will open older but won't save down...sorry, wasn't thinking straight earlier.

bousozoku · Apr 10, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
I'm sorry, I never ment to piss anyone off. But I agree quark can prolly print great, and do nice things, its just the interface that you have to use sucks.

This comes from someone who has gone though 7.6 to X 10.2.4 and I have become spoiled by nice interfaces (not JUST nice looking, though that has a small effect) thats are intuitve, are flexible etc...

And flamebate? Hmm, dunno bout that.... I was just expressing my optinion and wondering if it was just people I know at school who argee.

I'd say

sums it up.

-Owl

It sounded to me like one of those "I just used a Mac today and it was really awful." posts with no constructive criticism.

Yes, XPress could look and feel better, but it works really well.

aprilcarter · Apr 26, 2003, 02:07 PM

I've been using QuarkXPress for about 10 years, and I'm disgusted by it now.

The makers apparently have no interest in keeping up with the operating-system advances. I can't print unless I export as a PDF, I have problems with fonts, andd it slows down my computer. I've been on the phone countless hours trying to figure out work-arounds, but guess what? They are time-consuming and irritating and justification for my running to InDesign with open arms.

I've been told by printers I work with that six months ago, Quark accounted for 80% of submitted files; currently, they're down to about 60%. If Adobe continues its patronizing, we'll all be able to submit jobs in InDesign... a day I look forward to.

April M. Carter
APRIL -N- ADOBE sittin in a tree...

godzookie2k · Apr 27, 2003, 12:16 PM

*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*
*resists urge to go on an ID2 rant*

designbc · Apr 28, 2003, 08:38 AM

*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*
*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*
*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*
*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*
*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*
*resists urge to reply to someone who doesn't want to admit the truth*

beb · Jun 5, 2003, 09:50 AM

Quark sucks...

-Maybe. Using old printing methods it was the best of what was available. It was ahead of Pagemaker although Pagemaker had/has some good points.

That being said, InDesign has it's flaws as well. With version 2 their not as numerous and I expect with future versions that there will be less.

What I'm not thrilled about with Quark is this whole sidetrip with web features that nobody asked for. The web market is already established with Dreamweaver, Golive and Frontpage. Print publishing and web publishing are entirely different.

godzookie2k · Jun 5, 2003, 06:13 PM

man, just when my blood pressure had subsided with the last bout of Quark/ID discussion, it raises its ugly head again.

OwlBoy · Jun 5, 2003, 09:25 PM

heh, yeah stop bumping my thread... it was kind of stupid of me to make it

-Owl

teszeract · 12:28 AM

Quark rocks.

I have just been allowed to preview the beta of 6. And I am relieved!

I have only spent about 15 minutes with it so far, but my initial impressions:

First: It hasn't changed much. I can still find everything in its regular places. Zoom does not work with the control key anymore, that's reserved for cntrl-click.

Its fast.
Much more so than ID2. Not quite as snappy as 4.1, but pages snap up when you click the page number.

TABLES! You can scale the whole table or indivdual cells. Word import of tables brings in tabbed text which you then have to "convert to table". That works pretty painlessly.

There's something called synchronize text. not too sure what that is.

There are web building functions - not going to bother with that - Dreamweaver or GoLive can do that job for me.

Opened a 4.1 document without any hassles - but Suitcase did not autoactivate my fonts. Hopefully thats a beta issue!

Bummer!: Usage window (font & pictures) still cannot be resized.

Installation went through about 15000 items.??? WTF!?

Collect for output will now collect fonts as well.

Can export to PDF. Yay.

Can import PDF's Yay again.

Has full-resolution image preview.

More later...

[edit] mouse scrolling works. and its speed is user defined. Very lovely.

teszeract · Jun 9, 2003, 12:32 AM

Slowest thing about Quark is the Help system. Uses Apple's Help Viewer.

Dogma · Jun 10, 2003, 04:10 PM

Quark 6 - Oh no! Why won't it just die already!

I thought they had consigned it to the junk heap of history...

Okay, so people like Quark Xpress.

We get it. I HAD to learn it at college as part of the desktop publishing course, and man did it suck. But back then, Aldus Pagemaker was hardly a useful alternative.

It's so flexible, forgiving, and downright ugly.

In fact, I've never found it to be flexible, even with Flightcheck - again - unnecessary Apps for times when we should be working with PDFs (or at least some form of format that embeds the reliant information) natively.

Okay, so I don't like it. Am kinda interested to see the new version, just to see what it's they've done with it. The high res display looks good, as does the Applescripting. Maybe they've made an upgrade worthy of "Industry Standard" again. We'll see.

I just hope it can open InDesign files...

MikeM33 · Jun 10, 2003, 09:12 PM

InDesign is a "cute" little program. But QuarkXPress owns the business.

THAT IS ALL

MikeM

iChamp · 01:59 AM

InDesign 2 rocks! Even the MacDesign magazine has switched its entire magazine production to InDesign...Its publisher Scott Kelby is the author of some of the best Quark instructions I've read yet he'd decided to go with InDesign for his MacDesign...that's indicative of what to comes...InDesign wil kick Quark's butt left and right...and it's about time...Yahoooooo. No more dealing with the lame Quark company!!!! But Quark has its purpose...it heats up the competition...to see who can outdo each other so in the end, it's a good thing! We all have better software to use because of it.

InDesign or Quark, it doesn't matter. It's what you like and which helps you produce the best work. For me, it's InDesign. Peace.

godzookie2k · Jun 11, 2003, 08:00 AM

Dogma-- even with a pdf workflow you still need flightcheck. I know I've sent PDF's to press before and had them come out funky because I didn't flightcheck em.

godzookie2k · Jun 11, 2003, 08:01 AM

iChamp: I think you broke...the record...for most...elipses...in one...post!

designbc · Jun 11, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by MikeM33:
InDesign is a "cute" little program. But QuarkXPress owns the business.

THAT IS ALL

MikeM

This is the best joke I've heard lately. LOL!!! Man, you are funny!

Dogma · Jun 11, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
Dogma-- even with a pdf workflow you still need flightcheck. I know I've sent PDF's to press before and had them come out funky because I didn't flightcheck em.

Never happened to me, but then, my designs are all fairly harmless. How did they come out funky anyway - font problems? Surely that's overcome by the font embedding feature.

What I usually do is to "know" the printer I'll be working with - having professional knowledge of graphic design and graphic reproduction is always handy. I hate it when you the printer calls you up and says "Your prints look kinda weird..." and you say "Read the notes dweebhead, did it say anywhere that it was CMYK? no. Just cause it's a four colour separation doesn't mean that I'm using normal spot colours! Bleedin printing moron - stop sniffing your eskofot developer and buy a proper machine that any moron with your training could use!" - How I wish for the day when we can get an automatic printing system that has nothing more than a "Go" button on it - bypass the whole nonsense altogether. I wonder how many printers still actually put together their own plates these days anyway? Is it the red stuff first - or is it the bluey stuff?

godzookie2k · Jun 11, 2003, 06:04 PM

Color problems due to an RGB image getting slipped in there somehow. Stupid error on my part, I know, but it happens in my job. (too many projects, not enough time)

godzookie2k · Jun 11, 2003, 06:05 PM

I "know" my printer too, the color shift was significant, but it didn't "look" off, ya know? So it went to press.

(why it didn't get caught by someone when we got the proofs? see above)

iChamp · Jun 11, 2003, 07:38 PM

...godzookie2k: ...lol...

...

Dogma · Jun 11, 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I "know" my printer too, the color shift was significant, but it didn't "look" off, ya know? So it went to press.

(why it didn't get caught by someone when we got the proofs? see above)

Ha ha! The Godzookie cocked up - is that what you're saying!

(You know I'm only playfighting - dontcha)

I suppose it's being in lotsa jobs where FlightCheck isn't available (even - gasp - before it was available) and i spent ten minutes or so at the end of every job to check everything was good to go - files and everything wise.

One serious question though, why did you have an RGB image in the first place. I usually make two separate folders if I'm working at all with RGB files, one for the originals, and one for conversion, just ticking them off as i go...

But I suppose you learnt that lesson.

MikeM33 · 01:20 AM

godzookie2k seems to be the only voice of wisdom in this thread.

Adobes stuff is great, but do you wanna know what Adobe had to offer before InDesign?

PageMaker

Yeah I said it without throwing-up. PageMaker is the worst layout program there is. I wouldn't wish PageMaker on anyone.

Then "poof" they do InDesign, better application in terms of use, but guess where they took most of it from? Quark-Farking-XPress.

Adobe has had the edge in terms of Photo editing applications like Photoshop and Vector Rendering app's like Illustrator, but they missed the damn boat on page layout/typesetting/printing applications.

THAT IS ALL

MikeM

andi*pandi · Jun 12, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Adobe has had the edge in terms of Photo editing applications like Photoshop and Vector Rendering app's like Illustrator, but they missed the damn boat on page layout/typesetting/printing applications.
[/B]

Hello, you do know that Pagemaker existed long before Quark, don't you? So they couldn't have missed the boat, they built the boat.

Then of course they took too long to update Boat 4.0 and Quark took over the market. But give Pagemaker its cred. If it weren't for them, we'd be sitting here grousing over how Ventura Publisher 6.6 doesn't support rotated text.

THAT. Is. All.

designbc · Jun 12, 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by MikeM33:
godzookie2k seems to be the only voice of wisdom in this thread.

Adobes stuff is great, but do you wanna know what Adobe had to offer before InDesign?

PageMaker

If you don't know it, Pagemaker wasn't created by Adobe, so don't blame Adobe for its faults. It used to be Aldus Pagemaker. Adobe just bought it years ago and since it has been considered a minor layout program. They were just creating the conditions to release InDesign.