[l008com]

When I went to school for graphic design, we learn Quark before anything else. It is THE design program, a tool more important than photoshop, as far as print design goes. Then we learned Illustrator, and Photoshop/ImageReady, I personally started using GoLive. I fell in love with Adobe, their stuff just rocks! I've been doing 95% web stuff since school, and that other 5% has been in illustrator. Quark was left by teh wayside. I just had to make a 9 page document, the type of doc Quark is made for. I was well on my way. But after a short while, I was starting to get annoyed, and no its wasn't because I was using a program with true System 7 interface components on OS 10.1.1. The modifier keys were really getting to me. Option to 'hand' drag, not space, control to zoom out, instead of to bring up an alt-menu. It was the little things that were starting to annoy me. Then I remember I still had a beta of InDesign 2.0 (Carbon!) lying around. I fired it up and really used it for the first time. It literally takes everything good about Quark, and combines it with everything good about Adobe software!! I couldn't believe how nice it was! The simple stuff like placing psd files as images (yeah it uses the images transparencies!)was cool, but after I was done, with one simple menu command, I exported the whole doc as a PDF! Built in! InDesign is truly awesome! I think I have used Quark for just about the LAST time!!

[godzookie2k]

heh heh, welcome to the club.


Nick

[l008com]

Yeah I forgot to mention, that school sucked anyway. Clark Computer Career Institute in greater Boston. Be Smart, don't waste $8000+ If you're goona go to school, the #1 thing you do is find every school that has job PLACEMENT (NOT job find assistance blah blah blah). Anything other than job PLACEMENT will not due.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: l008com ]

[darkbunny]

In my opinion both Quark and InDesign are great layout-programs!

If you use Adobes other products/programs, then yes, InDesign will normally be easier to handle. I hear that there are some improvements in 2.0 and it's needed as InDesign 1.5 can't do everthing.

I prefer using InDesign, and sometimes to brush up I use Quark.

I resently found that InDesign makes lousy .pdf files, as I had to make it press-ready. I totally screwed up a circular logo made in Illustrator.

Guess from now on i'll have to export to eps and the make the pdf-file :o)

[darkbunny]

I don't know how that angry/snobby little red face got in my message.

[Moderator]

But how to you prepress an Indesign file if the printer doesn't have it...many printers won't take pdfs because they want to be able to make adjustments in case the person who prepped the file is sloppy.

[Corys]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>But how to you prepress an Indesign file if the printer doesn't have it...many printers won't take pdfs because they want to be able to make adjustments in case the person who prepped the file is sloppy.</STRONG>

Find a new printer...Most printers will have the major apps. if you spend $150,000 on a prepress system, surely you can afford $600 for a program. it's a customer service thing. you might not like all the programs, but unfortunately you have to work with them if your customer uses them.
My $.02

[MikeM32]

I also found InDesign a refreshing and vast improvement on thier previous (so-called) "Page-Layout" application PageMaker (sheesh just typing it makes me cringe). I'm still somewhat a Quark purist however. I do know exectly what you mean about having to re-adjust to the keyboard shortcuts but from the other side of the fence sort-of.

My previous place of work had us doing like 90% page layout in Quark and like 10% "other" graphic work (scanning, working in Photoshop, working in Illustrator, etc., etc.). So pulling-up an Illustrator file I'd often-times forget that you don't hold down the option key to zoom in (like you do in Quark). This wasn't something too tough to re-adjust to it just required me to sort of "pause" and "think" about what application I'm working in at the moment. Being that I learned Illustrator and Photoshop on the PC before I ever even touched QuarkXPress most of those basic keyboard shortcuts are "permanantly embedded" on my cerebral cortex.

When they were forced to purchase InDesign 1.5.2 it was refreshing for all of us Quark-ers to notice that the application preferences could actually be changed to mimic most of Quarks major Keyboard shortcuts. This was important since they purchased it after they'd received thier very first ever I.D. file from a major client (JCPenney) and this was to have a huge press-run at thier printing plants. So we didn't exactly have the time to "learn" all the intricacies of the application.

It would be nearly another 6-8 months before we ever saw another InDesign file (same client, almost the same direct mail ad campaign).

I think the only shortcoming I had to deal with with InDesign 1.5.2 was problems outputting to a Harlequin R.I.P. This was mainly a problem with manual tiling which was required on the films at the printing plants. We basically had to "fudge" it and found a "workaround", but this still wasn't as efficient as just outputting from QuarkXPress 4.11. Strangely enough InDesign's manual tiling did work correctly to thier laser printers.

I still don't completely trust InDesign simply because of what I perceive as a lack of output control which I've never once experienced using QuarkXPress. It's integration with all the other "biggies" (Adobe app's) is great, and I love the fact that you actually do get a decent image preview as opposed to Quark's "bitmapped" image previews.

In pre-press/printing/publishing output is everything so in that sense I'll always stand behind QuarkXPress. InDesign certainly has potential when and if they can ever work-out the output problems that 1.5.2 had (maybe someone using version 2 in a real pre-press house can tell me if it has).

And don't even suggest that just PDF-ing it and sending it off to your service bureau is a solution PDF has a long-way to go and most places still aren't ready for a full-time PDF workflow. They're problematic when the customer suddenly wants things edited or wants spot color seps from a PDF. There are some RIP's that'll handle them but even then the capabilities are limited. Manual trapping and copy changes will always require the service bureaus to have the original files versus a PDF.

Mike

[baryonyx]

Mike, your comments vis-a-vis PDF are interesting to me, largely because the large-scale printers I am dealing with are moving over to what they call "digital" printing. Basically this involves converting files to either DSC 2.0 or PDF.

This whole switch seems fraught with complications, especially for less-experienced or downright incompetent designers. Most of these folks don't even know what trapping is. Many don't seem to understand how to spec a color correctly within QuarkXpress to get 4-color output.

Be that as it may, I believe there is a sea-change happening and it involves PDF, right or wrong. I don't think it is wise to dismiss it so easily. But I also feel bad for all the clients of these designers, because there are going to be problems.

Andy

[MikeM32]

baryonyx;

You're absolutely right about PDF's becoming more commonplace. I think I was more or less *venting* at my dis-taste with dealing with them on the production/service bureau end of the *bizz*. My last place of work used to get PDF's frequently from clients. Early-on (under previous management which implemented the PDF workflow) it was pretty much "impose crops, and RIP" to films, no problems whatsoever, very cut-and-dry workflow. They just had to find some specialized tools for Imposition (they found Quite Imposing did the trick). All of those files were exteremely ugly layouts in black and white (one color) which someone (probably a secretary) at the clients end did in MS Word.

After a while the demands of the clients got a little *broader*. Suddenly they're sending PDF's and asking; "oh can you change this or that". Whoa!!!!! Hold your horses!!!!! PDF is a final file format, cut and dry. It's not *meant* to be edited vis-a-vis QuarkXPress, InDesign, Word or whetever "originated" the PDF file. When they implemented a PDF workflow there was no question that the client would have to fix thier own crappy files and send them back, if they required changes. After a while that simple workflow evolved into everyone working there trying to *bend over backwards* for the client and fulfill thier requests, despite the absurdity of it (I blame that issue on what "evolved" into a piss poor pre-press management staff).

Then there's the color files they'd get. They had to figure out how to color separate things. The RIP they had wasn't set-up for a PDF workflow (although before I quit I think they were looking into a new RIP anyway). So everything they were suddenly doing with these PDF's (which they were never doing in the beginning under the former, and better management staff) was mostly done manually, utilizing the "cludgy" UI of Acrobat. And they wouldn't have even known *what* to do if they'd have had to do something like trapping a PDF. Thankfully though most of the PDF's were either 1 spot color, or 2 spot colors at the worst.

I think the major problem on the client end is they must have started thinking that Acrobat is an actual page layout application. That it would be "real easy" to use and implement thier changes and requests when all they sent is a PDF file. They must have come under the false assumtion that a service bureau can perform these miraculous feats of "daring do" with what is essentially a file that should be 100% ready to be RIPPED.

[RANT] I think the other major problem was the "new and improved" (pfft, yeah right) management staff at my former job was always telling the client "oh sure sure we can do that", no matter how absurd the request was. The pre-press supervisor would tell the clients these totally absurd things that she knew were impossible, then turn around to the artists (like myself) and expect them to deliver on her grandious promises to the client.

Being that she worked her way-up from being an artist herself, I'd have expected a little more common sense and that she would extend a little more courtesy to her workers. I wouldn't have a problem telling a client that they'll have to make thier own changes to thier original file and send us a new PDF (this is what former management would have done, the former boss put his "crew" first and things ran much smoother). I'm very, very glad I'm not working there anymore because it's sad to see a 75 yr old company go down the toilet.[/RANT]

Mike

[baryonyx]

Mike:

What complete pain. Hope your current situation suits you better.

Andy