Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nycdunz · Jan 25, 2005, 09:58 PM

My two main programs i use most are illustrator and PS, i design everything with these 2 prgs... ie, business cards, flyers, brochures, logos, posters...

but what do you guys recommend for lets say a brochure, pamphlets, calendars, annual report booklets?

Im sort of confused about InDesign, i know its a page layout program, but if you were to use that to design a brochure, i'd imagine you would be limited as to what you can do as oppose to designing the brochure in photoshop... please shed some light. If i were to use indesign to do stuff like brochure, magazines, etc... how would i be able to create cool effects to my graphics like i do in photoshop? That is where im confused at. Wouldnt ppl who use InDesign to design those kinda things be limited to what they can do with their image? It would be a hassle to have to switch back n forth between PS and ID just to design a brochure... now if InDesign had the tools of PS then it would be much easier to use it to design?

How exactly does InDesign work when it comes to designing stuff like this? What advantages does it have over lets say Photoshop or Illustrator? I've been stumbling on this for a long time and hope somebody can help clear this up for me...

For example if i used PS to design a brochure, i can do cool things like make a nice background and have text over it... but i cant do stuff like that straight from InDesign... I would have to do the background in PS 1st and then in ID place it into my workspace. Which I don't really like...

KeriVit · Jan 25, 2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by nycdunz:
My two main programs i use most are illustrator and PS, i design everything with these 2 prgs... ie, business cards, flyers, brochures, logos, posters...

but what do you guys recommend for lets say a brochure, pamphlets, calendars, annual report booklets?

Im sort of confused about InDesign, i know its a page layout program, but if you were to use that to design a brochure, i'd imagine you would be limited as to what you can do as oppose to designing the brochure in photoshop... please shed some light. If i were to use indesign to do stuff like brochure, magazines, etc... how would i be able to create cool effects to my graphics like i do in photoshop? That is where im confused at. Wouldnt ppl who use InDesign to design those kinda things be limited to what they can do with their image? It would be a hassle to have to switch back n forth between PS and ID just to design a brochure... now if InDesign had the tools of PS then it would be much easier to use it to design?

How exactly does InDesign work when it comes to designing stuff like this? What advantages does it have over lets say Photoshop or Illustrator? I've been stumbling on this for a long time and hope somebody can help clear this up for me...

For example if i used PS to design a brochure, i can do cool things like make a nice background and have text over it... but i cant do stuff like that straight from InDesign... I would have to do the background in PS 1st and then in ID place it into my workspace. Which I don't really like...

InDesign is the way to go. No printer wants a brochure done in Photoshop. You are rasterizing everything, black text is made up of cmyk, edits are difficult.

First off, many things that are possible in PS are possible in ID, you just need to know how to use the program. Without giving you a tutorial, I would just say practice. And yes, there are some things you would still do in PS and place in ID. You would place the bkgd that you create in PS and layout the text over it. Not so bad once you get used to it, really. True typography is achieved in ID, better contol of kerning, sizing, copyfitting, etc. Multiple pages would be impossible to do in PS- say for a magazine.

Spot color work is best achieved in Illy and ID by the way.

All 3 programs work together and similarly. But there is a reason that each is a program in itself.

Give ID a try and see how it goes...

Westbo · Jan 25, 2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by KeriVit:
InDesign is the way to go. No printer wants a brochure done in Photoshop. You are rasterizing everything, black text is made up of cmyk, edits are difficult.

First off, many things that are possible in PS are possible in ID, you just need to know how to use the program. Without giving you a tutorial, I would just say practice. And yes, there are some things you would still do in PS and place in ID. You would place the bkgd that you create in PS and layout the text over it. Not so bad once you get used to it, really. True typography is achieved in ID, better contol of kerning, sizing, copyfitting, etc. Multiple pages would be impossible to do in PS- say for a magazine.

Spot color work is best achieved in Illy and ID by the way.

All 3 programs work together and similarly. But there is a reason that each is a program in itself.

Give ID a try and see how it goes...

OK... I know this will stir the ol' pot... But as good as InDesign may be, Quark is still the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to page layout. The majority of pre-press still uses/prefers Quark. Don't get me wrong, InDesign is a great app, but it's acceptability in the printing world is lagging. My hope is that it does gain popularity. It is more user/friendly.

KeriVit · Jan 25, 2005, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Westbo:
OK... I know this will stir the ol' pot... But as good as InDesign may be, Quark is still the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to page layout. The majority of pre-press still uses/prefers Quark. Don't get me wrong, InDesign is a great app, but it's acceptability in the printing world is lagging. My hope is that it does gain popularity. It is more user/friendly.

Oh don't misunderstand- Quark still rules (though I get angry at it daily). But nycdunz has only AI and PS experience and I see it as the easiest transition.

Speaking as some in the printing industry, I must say that ID has definitely picked up ALOT in the last few months- I attribute that to the CS package.

But I am not debating the 2 programs- only answering the question that was asked.

Westbo · Jan 26, 2005, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by KeriVit:
Oh don't misunderstand- Quark still rules (though I get angry at it daily). But nycdunz has only AI and PS experience and I see it as the easiest transition.

Speaking as some in the printing industry, I must say that ID has definitely picked up ALOT in the last few months- I attribute that to the CS package.

But I am not debating the 2 programs- only answering the question that was asked.

I understand KeriVit. And you are right, transition to ID will be seamless. In fact, if nycdunz has both PS and AI, and can swing an upgrade to CS Studio, ID would be included in the bundle. Indeed, ID files are being accepted more.

siMac · Jan 27, 2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Westbo:
InDesign is a great app, but it's acceptability in the printing world is lagging.

Yeah, let's stick with our software from 1995 because the printers don't like to change. [/sarcasm]

Come on, if we left it to the printers your brochures would still be being chiselled in granite. Who's the customer anyway?

siMac · Jan 27, 2005, 02:52 PM

Oh, and to the original poster: http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/

JMII · Jan 27, 2005, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Westbo:
Don't get me wrong, InDesign is a great app, but it's acceptability in the printing world is lagging.

The only problem we (I do pre-press work for a commerical printer) have with InDesign is when designers go crazy with all sorts of transparency effects and spot colors. At that point you might as well be rasterizing everything in Photoshop because that's what your lovely ID file is going look like after it runs thru the RIP

This is the biggest reason you'll see printers run from InDesign files: they can be a major pain to pre-flight and RIP properly to get the desired results. Other the other hand Quark files fly thru the system without any issues.

Bottom line: use a page layout app like InDesign OR Quark, but for god sakes do NOT make page-sized or multi-page layouts in Illustrator or Photoshop

siMac · Jan 28, 2005, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by JMII:
The only problem we (I do pre-press work for a commerical printer) have with InDesign is when designers go crazy with all sorts of transparency effects and spot colors. At that point you might as well be rasterizing everything in Photoshop because that's what your lovely ID file is going look like after it runs thru the RIP.

My job is also in pre-press and I can tell you I'd rather run to our imagesetter from InDesign than Quark any day. The way it handles transparency flattening is amazing, yes it means large areas getting rasterised, but body text and shapes are always kept as vectors and it even works with spot colours.

It's true that a badly prepared InDesign file can be a challenge to output, but the same goes for a badly prepared Quark file, and I know which app I'd rather have to spend time in to fix something!

Bottom line: if your printer or prepress agency whines about InDesign files then it's time to change supplier.

Randman · Jan 28, 2005, 03:30 AM

Still waiting on my copy to ship but what about Pages?

Corys · Jan 28, 2005, 10:32 AM

I work in prepress as well, and for me ID is my preference..things just run smoother for me in ID than quark...

I'm also running this survey on my site, the results were pretty interesting, I thought quark would have still been on top.

http://www.prepressforums.com/module...rder=0&thold=0

Phil Sherry · Jan 28, 2005, 11:34 AM

the interactivity between Photoshop CS & InDesign CS is pretty darn good. as has been mentioned here: if you're used to PS, then use ID, and don't even think about Quark. you'll just get things done quicker.

designbc · Jan 28, 2005, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by siMac:
It's true that a badly prepared InDesign file can be a challenge to output, but the same goes for a badly prepared Quark file

Very true. Usually the problems are created by the designers that have no idea of how to prepare a file for printing. There should be a law that forces design students to spend some time at a print shop.
And regarding the final product to send to the printer, you can always create a PDF that you can preflight in Acrobat, and you can even see the color separation. That way you can be sure you won't have any problems.

JMII · Jan 28, 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Randman:
Still waiting on my copy to ship but what about Pages?

I'd assume a HiRes PDF out of Pages would be OK, but its so new who knows

Heck we don't have Pages and have no plans on getting/supporting it since its more for home users and not the kind of thing that ad agencies are going to I'd bet.

Corys - who are the 6 people that voted for Publisher?

Quark still rules in our shop but ID is gain ground. So I'd say we are 60/40 at this point. However we are still getting 50% of our files from people running OS9!

eyevaan · Jan 28, 2005, 02:14 PM

Word . . . everything embedded Metafiles RGB - printed to a Docucolor... Wire-O bound
1/10 the cost of a traditional printer and no mess...HAHAHAHA!
sorry - this Q vs ID is ongoing and while it is true that each has its benefits - ultimately it is up to the user. I use Q for 10 years, never liked a day that I've used it. Came from a proprietary layout system, pretty much nothing is as elegant - but we can't live in the past can we?

@nycdunz - you are comfortable in PS and Ill - if you don't have the CS versions yet - invest in the Suite and don't look back. You will find your way around pretty easily and you will blow a couple of jobs completely, learning a lot along the way. Find a printer you trust, ask what they accept, ask to sit in with them for a day, take notes - they will love the results.

almaink · Jan 28, 2005, 02:23 PM

You can do it in Photoshop, not the best place but if you save as a layered psd file and send the fonts along with the job it's doable. Only way the fonts will get rasterized is if you flatten the text layers.

siMac · Jan 28, 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by almaink:
You can do it in Photoshop, not the best place but if you save as a layered psd file and send the fonts along with the job it's doable. Only way the fonts will get rasterized is if you flatten the text layers.

Of course you can do it in Photoshop.

You can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good f*ckin' idea.

Witty response courtesy of C. Rock.

KeriVit · Jan 28, 2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by siMac:
Of course you can do it in Photoshop.

You can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good f*ckin' idea.

Witty response courtesy of C. Rock.

mydog8mymac · Jan 29, 2005, 12:23 AM

I have produced many multipage documents in both ID and Quark (6 have been over one hundred pages). I will say unequivicably, that InDesign is easier to use than Quark and the pdfs that it produces keep my printer happy. The learning curve is much smaller than Quark (which I started using in 1996) and one of the Peach Pit Press books helps a bunch�Like this one!

siMac · Jan 29, 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by almaink:
You can do it in Photoshop, not the best place but if you save as a layered psd file and send the fonts along with the job it's doable. Only way the fonts will get rasterized is if you flatten the text layers.

Actually, the only way the fonts won't get rasterised is if your repro house runs the file from Photoshop - very unlikely.

I once tried to output a layered PSD file supplied by a customer whilst keeping the fonts as vectors. After a couple of hours faffing around between Photoshop and InDesign I gave up and flattened the damn thing. Files from Photoshop with any amount of text in them take a long time to process when saved with vectors, and are just not practical.

almaink · Jan 29, 2005, 07:10 PM

"Actually, the only way the fonts won't get rasterised is if your repro house runs the file from Photoshop - very unlikely."

Why would it be "very unlikely"? Are you in prepress? What would you use Word? I have had to do this (output layered text .psd files) many times and never had a problem. Not the way I would do it or even prefer it to be done, but if thats what the salesman brings in it's my job to rip it and if I have to print from Photoshop so be it, although since ID CS placing the .psd in ID is a better alternative and is a bit faster and offers more control than outputting from Photoshop. Don't know why you had issues, I never have.

siMac · Feb 4, 2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by almaink:
Why would it be "very unlikely"? Are you in prepress?

Originally posted by siMac:
My job is also in pre-press...

Originally posted by almaink:
I have had to do this (output layered text .psd files) many times and never had a problem.

Me too. The problem arises if you actually want to use the vectorial data from the PSD file. Flattening and outputting couldn't be easier. And the reason it would be "very unlikely" for a service bureau to run from Photoshop is because it doesn't offer the control over separations/screen rulings/registration marks etc needed for output to an imagesetter/CTP.

jamiep · Feb 12, 2005, 01:15 AM

Lets stick to the basics here:

Photoshop is for photos. Not for page layout.

Illustrator is for Illustrations. Not for page layout.

InDesign or QuarkXPress is where these elements all come together.

The end.

KeriVit · Feb 12, 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by jamiep:
Lets stick to the basics here:

Photoshop is for photos. Not for page layout.

Illustrator is for Illustrations. Not for page layout.

InDesign or QuarkXPress is where these elements all come together.

The end.

I wish all designers would follow that philosophy!!!!

art_director · Feb 12, 2005, 04:01 PM

I once saw a designer get fired for creating a brochure in Illustrator. What made him go that way is beyond me.

siMac · Feb 14, 2005, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by art_director:
I once saw a designer get fired for creating a brochure in Illustrator. What made him go that way is beyond me.

Seems a little harsh.

Before InDesign I created more than a few jobs in Illustrator, up to and including four page brochures, although anything over four pages (two DPSs) would not be at all practical in AI.

Demonhood · Feb 14, 2005, 03:47 AM

my friend the designer created a few brochures in illustrator at my place of work. i hadn't yet taught her the indesign ropes. but hey, this was gub'mint work, so real world rules don't apply.

jamiep · Feb 14, 2005, 10:11 AM

not harsh at all � would you not fire somebody who was replacing a part on your vehicle and pounding the bolts off with a hammer instead of undoing them with a wrench?

Use the right tool for the right job. If they never learned this, what else DON'T they know.

art_director · Feb 14, 2005, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by jamiep:
not harsh at all � would you not fire somebody who was replacing a part on your vehicle and pounding the bolts off with a hammer instead of undoing them with a wrench?

Use the right tool for the right job. If they never learned this, what else DON'T they know.

I agree, not harsh. The mistake caused the agency money on the job which would have otherwise been profitable.

siMac · Feb 14, 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by jamiep:
Would you not fire somebody who was replacing a part on your vehicle and pounding the bolts off with a hammer instead of undoing them with a wrench?

Depends if he had a pathological aversion to wrenches* or not...

A better analogy would be: would you fire him for using a set of high quality mole grips to remove the bolts instead of a piece-of-sh!t, overpriced, single sized wrench that would probably round off all your bolt heads?

(*Quark)

siMac · Feb 14, 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by art_director:
I agree, not harsh. The mistake caused the agency money on the job which would have otherwise been profitable.

Since when did supplying an Illustrator file cost more than supplying a Quark file(s)?

art_director · Feb 14, 2005, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by siMac:
Since when did supplying an Illustrator file cost more than supplying a Quark file(s)?

YIKES! My mistake, he did it in Photoshop.

One could argue that the files could have been used for the pages. Unfortunatley this person built everything in Photoshop at a low resolution. To make matters wosre he flattened his layers before printing for the presentation.

The production folk had to rebuild everything from scratch which, given the complexity of the design, was rather time consuming. It caused the deadline to be missed, cost the agency the proft margin that had been built in and nearly cost us the account. Needless to say he deserved to be fired. Only an idiot would build a brochure in Pshop.

art_director · Feb 14, 2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by siMac:
Since when did supplying an Illustrator file cost more than supplying a Quark file(s)?

I would say that building a brochure in Illustrator can be done but you'll have some production people putting a price on your head.

siMac · Feb 15, 2005, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by art_director:
YIKES! My mistake, he did it in Photoshop.

In that case, definitely fire the sucker, you have my blessing!

Maybe break his fingers to stop him from doing it again?

art_director · Feb 15, 2005, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by siMac:
Maybe break his fingers to stop him from doing it again?

That was discussed. In the end they just winged him and set him free.

normdzn · Feb 15, 2005, 01:29 PM

Hi Y'all,

The question of the century...ID or QE?

I personally like that I can control the bezier curve a lot easier in ID CS, no? I am leaning towards ID CS though I heard from my printers that it is still best to tweak the images in PS and not use the filters in ID. And besides, isn't Quark like $900!!!

KeriVit · Feb 15, 2005, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by normdzn:
Hi Y'all,

The question of the century...ID or QE?

I personally like that I can control the bezier curve a lot easier in ID CS, no? I am leaning towards ID CS though I heard from my printers that it is still best to tweak the images in PS and not use the filters in ID. And besides, isn't Quark like $900!!!

Have you read this thread? I think the ID vs QE discussion was trying to be avoided...

art_director · Feb 15, 2005, 02:13 PM

Hey norm:

You may want to do a search through the forum for that debate. It's been hashed, rehashed and hashed yet again around here.

Again, good luck.

normdzn · Feb 15, 2005, 09:01 PM

I will not bring this debate up ever again...but I still like ID better and it should just get better...hah

Chad A Wright · Feb 19, 2005, 10:42 AM

I would say that building a brochure in Illustrator can be done but you'll have some production people putting a price on your head.

I did a little work with a small agency who used Illustrator exclusively to build all their print ads/brochures. I still never figured out why they did that, but hey, it seemed to work for them.

Thorzdad · Feb 24, 2005, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by art_director:
I would say that building a brochure in Illustrator can be done but you'll have some production people putting a price on your head.

In my experience, I'd have to say that's nonsense. The service bureaus and printers I use have no problem with Illustrator files for things like brochures and the like. Frankly, I find Illustrator's text handling to be quite powerful for smaller (1-4 page) jobs.

Like anything else in this digital world, it comes down to proper file prep. If you hand over a poorly constructed, bloated and unoptimized file (in ANY software...Illustrator, Quark, ID) you deserve to feel the production department's wrath.

art_director · Feb 24, 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Thorzdad:
In my experience, I'd have to say that's nonsense. The service bureaus and printers I use have no problem with Illustrator files for things like brochures and the like. Frankly, I find Illustrator's text handling to be quite powerful for smaller (1-4 page) jobs.

Like anything else in this digital world, it comes down to proper file prep. If you hand over a poorly constructed, bloated and unoptimized file (in ANY software...Illustrator, Quark, ID) you deserve to feel the production department's wrath.

pssssttt...finish reading the thread...