[mitchell_pgh]

I'm just wondering what is the BEST way to create duotones using Quark and Photoshop for a two color project.

PROJECT: Simple Black + PMS 302

I'm currently:

1) Open Color image in Photoshop
2) Convert to grayscale
3) Convert to duotone (K + PMS 302)
4) Tinker with curves to get proper K and PMS 302 visual.
5) Save as .eps file from Photoshop
6) Import in to Quark

It has worked... my printer never questions it... but I always wonder...

What are other people doing and what's a better way?

[siMac]

No, that's the only way.

[KeriVit]

If there's another way- never heard different and I'm a designer in a print shop.

Why would you question it? Having problems?

[ChrisF]

Originally posted by siMac:
No, that's the only way.

Yeah, what he said.

[MacDog]

Originally posted by ChrisF:
Yeah, what he said.

Famous last words... LOL!

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by KeriVit:
If there's another way- never heard different and I'm a designer in a print shop.

Why would you question it? Having problems?

I'm really not having problems, but I usually deal with 4cp. I'm also starting to critically look at how I use Quark to improve upon the length of time it takes to design. I'm trying to move from average to advanced so that I can focus more on the design, and less on Quark/Photoshop... and this was one of those things that always made me think "Gee, I sure hope this works".

Sure, it worked on the separations... and my sales guy is Mr. "no problem" so I really never get any feedback. I also work alone... so the only input I get is from seminars that I attend.

Question: Should I play around with the screen angles or leave that to the printer? My printer usually says "don't touch them... and let our guys handle it..." but I thought I would ask.

[siMac]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm also starting to critically look at how I use Quark to improve upon the length of time it takes to design. I'm trying to move from average to advanced so that I can focus more on the design, and less on Quark/Photoshop...

Have you looked at InDesign?

Seriously, you can save spot colour images as PSDs and whip them straight into CS where you can check the separations on screen, it's very impressive. I know I go on about it but the Creative Suite really is that good.

As for the screen angles, they're best left to your repro guys/printer, but it never hurts to draw their attention to it when supplying the job.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by siMac:
Have you looked at InDesign?

Seriously, you can save spot colour images as PSDs and whip them straight into CS where you can check the separations on screen, it's very impressive. I know I go on about it but the Creative Suite really is that good.

As for the screen angles, they're best left to your repro guys/printer, but it never hurts to draw their attention to it when supplying the job.

InDesign is an amazing program (I've been tinkering since 1.0), but it just hasn't made a significant penetration in my area. Adobe should wise up and continue to give it away or at least make the price $199 or something trivial.

Charging $799 is ridiculous.

[Corys]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Charging $799 is ridiculous.

really? I think $950 for quark is a bigger joke IMO...don't forget to add $40 if you want a manual

Adobe has created a product that feature for feature is on par and in many instances is much better. Why shouldn't they get paid? $699 for indesign is a bargain.

Anyway, the way you are creating your duotones is the way I would want to see them (from a printer perspective).

[andi*pandi]

mitchell, that's the way I do duotones also. Sometimes it is hit or miss, depending on the colors and how they combine. I've been disappointed a few times.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Corys:
really? I think $950 for quark is a bigger joke IMO...don't forget to add $40 if you want a manual

Adobe has created a product that feature for feature is on par and in many instances is much better. Why shouldn't they get paid? $699 for indesign is a bargain.

Anyway, the way you are creating your duotones is the way I would want to see them (from a printer perspective).

You make a good point if you're starting out... but $800 for a relatively new product is steep. Most of us have already taken the plunge for Quark, so we only pay $100 upgrades here and there. Quark also doesn't update there software every eight months like Adobe does... which IMHO is a good thing... because printers have a difficult time keeping up.

P.S. The InDesign that comes with the creative suite (which I have) doesn't have a manual... and I paid over a $1200 for that package.

[designbc]

The InDesign that comes with the creative suite (which I have) doesn't have a manual... and I paid over a $1200 for that package. [/B]

Well, if you paid 1200, then you got much more than InDesign, you got the best deal you can get.
You got Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat. That means you paid only $300 per program. Compare that with 900 for Quark.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by designbc:
Well, if you paid 1200, then you got much more than InDesign, you got the best deal you can get.
You got Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat. That means you paid only $300 per program. Compare that with 900 for Quark.

This is looking at the issue from two different perspectives.

My perspective is from someone that has used Quark since version 3.

I've only paid a couple hundred dollars in the span of a decade to keep it up to date.

With Adobe, it's every 14 months it seems that I'm shelling out for a new version.

[chris v]

There is another way, but it sucks. Once I've made a duotone, I often want to be able to view/tweak individual channels, so I convert the file to Multi-channel, which makes the duotone channels spot colors. The only way to get these to output from quark is to save 'em as DCS 2.0 files, which suck on screen.