[jaydon34]

Newbie who wants to know whats the best page layout program to learn. Im gonna be using it just to design some stuff for my business. So if anyone can help Id really Appreicate it.

[rickyirvine]

actually, i was just about to post the same question. InDesign or QuarkXPress? i like os x.

[godzookie2k]

Illustrator. for anything involving large amounts of text and more than like 5 pages, then Quark v 4.x, as much as I hate it.


nick

[zilmer]

Illustrator??? Come on, it's not for page layout. Yes, you can use it for drawing the page components etc., but it's not definitely the choice for layouting a page. If you really NEED to do your layout in vector drawing app, go for Freehand rather than Illustrator. But otherwise I'd suggest a decent page layout tool like InDesign (when in X) or Quark (when in 9).

[MikeM32]

QuarkXPress or InDesign. I've heard people that like to layout in Illustrator, but it's limited to single pages, I can't speak for Freehand since I've barely used it at all.

My personal favorite is Quark. For any serious layout/typography there's not much I can't do with it. InDesign is definitely worthwhile as-well, but I'm not certain if they've improved certain output issues since version 1.5.2 (mainly output issues with service bureaus and imagesetters).

While some people may still swear by it, I'd avoid PageMaker like the plague. WORST APP EVER

Mike

[zilmer]

Have to agree with Mike here - Quark is definitely a killer app. But after seeing what was possible in InDesign 2 (importing PSD-files and working with them) I must admit, this thingie will be a serious threat to Quark from now. Besides, it doesn't cost a thing compared to Quark (especially here in Europe).

[godzookie2k]

Originally posted by zilmer:
<STRONG>Illustrator??? Come on, it's not for page layout. Yes, you can use it for drawing the page components etc., but it's not definitely the choice for layouting a page. If you really NEED to do your layout in vector drawing app, go for Freehand rather than Illustrator. But otherwise I'd suggest a decent page layout tool like InDesign (when in X) or Quark (when in 9).</STRONG>

I really enjoy laying out in Illustrator, actually. I guess it could be due to my "style" of sorts, more illustrative than....designstrative which makes Illustrator the right choice for me. (uh-huh) I like being able to edit paths (with way more precision than quark), use transparency effects, envelope distort, photoshop layers intact, etc etc. I also think that Illustrators masking tools whup up on Quark like...something.

However, as I said, I wouldn't use it for something more than a few pages, mainly because I don't do that much print anymore so I'm not terribly eager to go and use/learn InDesign when I know Quark already. (Plus, time is a factor) Not to say I haven't used InDesign, I have, its nice and all but I found it a little klunky.

I am curious, are designers switching over to Indesign 2 because its a better program than Quark or is it because its X compatible? I'd be interested in seeing some statistic or something on that.


nick
(ps, at least I draw the line at using illustrator for laying out at a few pages, I've had friends who have layed out 50 page books in Illustrator )

(pps don't get me started on a "Freehand is a pile of crap" rant )

[Griggsy]

Unfortunately due to issues with Print House compatibilty it has to be Quark for magazine, larger documents, much as Indesign has everything you need and more in terms of layout, in professional terms, nothing compares to the big Q, just shame it's not 'X'. However for Brochure work Illustrator still has the edge.

Funny thing with Quark, used to hate it with passion found it over complicated then went away and learned HTML and how to create professional websites. Now back working with Quark full time and have found that the workflow and use of styles etc, is very similar and now don't mind it at all!

[C.J. Moof]

I just finished up doing the layout of my wife's doctorate thesis, and I did it in InDesign- the 2.0 demo, actually. 250+ pages Here's what I liked about ID2:

1) Drag and drop importing of Illustrator files.
2) Same for Photoshop
3) Direct save as PDF.
4) If you know Illustrator/Acrobat/Pshop keyboard shortcuts, you already know ID2's.
5) Intelligently written help files. I went into this project never having touched ID before, and with only a basic typography knowledge. We came out with a nice looking document, and had little stress along the way. I used the help files plenty.
6) Flawless Word import. It maintained all the formatting, including scientific equations.

The bad (note- these could be due to my ignorance/inexperience):
1) You have to know how long the document is when you start it. I ended up saying this would be a 333 page document, and lopped off the blank ones in Acrobat.
2) Text flows weren't how I thought they would be- I ended up with overlapping text boxes or text frames that jumped forward 200 pages. Once I figured out the rules, I got what I needed.

So in all, I too am a newbie, and found ID2 very friendly. For some "stuff for your business", I think you'll do just fine with Indesign. (Hey! I feel an advertising campaign comming on! InDesign is Oh-so-Fine, I can draw a 2 point line.... ok, I'm done now. )

[zilmer]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
<STRONG>
(pps don't get me started on a "Freehand is a pile of crap" rant )</STRONG>

Wasn't my intention, man. I am totally Pro-Freehand, Pro-Illustrator, Pro-Quark, Pro-anything as long as it gets the work done. It's just that.. as you said it yourself... it's a total pain to layout in Ill or Fh compared to Quark. Because they are meant for totally different tasks.

[zilmer]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
<STRONG>
2) Same for Photoshop</STRONG>

Try the following: paste a pic to Photoshop into a new layer, take a delete brush with soft edges and delete some part of the pic. Then make sure there's no Background layer and save it as PSD file.

Then go to InDesign - make a rectangle and fill it with any color. Place the PSD file over it and see what happens.

THIS is what I like about ID. THIS is revolutionary in DTP programs - never before has this been possible. And when you have a print campaign and a load of different size layouts to do, this feature really kicks the living crap out of Quark.

[godzookie2k]

Originally posted by zilmer:
<STRONG>

Wasn't my intention, man. I am totally Pro-Freehand, </STRONG>

heh heh, didn't mean to sound antagonistic, I agree completely.

[::maroma::]

Check out the new Macworld for a pretty good article comparing ID 2 and QXP 5. ID 2 wins hands down in features and compatibility with OSs (of course).

I have been a die hard Quark user for years and years, but lately I've been trying to make the move to ID 2. Quark 5 was a HUGE disappointment for me. After waiting so many years for Quark to get off their asses and make a new, modern version of their flagship product, only to have it be a very minor update in terms of print (not too concerned, nor impressed, with Q's html stuff). Not only that, it wasn't even trying to be X compatible. I feel like they really dropped the ball on this one, and it very well might be too little too late from the big Q when they finally get a version out that competes with ID 2. If Adobe plays it right, they could squash QXP by using their own ineptness.

Anyhoo, I would suggest using either Quark (for a sure fire industry standard), or ID 2 (if you are a little adventurous and want to use a modern app).

Also, Illustrator isn't limited to one page. You can set it up to have multiple pages in the Document Setup box. 'Tile Full Pages' and setting your page dimensions correctly will give you mult. pages. Still not my choice for multi-page layout, but...

One alternative that piqued my interest (haven't used it though) is the Project-M suite:
http://www.softmagic.com

Are you doing heavy text layout or more graphics-oriented layout? I find that, as mentioned above, anything text-oriented and less than about 6-8 pages can be done with something Like Illustrator, Create, Canvas, CorelDraw or Freehand. And anything graphics-oriented should be done in one of these types of apps.

I'm actually a bit partial to Freehand and CorelDraw, but Create is a nice price and OS X savvy. Hard to go wrong really.

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by zilmer:
Try the following: paste a pic to Photoshop into a new layer, take a delete brush with soft edges and delete some part of the pic. Then make sure there's no Background layer and save it as PSD file.

Then go to InDesign - make a rectangle and fill it with any color. Place the PSD file over it and see what happens.

THIS is what I like about ID. THIS is revolutionary in DTP programs - never before has this been possible. And when you have a print campaign and a load of different size layouts to do, this feature really kicks the living crap out of Quark.

That is a pretty neat feature, I wonder how "postscript" friendly it is though. Biggest problem on the service bureau end is sometimes dealing with these "cool new features" that (while extremely handy to the designers) can cause extreme headaches to the pre-press folks.

Transparancy in Illustrator 9 springs to mind whenever I think of this one. And theres still severe output problems with saving an Illustrator file in anything higher than version 8. I've yet to hear about a fix for any of those issues (and I've seen it consistently between two different places of work).

I think it's "neat" that you can do that with InDesign, but ultimately I'd not be expecting a page layout application to do that. I'd rather make those changes within the source file (be it Photoshop or Illustrator or whatever).

I do have to agree that the Quark 5 upgrade seems like a bit of a disapointment however. I'd have expected many more features after all these years. That said it's still my favorite layout app. Plus I know it better than Photoshop or Illustrator.

What I find annoying about setting some type in Illustrator is if I want to zoom into the area I wind-up typing a bunch of "Z"'s in my text box/path. Real PITA IMHO. Maybe that's why Quark uses the "control" key for zooming

Mike

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]

[zilmer]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>

That is a pretty neat feature, I wonder how "postscript" friendly it is though...

I think it's "neat" that you can do that with InDesign, but ultimately I'd not be expecting a page layout application to do that. I'd rather make those changes within the source file (be it Photoshop or Illustrator or whatever).

What I find annoying about setting some type in Illustrator is if I want to zoom into the area I wind-up typing a bunch of "Z"'s in my text box/path. Real PITA IMHO. Maybe that's why Quark uses the "control" key for zooming

Mike

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]</STRONG>

Hehe... We sort of tested the feature at the office - the PDF file created using this feature seemed absolutely OK when reviewed in PitStop. But I do agree with you that it might not work 100% everywhere and be "postscript friendly" as you say.

I wouldn't mind using the components prepared in Photoshop in InDesign this way - it's a total pain layouting into 10 different formats when doing a print campaign. Usually project managers expect you to do it in like 5 minutes and in this case ID would be pretty handy. And basically you do NOT edit the PSD file in InDesign - you literally layout using the page components prepared in Photoshop. I just don't want to end up with 10+ different PSD layouts, when I can have 1 set of components and 1 ID file. But OK, it's more a matter of taste I think...

The "Z" thing REALLY sucks - it's the same in Freehand. I don't really want to go changing the keyboard shortcuts just because of this....

[opallaser]

Well to be honest i find Quark Archaic and overrated. It's the industry standard only because Pagemaker was such a sorry piece of garbage.

InDesign is now the clear leader in layout apps in my opinion. The integration of PSD and AI files is a major time saver. The smart update of revised (placed) files without having to go through and do it manually is nice. It looks, feels and performs like a modern application while Quark feels old and tired.

The transperency features should be fine if you go through the right process preparing your stuff for output. It's so nice to be able to do really nice drop shadows and have transperency all while in your layout app. Adobe's site has tutorials which help with this.

We initially stayed away from InDesign for all the reasons you guys have mentioned ie Output problems etc - But now that our workflow is PDF we find it's a much more dependable tool than Quark.

On the other hand I design all kinds of single page layouts in a variety of apps including Illustrator, Freehand, Corel and even Photoshop depending on the situation. Never be limited by what others think you should be doing. If it works, use it.

[SunSeeker]

The "Z" thing REALLY sucks - it's the same in Freehand. I don't really want to go changing the keyboard shortcuts just because of this....

Don't Change keyboard shortcuts. Learn Them
The Adobe suite uses most of the following...

Hold 'Command and Space' together to temporarily activate the zoom tool at any time, combine this shortcut with the option key to zoom out. (Launchbar in OSX interferes with this shortcut, change it in the launchbar preferences)

Use 'Cmd Plus' or 'Cmd Minus' to zoom in or out. (combine with option in Photoshop to modify window behaviour)

Cmd 0 = Fit Page in Window
Cmd Option 0 = Fit Spread in Window
Cmd 1 = Actual Size
Cmd Shift Option 0 = Entire Pasteboard
(These are slighty different in ID, Illustrator and Photoshop, check the view menu)

Use 'New Window' under the Window menu in Indesign to create different views of a documentat different magnifications, each view can then be switched between. (Use 'New View' in Photoshop)

And don't forget the Navigator

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: SunSeeker ]

[mitchell_pgh]

I think there is a major misconception regarding InDesign vs. Quark. In the eyes of printers, InDesign is a brand new page layout program. InDesign is not a major competitor to Quark (yet). It accounts for LESS then 10% of all print jobs that come through any of our printers shops (and yes, I have asked around). A friend of mine works in a prepress environment, and has indicated a few areas where InDesign is not as good as Quark. With that being said, I know that InDesign will catch on over time considering Adobe updates their software every year or so, as compared to Quark that might get a .1 update every two to three years. Adobe is also synonymous with design applications. I don�t know how many times I have heard people say, �What�s cork�.

For a newbie designer (high school/college), I would say learn Quark, InDesign and PageMaker (there are a ton of jobs that require knowledge of PageMaker - ick).

For working designers, you should keep tabs on InDesign and even download the newest trial version. You never know when you are going to have to jump ship.

For veterans that use Quark, keep using quark. It�s rairly the application that will get you work.

[godzookie2k]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>A friend of mine works in a prepress environment, and has indicated a few areas where InDesign is not as good as Quark. </STRONG>

What *are* the printing folk saying are InDesigns faults? I'm preparing to start the long hard road back to print after many a year in the interactive world and I'd like some more info on InDesign beyond my few experiences ( acouple of zines) with it.

[zilmer]

Originally posted by SunSeeker:
<STRONG>

Don't Change keyboard shortcuts. Learn Them
The Adobe suite uses most of the following...

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: SunSeeker ]</STRONG>

Thanks for the tips, man, but what about Macromedia stuff? I must admit I do use it more than Adobe stuff...

[opallaser]

Pre-press houses are there to serve you. If they aren't supporting InDesign properly then look somewhere else. There is absolutely no problem right now ( with my local printer at least ) using a PDF workflow from InDesign or even native InDesign files for that matter.

Once you actually sit down and have to work with InDesign in a creative situation, you really start to see why Quark is in trouble. The 5.0 update of Xpress really was dissapointing. The HTML stuff is ok but if i want to design web pages i'll use Dreamweaver of GoLive.

I really hope Quark's next update is much more substantial. The reason Xpress is now such a dog was the lack of competition for all those years. Let's hope Quark and Adobe fight it out for the next few years and these apps progress steadily.

[SunSeeker]

Originally posted by Zilmer

Thanks for the tips, man, but what about Macromedia stuff? I must admit I do use it more than Adobe stuff...

The last time I used Freehand Fully it was Aldus Freehand so you might have to ask a Macromedia Junkie for those tips, however I am pretty sure most of the same shortcuts are available just with slightly different keyboard combinations.

Have a play around and I am sure you will find what you need

[sek929]

Although I hate Quark 4 with a passion its just about the only tool that does everything it does. InDesign has great potential, but I haven't used it extensively yet.

Either Quark 5 fixes everyhting that I hate (and has a Carbon version soon) or I am going to switch to InDesign and use that when I really don't need a page layout program (summer).

[Theodour]

If you are in X, and you don't know quark already, I think you might as well skip it and go to something else.
If you want to make yourself marketable, then Quark is a necessary program to use -- and despite Quark's lack of updates, it is still a very powerful program.
However, if you are in this solely for yourself, for your own design or creativity, then I don't see the point in learning Quark.
You can do multi-page documents in Freehand, and even create style sheets for both text and objects. Freehand is good for this, and can save as multipage PDFs.
So far, I am very impressed with InDesign, and I plan on using it for my next project. It uses the concepts of Quark as a basis, while retaining the Adobe conventions, and it plays extremely well with the other Adobe programs.
However, I don't how it will fare for the type of long project (100+ pages) I plan to use it for.
That is one place Quark excelled.

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by Opallaser:
Pre-press houses are there to serve you. If they aren't supporting InDesign properly then look somewhere else. There is absolutely no problem right now ( with my local printer at least ) using a PDF workflow from InDesign or even native InDesign files for that matter.

Designer&lt;------------------Pre-Press Dept/Service Bureau------------------&gt;Printer

As you see in my very simple "chart" this is pretty-much the way it works. Generally speaking the pre-press folks have to try to service both the Designers needs and the Printers needs. In a perfect world every pre-press group would be capable of handling any file format handed to them and we'd all be utilizing a PDF workflow and Direct to Plate systems, but this isn't always the case.

What we try to do to better serve our clients is provide them a listing of the file formats we can accept. Sadly where this falls by the wayside is by over-zealous salespeople who don't ask the right questions (or any at all).

My last place of work was still RIP-ING films, and they were a 99% Quark workflow. Plus they often times required us to make actual revisions to customer supplied artowrk or revise older jobs kept on file. The few times they had wound up with an InDesign file (twice in my years there) we had to learn it on the "fly" and had humongous problems outputting it to film so it manually tiled correctly for our printers to make plates.

Yes the service bureau should be able to handle the designers needs, but again, that's not always the case. Plus you add into that the lack of "adjustment to new software" time due to the fact that your job is just one of several others.

I like InDesign's ease of use, but I must stand by Quark where output is concerned. I've learned the hard way that if "it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Mike

[mitchell_pgh]

MikeM32 absolutely nailed it. Just because a printer says that they can work with InDesign files doesn't mean they are well trained. If you can, you need to talk to their prepress department, but good luck trying to get them on the phone.

Like I have said, going with InDesign is a risk (granted, it seems to be paying off)

The main issues that I have heard from my prepress friend always relates to native Photoshop and Illustrator files linked to the InDesign document. He just says some designers don't know what they are doing. In his words "Quark checks most of the want-to-be designers at the door"

When Quark 5 goes OSX native, then we will have to rethink InDesign and Quark... but Quark isn't going anywhere...

[Eric_Henao]

For the original question....

Doing a multi page document (book) use quark.
Or if you want to be new and cutting edge, use Indesign but remember a couple of things...
All your graphic (support) files of the indesign document need to be OLDER saved versions of the programs, Pshop should be tiffs or eps' and Illustrator files saved as ver 8. (I don't know about freehand)
Then distill your Indesign file (or quark ) as a PDF and make sure you set your distiller settings to PRESS OPTIMIZED. I have YET to have problems with this setting. (Any one else?)

This is what works for me. I love the export to PDF funtion in QUARK 5. (there, I said it - I use it. Probably one of 3 people on the planet!) You can do it as well in quark 4.11 to, but you need some additional xtensions.

Sounds like a lot of problems that arise with Indesign is the fact that people are using native file formats of the latest version of Pshop (6+) and Illust (10). I think that there is where the RIPS are having the most problems.

Anyway hope this helps. Oh and if you're OS X only, use Indesign, quark not available - yet for OS X....

Eric Henao