Publisher vs. InDesign

In addition to Mary's response, please keep in mind that the program is
merely a tool. Knowing how to use it goes a long way.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375




"Debra" wrote in message

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
> hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
> professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?

> "Debra" wrote in message
>
>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
>> hear
>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>> professional
>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>
>

I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
is much more important then the software used. Having said that...

Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign. For
someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a steeper
learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the rewards
later.

For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign +
Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a lower-cost
option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images for commercial
print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but satisfactory,
alternative to the full Photoshop.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Griffiths email: chris.DeleteThis@stroudprint.co.uk
StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
--------------------------------------------------------
I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
--------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the response! It seems as though it might be worth my while to
adjust to a steep learning curve. Can you tell me Quark vs. InDesign? Also,
as far as the photo question, how will I know if I need to produce CMYK
images? When is that needed vs. just using a jpeg or such in a document?

I REALLY appreciate the help!

"Chris Griffiths" wrote:

> > "Debra" wrote in message
> >
> >> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
> >> hear
> >> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> >> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
> >> professional
> >> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
> >
> >
>
> I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
> is much more important then the software used. Having said that...
>
> Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
> them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign. For
> someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a steeper
> learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the rewards
> later.
>
> For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
> user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign +
> Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a lower-cost
> option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images for commercial
> print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but satisfactory,
> alternative to the full Photoshop.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Griffiths email: chris.RemoveThis@stroudprint.co.uk
> StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
> Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
> --------------------------------------------------------
> I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

I like Photoshop Elements as a substitute for Photoshop.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375




"Chris Griffiths" wrote in message

>> "Debra" wrote in message
>>
>>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
>>> hear
>>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>>> professional
>>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>>
>>
>
> I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
> is much more important then the software used. Having said that...
>
> Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
> them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign.
> For someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a
> steeper learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the
> rewards later.
>
> For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
> user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign
> + Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a
> lower-cost option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images
> for commercial print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but
> satisfactory, alternative to the full Photoshop.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Griffiths email: chris DeleteThis @stroudprint.co.uk
> StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
> Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
> --------------------------------------------------------
> I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>

1. I believe photoshop elements does not support CMYK colorspace, so its use
is prepress is limited.
2, Indesign is the defacto standard for professional layout - I speak as
someone with 30 years in commerical printing. I see a dozens of files a week.
Quark only comprises about 20%.

"Iam_intrigued" wrote in message

> Thanks for the response! It seems as though it might be worth my while to
> adjust to a steep learning curve. Can you tell me Quark vs. InDesign?
> Also,
> as far as the photo question, how will I know if I need to produce CMYK
> images? When is that needed vs. just using a jpeg or such in a document?
>


I won't go into great depth on the Quark v InDesign debate in a Microsoft
group. (Ask on and then take cover!) I'll just
say that we switched from Quark to InDesign nearly three years ago and have
never looked back. I don't have direct experience of Quark 7, which has some
good reports, but to me the integration within Creative Suite and with PDF
makes the choice a no-brainer for someone who is not already in a Quark
environment.

The question about colour spaces is also part of a huge subject. Very
briefly: websites and print on desktop printers use the RGB colourspace;
commercial print normally uses a CMYK workflow. To learn about colour and
photos, the book "Real World Scanning and Halftones" (Peachpit Press) is one
of my favourites. "Real World Color Management" takes you deeper into the
murky waters, if you need to go there.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Griffiths email: chris.TakeThisOut@stroudprint.co.uk
StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
--------------------------------------------------------
I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
--------------------------------------------------------