> 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%.
(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:49 am
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Thanks for your help! InDesign and Photoshop is where it's at! Appreciate
the feedback.
"tuff_gong" wrote:
> 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%.
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
In short, Quark is a dead end.
When I began working where I'm at now, they had Quark. HATE IT! So do the
people that used to work with it. InDesign is more flexible and adaptable to
the way *you* work. I can do a project in InDesign in much less time than
one of our experienced Quark users could. I could not believe the hoops they
had to jump through to use a piece of clip art with a clear background! And
oh yeah, that hardware gizmo you need with Quark so you can use the product,
don't break it or try to get another one, even though you paid for the
product and the licensing. Three years later, the second dongle is still
shipping to us.
If you add in the rest of the Creative Suite, or even the integration of
just either PhotoShop or Illustrator, it is no contest.
"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 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.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
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
creating files any printer can output without a problem.
It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.
Mike
Debra wrote:
> 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?
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Well if you're going as far as Serif PagePlus, which nobody supports in
commercial printing save for one specific printer I know of, you might as
well go ahead and get Scribus. It's open source, runs on Windows, and many
flavors of UNIX including Mac OS X, can export a high quality PDF as well as
anything. As for image editing software get GIMP, GNU Image Manipulation
Program. It too is open source and runs on just about everything. It doesn't
work in CMYK but has most, if not all, the features you could possibly need.
It is no PhotoShop but then again so few people really use "all" of
PhotoShop's features that it really doesn't matter. Since there is no CMYK
support in GIMP you place the image into Scribus and export a CMYK PDF and
it is no longer a problem.
A few minutes setting it up, a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the
PDF Export options (PDF, PDF/X-3,etc) and you are ready to rock n' roll.
On 2/4/07 6:43 PM, in article a83d3$45c699b5$d844dd7c$9866@FUSE.NET, "Mike
Koewler" wrote:
> Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
> has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
> creating files any printer can output without a problem.
>
> It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.
>
> Mike
>
> Debra wrote:
>
>> 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?
(Msg. 14) Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Matt,
Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
NeoOffice. Do you disagree?
Mike
Matt Beals wrote:
> Well if you're going as far as Serif PagePlus, which nobody supports in
> commercial printing save for one specific printer I know of, you might as
> well go ahead and get Scribus. It's open source, runs on Windows, and many
> flavors of UNIX including Mac OS X, can export a high quality PDF as well as
> anything. As for image editing software get GIMP, GNU Image Manipulation
> Program. It too is open source and runs on just about everything. It doesn't
> work in CMYK but has most, if not all, the features you could possibly need.
> It is no PhotoShop but then again so few people really use "all" of
> PhotoShop's features that it really doesn't matter. Since there is no CMYK
> support in GIMP you place the image into Scribus and export a CMYK PDF and
> it is no longer a problem.
>
> A few minutes setting it up, a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the
> PDF Export options (PDF, PDF/X-3,etc) and you are ready to rock n' roll.
>
>
> Matt Beals
> Consultant
> Enfocus Certified Trainer
> Markzware Recognized Trainer
> (206) 618-2537 - Cell
> (720) 367-3869 - eFax
> mailto:matt@mattbeals.com
>
> Come visit me at:
>
> http://www.mattbeals.com > http://forums.mattbeals.com > http://blog.mattbeals.com >
> Friends don't let friends write HTML email
>
>
> On 2/4/07 6:43 PM, in article a83d3$45c699b5$d844dd7c$9866@FUSE.NET, "Mike
> Koewler" wrote:
>
>
>>Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
>>has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
>>creating files any printer can output without a problem.
>>
>>It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Debra wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>
>
(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Nope, as long as it is usable by the print provider and reliable (a la PDF)
then it doesn't really matter what program you use. The rest of it is all
marketing and personal preference. An old friend of mine still codes his web
pages in BBEdit instead of DreamWeaver. He's been doing that for about 12
years or so.
On 2/11/07 3:03 PM, in article 130f1$45cfa0a7$422a97cc$5693@FUSE.NET, "Mike
Koewler" wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
> image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
> produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
> difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
> NeoOffice. Do you disagree?
(Msg. 16) Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Matt,
Dizzy Dean (a famous baseball player who later became an announcer) was
once chided because he used the word "ain't" when calling a game. His
reply was he know people who wouldn't use ain't but they ain't eating as
good as he was.
I've never been a fan of style over substance.
Mike
Matt Beals wrote:
> Nope, as long as it is usable by the print provider and reliable (a la PDF)
> then it doesn't really matter what program you use. The rest of it is all
> marketing and personal preference. An old friend of mine still codes his web
> pages in BBEdit instead of DreamWeaver. He's been doing that for about 12
> years or so.
>
> Matt Beals
> Consultant
> Enfocus Certified Trainer
> Markzware Recognized Trainer
> (206) 618-2537 - Cell
> (720) 367-3869 - eFax
> mailto:matt@mattbeals.com
>
> Come visit me at:
>
> http://www.mattbeals.com > http://forums.mattbeals.com > http://blog.mattbeals.com >
> Friends don't let friends write HTML email
>
>
> On 2/11/07 3:03 PM, in article 130f1$45cfa0a7$422a97cc$5693@FUSE.NET, "Mike
> Koewler" wrote:
>
>
>>Matt,
>>
>>Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
>>image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
>>produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
>>difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
>>NeoOffice. Do you disagree?
>
>
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 2 of 3
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Home
Forums
Home
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Office Other