I've done some fairly complex stuff with InDesign, and I haven't had a single problem with it since getting my print settings set correctly. That just took a little trial and error.
Things like transperency and drop shadows -- the kind of stuff you would expect to cause problems -- printed fine.
For printing document that contains transparency error free you will have to "flatten" the document. The package of InDesign, Illustrator etc do come with a booklet on how to deal with this.
Well unfortunately, we don't receive many inDesign file from clients.
But I do know that since people just drop in ai files or psd files, which helps with on the fly fixes, doesn't help when you just want to send a laser proof to a client. Mainly because, as someone mentioned several post above me, that ID has to flatten the files.
If I was a designer as far as the creativity process goes I would choose ID. However to be honest, ID comes across to me as a soup-up version of illustrator.
I still think that you should send your graphics as eps,tiff and pdfs. And to any of you novice designers out there. Always scan line art at 1200ppi and scan photos double the line screens. (i.e if the line screen on a press is 150lpi then scan at 300ppi. And never never grab a gif or 72ppi web graphic off the web, increase it by 800%, and then question why it looks all pixelated!
I know some of you all might think " Yeah we know all this!" but a lot of people just don't know.
And that lack of knowledge can become costly on hot deadline and in general.
So if I am preaching to the chorus....sorry
Oh! almost forgot what I really wanted to say about Print shops switching over to OS X.
Well the font issue is a big concern. why?
Well even though OS X uses postscript fonts and the clear-type fonts that Adobe and Microsoft developed, it does not support bmap fonts.
"Oh! almost forgot what I really wanted to say about Print shops switching over to OS X.
Well the font issue is a big concern. why?
Well even though OS X uses postscript fonts and the clear-type fonts that Adobe and Microsoft developed, it does not support bmap fonts." [quote] <hr></blockquote>
bmap fonts ? - OS X supports the same fonts as OS 9 - Postscript, Truetype, Bitmap and now OpenType. I can't see why anyone would want to use Bitmap fonts though ?
The real problem in X isn't fonts - just use Suitcase 10.1 X, but printer drivers - there are very few for the RIP's found in repro bureau. I think this is a chicken-and-egg thing - since Quark isn't native, RIP and printer manufacturers haven't rushed out to update their software. Add on the fact that printing support in 10.2 is changed, and I bet this situation won't improve until the end of this year. Remember it took Photoshop 7 to be released until plug-ins on that were native.
(Not saying anything about anyone specific who has posted here)
A lot of the people slagging XPress have never used it for its intended purpose. 90% of the moans you hear out there are from Adobe fanboys who would worship Adobe Shit-In-A-Box 1.0 if it was released. When InDesign 1.0 came out people (who didn't have to actually use either one) were ready to throw XPress in the trash. It took a long time to finally get these people to recognize that ID1.0 sucked horrendous ass.
XPress is a tool used in a business and I'll trust the people running the businesses to know what they need more than Adobe fanboys. I have used ID2 on a very limited basis and it is an improvement over ID1, but let's not get stupid.
I agree with groverat, the reason Quark is used by 95& of the world's design agencies isn't for the jollies of it - Quark works. InDesign feels like Illustrator on steroids to me - nice for small stuff but clunky for large jobs. Even moving objects around the screen seems to take forever to re-draw...
Sorry, but Quark is a big piece of crap. Firstly it regularly corrupts our printer descriptions when using AdobePS driver. Quark prefs need to be deleted about once a month from heavy use. Scrolling is slow on full page spread with lots of psds and eps. The interface is a steaming pile of shit. The print dialog is needlessly complicated. But thank GOD for print styles. I hope Quark 5 will be different. But something tells me... no.
Oh yeah, and I LOVED paying $650 for 40 users to upgrade from 3.3.2 (the demon version) to 4.1. 4.0 was a mess so we had to wait till 4.1 to even consider 4.1. If it was up to me we would have dumped QXP the first chance we got. Quark is just horrid.
The point is (Groverat and Arnold), many of us who have had to use Quark in the past, even for medium-duty type tasks (designing CD packages, magazine ads, pop-tart boxes, whatever), never had a choice. Now there's something else that works just as well in most respects, and vastly better in certain important ways.
Now, if I were a book publisher or major magazine publisher, maybe it would still be a different story.
My experience is with magazines and newspapers. ID1.0 wasn't worth its weight in the plastic it came on and 2.0 is a step in the right direction but I think Arnold is on-target with his beefed-up Illustrator description.
Sizzle chest, not to criticize, but I would think that using XPress to design magazine ads or CD packages is like using a tank to kill a fly. Then again, I only have my limited experience to draw from.
For those tasks I can see how XPress might not be so great because it's just overkill. ID seems more suited to those smaller tasks, I suppose.
Before ID2, though, what would someone use to design CD packages or magazine ads or postcards or brochures? The obvious answer would be Pagemaker but I had endless postscripting problems on output with that, which is why I went to Quark in the first place.
Wouldn't you guess there are more people using Quark for tasks like this, than designing magazines, daily papers, or encyclopedias with it? I mean in terms of total number of users?
Sorry, but Quark is a big piece of crap. Firstly it regularly corrupts our printer descriptions when using AdobePS driver. Quark prefs need to be deleted about once a month from heavy use. Scrolling is slow on full page spread with lots of psds and eps.
<hr></blockquote>
These are problems with the Mac setup, not Quark. I've de-bugged more Quark Mac systems than I care to think of over the years, and this is always the case.
To sort out those problems in one easy step -
re-install Quark and make sure it has all the updates to 4.11, then check all your Quark Xtensions - many third-party ones are badly written. The problem with Adobe PS is because, since v 8.6, it is inferior to Apple's Laserwriter - use that instead.
I find scrolling in InDesign way slower than Quark in an image-heavy doc !
But let's get real here - InDesign is a nice program that compliments Quark - if I were forever doing small, complicated stuff like CD covers, etc, I would probably prefer InDesign, but I wouldn't bet a 200-page catalogue on it !
I work in a small print shop, we take files for film output and produce random amounts of artwork.
We now produce all our artwork in ID2 but don't get any requests for film output from ID2. Do not under estimate the importance of superior colour management and near perfect previewing. ID2, however, lacks Quark?s ability to use multi-inks which are basically mixed spot colours, although with ID2?s ?overprint preview? it isn?t difficult to simulate it.
We use Quark with Imposer to produce flats and need to import EPS from ID2 to do this.
PDF import in ID2 is very good, we have produced film for people this way.
We have learned to stay away from transparency features in ID2 especially if you use a PS Level2 RIP. Level 3 seems to handle it better. If you do use these features it seems to make a huge difference if these objects are on a layer to themselves, seems to aid flattening somehow. Flattening at High Resolution is like pulling teeth.
re-install Quark and make sure it has all the updates to 4.11, then check all your Quark Xtensions - many third-party ones are badly written. The problem with Adobe PS is because, since v 8.6, it is inferior to Apple's Laserwriter - use that instead.
I love Quark because of this. It keeps me in business as a Mac tech. I keep my systems bone stock except for ATM Deluxe 4.6 with 48 PS fonts, NO extra extensions, I turn off any unused extensions, Quark is bone stock also except for an extension for making fractions and whatnot. They all run OS 9.04-9.22 with the Quark 411 fixit Xtention because of the jpeg memory leak. It's just 8 hours a day use of Quark kills it after a month or so of use. Not so with any Adobe products including ID2. The problem with using the Apple print driver is that our Fiery RIP for making proofs is not totally compatible with the Apple PS driver (even though I prefer it because it gives you more options after a printer is made). They only support the Adobe official PS driver. And it's a pain as you should know to switch between print drivers in OS 9.
I find scrolling in InDesign way slower than Quark in an image-heavy doc !
Not if you use the Xtension that comes with QXP that makes high res image previews on page. But if you forego that then it can be pretty speedy.
But let's get real here - InDesign is a nice program that compliments Quark - if I were forever doing small, complicated stuff like CD covers, etc, I would probably prefer InDesign, but I wouldn't bet a 200-page catalogue on it !
Thing is that it's not only one person doing a catalog here. 35 or so people work on the whole catalog. We have to pump out 37 80-100 page catalogs a year for the US alone! Then there is Canada. The layout artists work on single page files or spreads or front/back pages. They need to be distilled for 2400 resolution for the RIP to be printed so the PDF's for single page is about 4MB and that's using Distiller 3.0. If we used 4.0 the PDF is even bigger. ID2 would be perfect for us.
I use quark 4 for a 200 page magazine - and even then we split our pages into multiple pages - easier to keep organised. I hate quark but have no choice as it is deeply engrained at work and the film house.
Listen i know Quark has better output control than indy - but can i just mention a few things that really get on my tits - no layers, no automatic updating of links, align controls suck, can't copy pages, limited paste board size, shit type control - basically indesign can do all the things quark does and more but does then better and quicker.
So die quark and long live indesign.
I'm not a blind abobe evangelist - yes I like adobe products because they are always solid, good performers - not always best - flash and dreamweaver eg.
no layers, no automatic updating of links, align controls suck, can't copy pages, limited paste board size, shit type control - basically indesign can do all the things quark does and more but does then better and quicker.
[quote]Wouldn't you guess there are more people using Quark for tasks like this, than designing magazines, daily papers, or encyclopedias with it? I mean in terms of total number of users? <hr></blockquote>
Well yeah, but there are also tons of users out there getting Photoshop for small tasks.
But, like I said above, I leave the tool choices to the worker. If you need XPress I'm sure there's a reason, I happen to like XPress despite its shortcomings because it gets my jobs done right, whereas ID couldn't handle them as well. I hope XPress for OSX is cleaned up and streamlined a bit.
Is anyone actually using Quark 5 and all of the bells and whistles (layers, table editor, XML, etc.) in a print production environment? Comments? My workplace is still on 4.11, but I'm curious about how 5.0 is working out.
Comments
Things like transperency and drop shadows -- the kind of stuff you would expect to cause problems -- printed fine.
But I do know that since people just drop in ai files or psd files, which helps with on the fly fixes, doesn't help when you just want to send a laser proof to a client. Mainly because, as someone mentioned several post above me, that ID has to flatten the files.
If I was a designer as far as the creativity process goes I would choose ID. However to be honest, ID comes across to me as a soup-up version of illustrator.
I still think that you should send your graphics as eps,tiff and pdfs. And to any of you novice designers out there. Always scan line art at 1200ppi and scan photos double the line screens. (i.e if the line screen on a press is 150lpi then scan at 300ppi. And never never grab a gif or 72ppi web graphic off the web, increase it by 800%, and then question why it looks all pixelated!
I know some of you all might think " Yeah we know all this!" but a lot of people just don't know.
And that lack of knowledge can become costly on hot deadline and in general.
So if I am preaching to the chorus....sorry
Oh! almost forgot what I really wanted to say about Print shops switching over to OS X.
Well the font issue is a big concern. why?
Well even though OS X uses postscript fonts and the clear-type fonts that Adobe and Microsoft developed, it does not support bmap fonts.
[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Mac X ]</p>
Well the font issue is a big concern. why?
Well even though OS X uses postscript fonts and the clear-type fonts that Adobe and Microsoft developed, it does not support bmap fonts." [quote] <hr></blockquote>
bmap fonts ? - OS X supports the same fonts as OS 9 - Postscript, Truetype, Bitmap and now OpenType. I can't see why anyone would want to use Bitmap fonts though ?
The real problem in X isn't fonts - just use Suitcase 10.1 X, but printer drivers - there are very few for the RIP's found in repro bureau. I think this is a chicken-and-egg thing - since Quark isn't native, RIP and printer manufacturers haven't rushed out to update their software. Add on the fact that printing support in 10.2 is changed, and I bet this situation won't improve until the end of this year. Remember it took Photoshop 7 to be released until plug-ins on that were native.
A lot of the people slagging XPress have never used it for its intended purpose. 90% of the moans you hear out there are from Adobe fanboys who would worship Adobe Shit-In-A-Box 1.0 if it was released. When InDesign 1.0 came out people (who didn't have to actually use either one) were ready to throw XPress in the trash. It took a long time to finally get these people to recognize that ID1.0 sucked horrendous ass.
XPress is a tool used in a business and I'll trust the people running the businesses to know what they need more than Adobe fanboys. I have used ID2 on a very limited basis and it is an improvement over ID1, but let's not get stupid.
Oh yeah, and I LOVED paying $650 for 40 users to upgrade from 3.3.2 (the demon version) to 4.1. 4.0 was a mess so we had to wait till 4.1 to even consider 4.1. If it was up to me we would have dumped QXP the first chance we got. Quark is just horrid.
Now, if I were a book publisher or major magazine publisher, maybe it would still be a different story.
Sizzle chest, not to criticize, but I would think that using XPress to design magazine ads or CD packages is like using a tank to kill a fly. Then again, I only have my limited experience to draw from.
For those tasks I can see how XPress might not be so great because it's just overkill. ID seems more suited to those smaller tasks, I suppose.
Wouldn't you guess there are more people using Quark for tasks like this, than designing magazines, daily papers, or encyclopedias with it? I mean in terms of total number of users?
[quote]
Sorry, but Quark is a big piece of crap. Firstly it regularly corrupts our printer descriptions when using AdobePS driver. Quark prefs need to be deleted about once a month from heavy use. Scrolling is slow on full page spread with lots of psds and eps.
<hr></blockquote>
These are problems with the Mac setup, not Quark. I've de-bugged more Quark Mac systems than I care to think of over the years, and this is always the case.
To sort out those problems in one easy step -
re-install Quark and make sure it has all the updates to 4.11, then check all your Quark Xtensions - many third-party ones are badly written. The problem with Adobe PS is because, since v 8.6, it is inferior to Apple's Laserwriter - use that instead.
I find scrolling in InDesign way slower than Quark in an image-heavy doc !
But let's get real here - InDesign is a nice program that compliments Quark - if I were forever doing small, complicated stuff like CD covers, etc, I would probably prefer InDesign, but I wouldn't bet a 200-page catalogue on it !
We now produce all our artwork in ID2 but don't get any requests for film output from ID2. Do not under estimate the importance of superior colour management and near perfect previewing. ID2, however, lacks Quark?s ability to use multi-inks which are basically mixed spot colours, although with ID2?s ?overprint preview? it isn?t difficult to simulate it.
We use Quark with Imposer to produce flats and need to import EPS from ID2 to do this.
PDF import in ID2 is very good, we have produced film for people this way.
We have learned to stay away from transparency features in ID2 especially if you use a PS Level2 RIP. Level 3 seems to handle it better. If you do use these features it seems to make a huge difference if these objects are on a layer to themselves, seems to aid flattening somehow. Flattening at High Resolution is like pulling teeth.
re-install Quark and make sure it has all the updates to 4.11, then check all your Quark Xtensions - many third-party ones are badly written. The problem with Adobe PS is because, since v 8.6, it is inferior to Apple's Laserwriter - use that instead.
I love Quark because of this. It keeps me in business as a Mac tech. I keep my systems bone stock except for ATM Deluxe 4.6 with 48 PS fonts, NO extra extensions, I turn off any unused extensions, Quark is bone stock also except for an extension for making fractions and whatnot. They all run OS 9.04-9.22 with the Quark 411 fixit Xtention because of the jpeg memory leak. It's just 8 hours a day use of Quark kills it after a month or so of use. Not so with any Adobe products including ID2. The problem with using the Apple print driver is that our Fiery RIP for making proofs is not totally compatible with the Apple PS driver (even though I prefer it because it gives you more options after a printer is made). They only support the Adobe official PS driver. And it's a pain as you should know to switch between print drivers in OS 9.
I find scrolling in InDesign way slower than Quark in an image-heavy doc !
Not if you use the Xtension that comes with QXP that makes high res image previews on page. But if you forego that then it can be pretty speedy.
But let's get real here - InDesign is a nice program that compliments Quark - if I were forever doing small, complicated stuff like CD covers, etc, I would probably prefer InDesign, but I wouldn't bet a 200-page catalogue on it !
Thing is that it's not only one person doing a catalog here. 35 or so people work on the whole catalog. We have to pump out 37 80-100 page catalogs a year for the US alone! Then there is Canada. The layout artists work on single page files or spreads or front/back pages. They need to be distilled for 2400 resolution for the RIP to be printed so the PDF's for single page is about 4MB and that's using Distiller 3.0. If we used 4.0 the PDF is even bigger. ID2 would be perfect for us.
Listen i know Quark has better output control than indy - but can i just mention a few things that really get on my tits - no layers, no automatic updating of links, align controls suck, can't copy pages, limited paste board size, shit type control - basically indesign can do all the things quark does and more but does then better and quicker.
So die quark and long live indesign.
I'm not a blind abobe evangelist - yes I like adobe products because they are always solid, good performers - not always best - flash and dreamweaver eg.
ok enough bitchin - i'm outta here
no layers, no automatic updating of links, align controls suck, can't copy pages, limited paste board size, shit type control - basically indesign can do all the things quark does and more but does then better and quicker.
<hr></blockquote>
Tried Q 5 ? It does layers !
Well yeah, but there are also tons of users out there getting Photoshop for small tasks.
But, like I said above, I leave the tool choices to the worker. If you need XPress I'm sure there's a reason, I happen to like XPress despite its shortcomings because it gets my jobs done right, whereas ID couldn't handle them as well. I hope XPress for OSX is cleaned up and streamlined a bit.
On topic, Quark has said that it will unveil an upgrade to its entire workflow suite this fall for OS X (and other platforms).
<strong>
Tried Q 5 ? It does layers !</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah. after how many years of waiting?
this should have been a feature five years ago.