Is there any really good reason why I should choose Indesign over Quark Xpress? It seems like a lot of people are using Indesign, but I like Quark Xpress better. I need new software, so it’s a good time to switch. The price isn’t a factor–I work for a university, so I don’t have to pay full price.
Thanks!
ME
Quark is great, but I am leaning more towards InDesign lately. It, to me, is like a combination of Quark, Photoshop, and Illustrator. That alone makes the program worth more in my eyes. It was hard to switch and get used to, but now I love it. I would recommend the purchase.
What do you like better about Indesign? I haven’t used it as much as Quarkxpress, so I"m not really familiar with all the features, but it seems like Quark is easier to use. I’m still learning how to use Indesign, so maybe it I’ll like it better when I’ve used it more. The first version I used had a few little bugs (like no scroll bars on the pages palette :eek: ), so I still have the feeling that it’s an inferior piece of software, but maybe that’s changing.
ME
Caveat, I made the switch just as Quark was coming out with 5.0 and InDesign was 1.5, so they may have caught up with some of the features InDesign 1.5 had.
I still recognize that Quark is a great product; but InDesign beats it. Since it is Adobe, it works seamlessly with Photoshop and Illustrator. You can place .psd and .ai files natively without having to make a .tiff or .eps copy. Its “Package” function works better than “Collect for Output” by collecting fonts and pre-flighting. So there’s no need to scrounge up your fonts manually or use a seperate Preflight.
InDesign handles layers much better than Quark does. It has several built-in features that require third-party XTensions like allowing you to turn text into picture frames and even a fill with greeking command. Character style sheets work more intuitively in InDesign.
I really can’t think of anything significant that Quark does better. Most things it does just as well as InDesign; but not quite everything. For me InDesign is the clear winner, especially if you buy it as part of one of the Adobe suites where you get the major programs, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat (and GoLive) for around $1200.
Interesting points. I wonder if any of that has changed with the latest version of Quark.
I’m not having such a great day with Indesign–I have rogue links to pictures that I can’t delete. They only show up when I print to a PDF file. Very strange.
ME
Under the File menu there is a Links item. This will open up the Links Palette (Shift+Ctrl+D) which will list all of the linked images. You can then, find where they are and delete them. Have you checked to make sure you haven’t hidden any layers the images could be on? When making a PDF there a settings that will make it show hidden layers. The layers palette is under the Window menu. (or F7)
There’s only one layer, and I couldn’t find anything that’s hidden. There are only two images that show up in the document, but there are 8 that show up in the Links palette, and I can’t delete them. Someone else created this file, so it’s hard to tell what they did.
Make sure you have the Selection Tool (the black arrow) chosen. Highlight the image file name in the links palette. Click on the “Go to Link” icon at the bottom of the palette (it’s the one that looks like an arrow pointing at a piece of paper. This will take you to the image with the containing frame chosen. Hit your delete button to delete the image.
It sounds like the image was moved using the Direct Selection Tool (the white arrow) within the frame but outside of its visible area. If you don’t have “Crop image data to frame” in your PDF settings, then all of the image data is being processed. Or the file is set up using OPI and the thumbnail is somehow missing.
If you’d like, you can package the file and email it to me and I’ll take a look at it. My email is in my profile.)
To me, this is actually not an advantage. A TIFF or EPS will be quite a bit smaller than the PSD or AI files from which they sprang (especially the usually-huge PSD). The resulting InDesign file would output very slowly, ISTM.
Caveat: I’ve been out out of the graphic design game for five years. At the time, InDesign was just coming out, and Quark – where my expertise lies – had a hammerlock on the market.
Have things progressed in the last five years that make file size less of an issue than in the past?
You mean other than larger storage units, fatter pipes and higher speed CPU’s? Can’t think of a thing. 
Well, you’re certainly free to flatten your photoshop files to .tiff; but then you lose your layers and if you make a change there are more steps involved getting back to where you want to be. Storage on my computer is more of my concern than RIP-speed at the printer. Now back in the days when you went to a service bureau and paid for the time on film output, that was a problem. There’s also the factor of whether you’re using OPI, RIPing from the application, writing a .ps file and on and on. For simplicity’s sake, though, native .psd is a boon.
I know … but I’m sure lots of pre-press shops still keep old filmsetters and proofers around. Have the output devices kept up?
The idea was to reduce file size going to the output device, not to reduce file size being stored on the hard drive/removable media.
IOW, you’d still keep a layered PSD around, but Save a Copy as a TIFF for insertion into a Quark doc.
It’s amazing to me that an InDesign document full of heavily-layered PSDs doesn’t take days to print to film or digital press. But hey – if current technology supports such usage, then that rocks.
The only thing a service bureau or commercial printer will ever get from me is a PDF file. Since I discovered the advantages, I never want to throw fonts, EPS files, Quark, Pagemaker, PSD etc. files at an output service and HOPE it might work out. PDF is a godsend for graphic designers.
I try to keep the original layout intact, with hi-res images and original source material in my own computer. Then I distill it to a PDF with the desired output resolution and other characteristics. The output file is just the right size; no more data than necessary and no less.
Hey, that did it–thanks! I learned something useful today.
How sad is it that this thread that I started is now way over my head. I’m with the PDF crowd–PDFs are great!
ME
I had to make the dreaded Quark or InDesign descision last year. The more I dug, the more I realized that InDesign had Quark beat hands down. The most amazing thing is that you can customize practically everything in InDesign. Heck, you can even set it to use the keyboard shortcuts you used in Quark. But as you dig deeper, you realize that ID is just soooo much more powerful and functional. It became an easy decision.
So I bought 150 licenses.
Any graphic designer that would send me PDFs had to be especially competent – and had to take the time to get to know the specs of all our different presses. This was a bit much to ask, especially as choice of press used to run a given job could change at the last minute. If a designer gave me a proper PDF laid out for Press A, there was no guarantee that the job wouldn’t end up on Press B. Having the original files, fonts, and embedded images on hand allowed me to make all the necessary fixes.
Probably three out of four PDFs we received were unusable without modification. Often, I could open them in Illustrator (or very occasionaly, Photoshop) and fix things. But one common error was especially vexing: way too often, RGB raster images were embedded in a PDF that was meant to be output to CMYK.
I don’t normally use PDF for press. Does PDF even handle spot colors or do you have to create your PDF as seps? As a former pre-press manager, I’m going to agree with bordelond about the use of native publishing files rather than PDF. I’ve had to fix color space on images and correct too many ink mishaps to count. I can think of few graphic designers whose work came in consistently ready to go to press.
That’s interesting to hear from some on the “other side” of the files as it appears you are, bordelond. And Homebrew, PDFs handle spot colors just fine.
I am not working with high-end data as much as I used to when I went to film, so my output is not all that demanding. (I can mix RBG & CMYK and the result is just fine for most of what I do now, typically going to laser presses.) But I could tell you horror stories about press shops that took the original data and mangled it, or felt that they could fix something better than I could but didn’t even ask. These people had to eat the job and do it again when all they had to do was call me, tell me the problem, and let me email them another file in a matter of minutes. They also had to eat the labor cost, as anybody that messes with my files without calling me first is not going to be paid for it.
I would never start a job without finding out the details about trapping specs, ink coverage specs, etc. and knowing what press will be handling the job. Those details might affect how the job is done very early and be hard to correct later.
Obviously the relationship between artists, pre-press and press people should be a good one so each level can communicate and learn from each other. I had such a relationship for 30 years in Los Angeles with a press shop where they knew my wishes and never let a job go too far without informing me of what was going on. It was wonderful, and I guess I was spoiled. But then I moved and found out other shops don’t always do that, so I never give out source data any more, only PDF. It has saved my ass (and theirs) on many an occasion. YMMV.
As far as the OP, I can’t give an informed opinion about InDesign or Quark from an experienced user standpoint. Quark seems to be the current industry standard, but I think Adobe learned from their PageMaker, Photoshop and Illustrator experience when the wrote InDesign from scratch to replace PM. If I had the resources, I would want to have both on hand.
I won’t even start to talk about the joys of Indesign’s transparancy capabilities now that we’ve got press managers in the thread. Aint raster versus vector fun!?!?
Upon preview, I just wan’t to reply to Musicat. Quark was the industry standard. InDesign has certainly won favor in my biz, which is advertising. That also played into my ultimate purchase descision. I’d venture to guess that the majority of the large shops are choosing ID over Q. At least from what I’ve personally seen in Minneapolis and NY.