Preserved Topic: now "I" have a question: (Page 1 of 1)

I've never use it, but always they ask me to use Illustrator and Quark Express, i use Free Hand, and always have had very good results in printing with that, i have print in good magazines, news papers and evry media around, so, what's the deal with Quark if Illustrator is so similar to Free Hand?

--------------------------------
Free? who's free?
Him? NOOOOOOOOO
I need some pills........
--------------------------------


.-rotate script by Mr.Max

[This message has been edited by Wakkos (edited 08-24-2001).]

I'm afraid I don't really understand the question...

What's the deal with Quark if Illustrator is so similar to Freehand?

They're three seperate programs, my friend.

Quark for page layout
Illustrator for line-art, small page layouts
Freehand same as above yet cheaper and less powerful



s t e p h e n

Twich is correct quark is not similar to freehand or illustrator.
Freehand & Illustrator = Very similar programs used to crate vector graphics
Quark & Pagemaker = Very similar page layout programs used to layout text and images. The extent of graphic creation in pagemaker is edges/lines/boxes etc. Quark, I havent messed around with it as much as I have Pagemaker but enough to know its use is the same.
Illustrator has a similar tool layout to photoshop I would bet that you will find it a very comfortable tool.

Sorry, re-question again:

Why they ask you to work only with Free Hand, but when they ask you to work with illustrator, they ask you to work with Quark too!
Why i can send my layouts to the priner with Free Hand just like that, but i've seen that with Illusrator, they ask yo to make the layout in Quark...
Am i explaining better now?


.-rotate script by Mr.Max

I would imagine there are several reasons for a client/boss to want you to use Illustrator and Quark over FreeHand alone. First and foremost, FreeHand (in my experience) doesn't allow for multiple pages in layout--where Quark does. And while FreeHand is probably just dandy for vectoring (though I prefer Illustrator on almost all accounts), I'm sure it lacks the power that Quark does in implementation, colour storage, and other such things that would be of utmost importance.

From my perspective, FreeHand is for the weekend designer--someone that works with many clients, sure, and probably does lots of really good work, but cannot afford to worry him/herself with the pedanticisms of colours and such that might get polluted from one platform to another. Illustrator is more for the seasoned professional that demands the exacting detail that Illustrator provides on a constant basis.

Just my two cents. Perhaps more. It might be three.


s t e p h e n

Actually I think Freehand does allow for multi-page layouts now, at least as of version 9. Whatever the case, as I had a printer explain it to me Illustrator is a poor program to print from, which makes sense as it's an illustration program. They asked us to always place our Illustrator files into Quark when we send them files as Quark understands dimensions and resolution (since that's what it's designed for).

twItch^, what exactly do you like in Illustrator that make it a stronger program over Freehand? Not arguing as I haven't used Freehand much, looking to see what I haven't figured out yet.


KAIROSinteractive

Well, Illustrator and Photoshop work well together. Freehand interfaces well with Flash. I work more with Photoshop, so that alone is enough to keep me with AI/PS.

However, the additional benefits are mostly out of personal concern: I have been using Illustrator for many years, and I'm very used to it's power, it's handling of color--etc. It's just something I've really grown to love.

And you're right about printing from AI. Bad idea. Very bad. Mister Illustrator sucks all your processor out and crams it into a small jar of peanuts when you try to print something large from it. So yeah, mostly for illustration.

But then, page layouts are good in it too

All about preference, we think.


s t e p h e n

Agreed.

what a cop-out, Jeni.

[This message has been edited by Jeni (edited 08-29-2001).]

Cool, thanks for the info Stephen. I'm working in a shop that's primarily print for the first time so I'm learning a lot in a very short period of time...

Chris


KAIROSinteractive

I agree in everything exept in what you twItch^ said:
From my perspective, FreeHand is for the weekend designer--someone that works with many clients, sure, and probably does lots of really good work, but cannot afford to worry him/herself with the pedanticisms of colours and such that might get polluted from one platform to another. Illustrator is more for the seasoned professional that demands the exacting detail that Illustrator provides on a constant basis.

It's just perspectives, but from mine, well, i have seen Free Hand working veeeery good with some really intereting arts, you know?

But again these are only points of view, just wanted you to know mine...


.-rotate script by Mr.Max

I don't know Freehand too well, but while Illustrator is great for creating vector graphics, it bites in terms of precise use of guides and printable areas, etc... Probably the main reasons we used to import Illustrator into Quark, however, is that Quark used to have some *really* nice built in tool for adding bleeds to your images, necessary for trapping colors. (Quark also rocks for compositing multiple images into one print run, auto-guides for printing, we liked it, and probably many printers are still only comfortable with what they've known for years.

Your pal, -doc-