Topic awaiting preservation: The difference between quark, illustrator and indesign? (Page 1 of 1)

Hi all, im just wondering for some product catalogues i have to do.... i have asked something similar a long long time ago and i think j.stuart.j was able to help me out, so hopefully you are lurking around here!

Bascially is there any difference in the qay quark, illustrator and indesign work. I use mainly illustrator so im wondering why you would use indesign, is it just a cheaper package? Or is its use actually different.

The main thing i was thinking is for a product cataloge, do any of these programs link the pages? So u can have a contents page where the content items actually link to pages and that sort of stuff... or is the whole thing layed out manually etc no matter which software you are using?

Thanks for the help!.


(one reason i ask is i just got given files in quark, and i dont use quark i use illustrator so is there a disadvantage converting it to illustrator?)

thanks.

well....I don't use illustrator that much but I did some testing with InDesign and Quark.

They are both "about" the same thing. Indesign works a little better with images done in PS from what I can tell. They are just "layout" programs though. I use Quark for our cataloges. Quark isn't that bad of a program. I really haven't had any problems with it.

One thing that I did notice is that printing companies either want the files as EPS or Quark files. Most printing companies like for you to use Quark. So...if you are going have these printed, might be best to use Quark.

Not really sure what you mean by linking the pages though.

I really wouldn't convert from Quark to Illustrator. I didn't even know you could do that
Quark is real easy to use. Give yourself about 1/2 hour and you'll be fine

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~

Basically speaking there are 3 categories of publishing applications,
a. Raster Based Editors (Photoshop. PaintShop Pro, Painter, etc?)
b. Vector Illustration (Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw, Freehand, etc?)
c. Page Assembly (QuarkXpress, Adobe InDesign, etc?.

Each has a specific core function, as faster systems and workflows evolved, so did the applications. Many to a point that many functions overlapping functionality blurring their classification somewhat but most still have a place in most publishing workflows.

For instance you could build an entire catalog or design using Adobe Photoshop, but you would have to build each page separately, or in layers and dealing with a 4-color, 2 page spread at 300dpi - 11X17 would cost you about 70meg with out layers. Working on such a document would be slow. Now you would also have to consider type quality, type at 300dpi would look jagged or if anti-alised would look soft. One would have to work at 800-1200dpi to reproduce text at the same quality as vector text rastered at a 1200dpi rip. This would be far more info then ever needed for photographic and imagine trying to work on a 11X17 1200dpi image white 10 or so layers. Not what I would call fun.

Sure you say, just use Adobe Illustrator; it can keep text vector, for images simply edit the images in Adobe Photoshop and import them. While this approach is useful, and I have used it for posters, packaging, etc? You can?t do multiple pages, Adobe Illustrator is slow with redraws of linked image and while the CS text engine is very close to Adobe InDesign many things just aren?t possible.

So we are left with Page assembly applications, Adobe InDesign, QuarkXprexs, Adobe PageMaker, Adobe FrameMaker, and Ventura Publisher.

All with there strengths and weakness, in most cases there primary functionality is to allow easy revisions, deal with formatting large about of text, page management, and minimize system resources when building documents containing multiple images.

Adobe InDesign: in the new kind on the block, well integrated into the Adobe workflow, well rounded and very useable for most applications. If I was starting a small design or advertising shop from scratch I would choose it. It has all the latest bells and whisles, allows transparency, imports PDF, and Photoshop documents with layers intact. And being an Adobe product, fits in perfectly in Adobe Postscript and PDF workflows.

QuarkXpress, the old dog, and seems to not learning any new tricks. Most shops I know have not upgraded since version 4. Overall more then adequate but lacking the bells and whisles of InDesign. I find it best suited for larger industrial like workflows, catalog houses, magazines, newspapers etc?. It easy to learn, fast and get the job doc. Quark also has many speciality extentions that some come to really,

Choosing the proper application for the job really depends on your workflow. Doing single pages with very few images, minimal text. Then Adobe Illustrator may work well. But then if you have to deal with multiple pages, templates, large amounts or complex text, and multiple revisions the page assembly application would be the way to go.

You really need all three and add a Word processor to boot, Edit the text in Word, images in Photoshop and logos and line art in Illustrator. Finally assembling the whole thing in InDesign or Quark.

As far as linking pages, I don't quite understand what you are looking for, I think InDesign has limited index and table of contance functions. In InDesign also has a script host that one could use to pull date from a database to fill template pages.

J. Stuart J.

Ok thanks, exactly the information i was after! I am about to start a 90 page catalogue, which originally i was going to do as separate pages in illustrator... but i think i will go with inDesign. I will choose indesign over quark also because i am working with the complete adobe set and they seem to work well together.

Im not sure what i mean with linking either... something like having a table of contents/index which is linked to the pages.. i think u can do that sort of thing in word somehow.

One of my concerns though was having 90 pages all loaded at once - i thought this would mean slower editing than doing single pages in illustrator etc... but i guess if they are just linked and not embedded it shouldnt be too bad.

Thanks for your help!

There shouldn't realy be no problems, with 90 pages just be sure too adjust you preview display quality. There is no real need for the full quality display until you are ready to proof the page on screen.

Now I should say I have not tired more then about 8 page using in InDesign. The way we worked at Fingerhut was in 2 page reader spreads, we then cut those into single pages at or Scitex RIP's, before finally delivering to Banta or Quad for imposition and printing. But we had multiple people working on each catalog.

A good idea would be to check with you printer to see what they desire. It could cost you more if they have more to cut it into pages from a multipage document. As they will need to do it eventually when they build the imposition for press.

There's one other thing I would check on. If memory serves most impostions are 8, 16, or 24 pages depending on the press. So your total catalog would need to be a multiple of the imposition size to make the most effecent use of the press sheet. You would hate to do say a 50 page catalog and have to run a full sheet for 2 pages. So check with your printer and client before you settle on a page count.

J. Stuart J.

(Edited by jstuartj on 08-10-2004 03:04)

Righto thanks, i will definately talk to them first. From what i have read you can export pdfs straight from ID, so im guessing this will give you the option to export them as separate pages (2page a3 spreads etc)..


I think it splits is if you convert it to an eps also.. tho im not sure what formatting etc you could loose. Since you can do tables etc in indesign and not in illustrator (i dont think).. so im wondering what would happen to them if you did. But i am happy to convert straight to pdf as that is what i give the printer these days mostly nehow.

Just adding some notes here.
.PDF files are pretty common nowadays in the print world. And yes inDesign can write them directy. But sometimes PDF's from inDesign are very troublesome. inDesign has a lot of onboard scripts for making and editing .pdf files however some acrobat versions choke on them. Check you local printer.

Quark is capable off making .pdf files too, but i do not recommand doing so. In the past those .pdf's had troubles. In general most print designers and printers agreed on the following work flow:
Laying everything out in quark--->export to .eps (encapsulated postscript) or .ps (postscript)--->load eps/ps in Acrobat and ---> write .pdf from there.

Those problems might been solved but printers are some times very conventional and will be happy with some old versions of software nobody else uses anymore.....

Now if you want to desing for print here is you mantra:

"Ask the printer, ask the printer, ask the printer, ask the printer again."

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

So you dont loose any structure or information when exporting ID files to eps etc?

Well you shouldn't, but some things like transparecny are not supported under postscript so some flatting will need to occur and in some cases features my not translates. This is where some printers with older workflows experance a problems using PDF directly. Many times older RIPS will not process newer versions of the PDF Spec or but the use of bad pratices introduce problem.

The steps outlined by Rinswind, are kind of a hack help to insure that the final PDF generated will be more compatable with the RIP. The thinking is, by spooling to A Postscript first, the data you send to Distiller would be the same as if you sent it directly to the printer from the application. There for if it would print directly it should generate a pdf that will print directly.

I wouldn't bother going that route with InDesign it's Acrobat files shouldn't be a problem if you get your setting right. The bigest issue occur with Transparency, Font embeding, InDesigns transparancy flatting settings. Your printer should have that kind of information to help, here's a set of guidelines from one of the printers I have used in the past.

http://www.bantapublications.com/pdfsettings.htm

J. Stuart J.

(Edited by jstuartj on 08-11-2004 01:12)

Ok great, hopefully i dont come across any dramas. Most the printers i use these days seem up to date which is good. The last printer gave me their own distiller file to install and said just to use that to make the pdfs, looks like that is quite similar.

Thanks for your help all =)