Quark & InDesign - Page 5

blubbernaut · 09-09-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubaiyat


	I think those who were happy with other Adobe products and hadn't learnt Quark in depth do like InDesign a great deal. Especially PageMaker users and those who didn't know Quarks (IMHO) superior method of keyboard shortcuts.

You do know that you can assign your own keyboard shortcuts in ID?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubaiyat


	Particularly annoying in ID is its extreme slowness on anything but a pumped up computer. This is why I am having to move onto my recent model PC, ID is intolerable on my 400MHz G4.

You clearly haven't tried Quark 6...my lord, talk about slow!

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubaiyat


	I'm tired of having to constantly relearn keyboard shortcuts for each Adobe product everytime they "upgrade".

See above...Quark 6 has changed a few, most annoyingly for me the Document Setup dialogue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubaiyat


	This is all part of a trend to complicate and fiddle with what was simple in the pursuit of featuritis and forced upgrades.

You may be quite right on that, it does seem to apply to most software these days. Sadly, not eveyone subscribes to the Apple-like idea of simple useability.

I think it's like any new program. The first time (or first hundred times) you look at something like Dreamweaver after using things like Quark and Illustrator, you don't understand why it's so hard to lay a couple of little things out...but everything has a learning curve that makes it look inefficient and unweildy. Try driving on the other side of the road in another country, very hard to get used to the rules for turning etc, but really no better or worse one way or the other.

A lot of places I work at, still use Quark 4 even though they are in OSX. After they work out the little annoyances between the two, like screen redraw, everything works fine and they see no need to spend thousands on an upgrade (6) to an upgrade (5) that really adds very little in the way of new functionality or options. However ID, on the other hand costs less and adds loads and loads in terms of new functionality. Try transparency in Quark!

kurious · 09-09-2004, 11:13 PM

Hot Rod vs. Horse and buggie. Both will get you there, but only one will get you there quickly and in style: InDesign.

InDesign is the present and future of real layout. Quark is the past trying to catch up. Ultimately you have to pick the path of least resistence when you are under the gun, but from my experiences, InDesign has never let me down. Quark on the other hand has been nothing but trouble.

Transparency, superior type handling, nested styles and PDF creation alone should convince anyone that this is a superior layout program.

rubaiyat · 09-09-2004, 11:32 PM

[QUOTE] You do know that you can assign your own keyboard shortcuts in ID?

Oh indeedie I do!

Does it work? Is it a good idea? NO WAY. Just another tick in ID3's "feature" list. Can't get a match for Quark's better and simpler shortcuts.

I didn't mention ID3's halfbaked keyboard shortcuts for styles. Quark lets you just use the fast numeric keypad one handed and then embelish it with cmd/ctrl/opt/shift which I do systematically. One handed styling is such a good idea. Select with mouse, style with other hand.

Compare this to Adobe's really bad idea for single character Tool shortcuts which drop characters into your text in moments of mental aberation. If you don't immediately notice them at the time, they end up in print.

I make no excuses for Quark 5/6. Seems Quark is trying to discourage diehard users. It has certainly discouraged me.

Kurious: "Hot Rod vs. Horse and buggie."

How ironic! InDesign reminds me of my old Mitsubishi Executive. Someone forgot to fit an engine capable of getting it uphill without strapping booster rockets on the side.

elbimbo · 09-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:


	That might be possible if we upgrade to the Rampage RIPing system, but till then Indesign is just about useless with out Xitron RIP, casing more crashes and restarts than I care or want to deal with, thus my negative stance on a program with no backwards compatability built into it.

B&C, since you are in the printing business, you might as well convince your boss to upgrade. Those in the printing industry are themselves saying that they who don't upgrade will perish. We are now in the 21st century and OS X era. As to backward compatibility, IDCS (or InDesign 3+) was not made backward-compatible, so the Adobe engineers say, because it has plenty of functions (nested style, to name one) that the older versions could not understand. If ID2 were allowed to open an ID 3 document that's loaded with the advanced features, it would only cause frustrations. But because of popular demand, Adobe may allow future upgrades to become backward-compatible.

If you think Quark is better in this case, you might not have known that Quark 4 can't open a Quark 6 doc. You have to save that Quark doc to Quark 5 format first before opening the file in Quark 4. What this means is that if you have Quark 4 and skipped Quark 5 (which most Quark users have reportedly done), you're in deep s_ it if you have trouble printing Quark 6 documents.

Quote:


	Like I said it's not a question of learning the program. it's question of why shoot yourself in the head with a product that causes more problems than it fixes? Designer's are the printers worst enemy, just ask someone who works in the pre-press industry, but that's another whole different flame session.

Designers have a mutual dislike for Printers, but I believe the gap could be bridged. I belong to a company which has its own publications and printing press departments; people from both sides like to blame each other whenever a page doesn't print. In my personal capacity, I was able to help solve some problems by noting what the problems were and searching answers in the forums. My favorite, when it comes to using InDesign, is the Adobe Forums. For those who have frustrations with ID, visit this once in a while and meet users from the Design, Pre-press and Print communities. The secret is to keep an open mind and avoid whining. It's useless trying to learn something half-heartedly.

katosx · 09-12-2004, 12:43 AM

"Major annoyances are Master template items remain locked on pages by default. I have always worked extensively building documents using a basic design on the template and fleshing it out and changing it on the page. ID is almost like PM with its uneditable MPs."

Let's be fair, it's a lot more flexible than PM in this respect. BTW what's a major annoyance to you is one of the reasons I prefer ID to Quark. I have never liked the way Quark master pages work. I guess it depends on what you're doing.

rubaiyat · 09-12-2004, 06:19 AM

I was not holding PM up as a good example, far from it.

Nothing wrong with you prefering one working method over another. I think pluralism is great. So why does Adobe lock those of us who have extremely efficient work methods out of using them. Let us choose. I have good reasons for believing I know better how to do my work than Adobe.

A common quarterly project for me was having to do 19 versions of a 4 page A3 newsletter with about 16 stories, maybe 5 graphics/photos along with 1 large and maybe 2 small tables of rate changes. When I was hitting my stride I could knock off each in under 10-15mins in Quark, depending on styling complexities.

I've tried similar material in InDesign and there are so many obstacles to organised productivity, compounded by slow typeflow and refresh that I am lucky if I can do each in under an hour.

I will give credit to ID's ability to produce one off complex work, but not for simpler jobs, where it is positively a hinderance.

If Adobe rectified a few annoyances and stole a few more ideas from Quark (they've already done the measurements palette), there would be no competition.

Farina · 09-12-2004, 06:27 AM

I also work in a Design agency and we are all running on OSX and on Quark 6, the problems we have encountered are up saving files from Quark 5 or older and all the text disappears for the document. This is extremely annoying while working on 30+ page document. Our company is eventually going to make the move to InDesign and the crossover from Quark to InDesign is apparently easy (I have tried it once). Plus Adobe is alot cheaper.

rubaiyat · 09-12-2004, 08:29 AM

I think we are all headed towards InDesign. Its shortcomings will be propped up by faster hardware and an acquiescent Design community.

Doesn't mean we can't appreciate what we are losing as well as gaining.

The faults of one program or system are not excused by its merits.

We should expect the best and press for it in all things.

Just as Quark had no competition and abused it, I am worried that InDesign will abuse its ultimate position of dominance without having fully earned it. Then where will the deep pockets come from to challenge a future Adobe monopoly that controls design as Microsoft controls the desktop?

doctor grafix · 09-12-2004, 09:35 AM

I have been using 6 since its launch, it worked well in OS 10.1 and still works great in 10.3.
It is compatable with imposition software, handles fonts with ease, file sizes are small, images and text are editable with ease.
I have created 32 page die cut presentations with full colour on all pages. I have set up huge displays, in store POS displays... it has never let me down. Be sure you are manageing your fonts correctly (ie get rid of all truetype and non essential system fonts, use Suitcase 11 ( not fontbook) and update all print drivers.
Hint: Before importing your photoshop images into 6 , save them as (CMYK) DCS files with JPEG preview, Quark will then import and display only the LoRes 5th plate, this may keep your redraw and file sizes manageable. When the file is sent to a laser printer, fiery rip or even desktop inkjet printer, only the lo-res will print, this makes outputting proofs and mockups at the studio level much quicker, and does not tie up the printer or the network. Then when the file is sent for film output, either quark will automatically send the 4 high res plates to our RIP.
In Design as well as Illustrator are not Typography friendly. Kerning is most difficult in these vector based programs. If Quark goes under, we will have really lost out in the typesetting dept. Body copy will not be viwed as an artistic component of the design. Rivers, widows, leading, kerning, all left to the imagination of a machine!
In reply to sending large files to service bureaus for output, try saving the Photoshop files as DCS - eps, with JPG preview AND maximum quality compression. I have never had any image loss with DCS jpged EPS files, they transfer via FTP quickly and all of my suppliers love it!
Qxd 6 collect feature also works great, with the exception of images linked to Illustrator files (why anyone put images in Illustrator is beyond me) Qxd 6 collects all fonts etc.
And having all of your layouts in one file, makes setting up, proofing, collecting, multiple pieces really easy.
Thanks for letting me have my say
PS I dont work for Quark - and I am honing my InDesign skills as I assume that Quark will eventually be phased out everywhere.
Adobe fonts, Adobe RIPS, Adobe applications - do we fear the monoploly?
Dr G

elbimbo · 09-12-2004, 10:45 AM

Hi Rubaiyat,

Your request seem reasonable so why not visit the Adobe ID forum and add your request to the wish list. The people at Adobe are remarkably receptive to suggestions, one reason why many Quark lovers have or are migrating. Those things about Adobe's getting greedy if Quark continues with its plunge is also being discussed in the Adobe forums, so the Adobe people are being given ample warning not to follow Quark's way.

Cheer up!

BigDave · 09-12-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubaiyat


	Then where will the deep pockets come from to challenge a future Adobe monopoly that controls design as Microsoft controls the desktop?

"FUTURE Adobe monopoly"? Are we forgetting Illustrator, Photoshop, PostScript, PDF, JDF & PS fonts? Seems to me that you can't get many jobs designed & printed today without that little red Adobe triangle....

claude72 · 09-12-2004, 03:15 PM

Hi everybody

First I must apologize for my bad english: it's not my native language...

I use XPress DAILY since 1993, and I switch to ID in November 1999, with the 1.0 release because I was tired of XPress. Even with all the "youth" defects, I found ID better than XPress. Today I always work with ID (CS) and XPress (6.1) and I don't change my mind. I find ID as friendly as XPress, simply with a different way.
I didn't switch because of the price: I'm a print-shop, and I'm obliged to keep XPress (and keep it up-to-date), because all the jobs coming to me from "designers"* are still made with XPress. But all the jobs that I make are made with ID. So I spend much more money to keep TWO sofwares up-to-date, but the job is so easier with ID!!!

The biggest problem with switching from XPress to ID is that you don't find "at first sight" in ID exactly the same features as XPress, and you must spend some time to adapt to a different software. When most people say "It's not possible to do that with ID", the truth is often "I don't find/understand how to do that with ID".

Yes, the items of the master pages are locked, but simply click on the wished item while holding Shift and "Apple" key to un-lock this item...

Yes, ID is slow and need a powerful Mac: that's because ID constantly saves the actions to recover the document in case of a crash...

Yes, ID needs much memory, principally used for the infinite undo feature... XPress 3 to 5 has only one undo, and it doen't work for every action...

Yes, the shortcuts are differents, but I don't use them, as I use the XPress shortcuts set, with some modifications. In case of re-installation, I simply backup my modified XPress shortcuts set on a ZIP disk.

I confirm that ID as the same feature as XPress to snap an item to a guide and to a marging line (and even to the border of the page), but this feature, exactly as XPress, has to be activated.

Somebody said that XPress is better for text and ID is like Illustrator. I don't understand that point of view: I find that ID works basically like XPress (with some more advanced features), but without two major defects:
- with ID, changing the vertical line-spacing of one line doesn't modify the spacing of the other lines,
- with ID (and also Illustrator), it's possible to add bold and italic only to fonts that include bold and italic. It's a major problem with XPress, because the "bold" and "italic" button make artificial bold and italic that work well on screen and with non-postscript printers, but doesn't work with all fonts when printing on postscript imagesetters. That's a big problem for print-shops and pre-press, as many people simply click on the "Bold" and "Italic" button, as they would do with Word or Publisher.

I use XPress 6 since November 2003, and I found 8 bugs in this release...
- one was known (bad screen-view of horizontal scaled text) and corrected in the 6.1,
- the second is "registred to my name" and corrected in the 6.1,
- 3 remain till the 3.1 release (and perhaps before) and 3 are new, but Quark gives me no answer, and "put his head in the sand" (like ostriches).
Does somebody want to know this bugs and ask Quark about them?
And I don't list the stupid defaut-settings, like RVB colours (but perhaps that I'm stupid and I don't know anything about printing, and that Quark's developpers know how to print with RVB colours???!!! ;-))

I read something that "raise my hairs on my head": JPEG images in a job for a print-shop!!! Arrghhh... that piece of **** is only for internet!!!
Seriously, if you use EPS files with DCS, as the color-separation is made in the picture, it can probably work (I'll do the test).
But NEVER use a JPEG compression in a standard CMYK EPS picture (without knowing EXACTLY how the print-shop will separe the colors:
- if sending a composite file and using an In-RIP separation, there will be no problems.
- if using the internal color-separation of XPress or ID, the picture will always print only on the black plate... that kind of problem has happened to every print-shop: JPEG compression is one of the biggest trouble of print-shops!!! (and one of the biggest **** of computing). More that this separation problem, the compression irreparably destroys datas in the picture, and more the quality is low, more the damages are obvious.

About ripping: there is a major problem with all Harlequin (Xitron is Harlequin based) release 5.3 and prior: this RIPs, althought they are sold as fully Postsscript and PDF compatible, don't have really all the PDF features... They are unable to understand the CID fonts feature, which is part of the PDF, as this feature is simply not implemented...
As it is not use neither by XPress nor by the Acrobat distiller, the developpers probably didn't want to loose their time with this "unuseful" feature, and Harlequin RIPs (and all the based RIPs) are in fact not fully Postscript RIP.
And, as ID uses the CID fonts, the Harlequin RIP cannot process ID files or ID exported PDF, but some releases can process PDF distilled by Acrobat Distiller from ID PS files: try it.
See this link: http://www.nickhodge.com/mne.php?mcid=801

As I wanted to buy an ECRM imagesetter with Harlequin RIP, I asked the question to ECRM hot-line... here is the answer:

""Hello Claude,

Keeping up with changes in applications is a moving target, particularly with
PDF.
InDesign is based around a PDF workflow, and Adobe applications such as
Illustrator are now using PDF 1.4 commands (soon to be 1.5) such as
transparency.
The ECRM Harlequin rip version 5.3 will interpret PDF1.2 and some version 1.3
commands, but we are now up to rip version 6.2, which fully supports PDF 1.4,
the current release.
The short answer is that you will need the latest version of rip if you expect
to output files from the latest applications.""

No comment...: you need to upgrade your Xitron RIP to get the real compatibility (that you have soon paid).

I use a second-hand AGFA Viper 1.92 PS level 2 (REAL level 2) since 1998 and you know what? I'm happy...

Claude

* Why "designers", with quotation marks? Because today most of the designers are people who simply buy a Mac, XPress/Illustrator/Photoshop, a low-level scanner and ink-jet printer (non-postscript), and think that having the professional tools is enough to be a real designer... Almost all their jobs are simply not made to be printed in a print-shop.

elbimbo · 09-12-2004, 05:09 PM

Well said, Claude. Like I've said in some of my previous posts, you cannot appreciate what's in store for you in ID if you don't explore.

Quote:


	* Why "designers", with quotation marks? Because today most of the designers are people who simply buy a Mac, XPress/Illustrator/Photoshop, a low-level scanner and ink-jet printer (non-postscript), and think that having the professional tools is enough to be a real designer... Almost all their jobs are simply not made to be printed in a print-shop.

And the worse thing that could happen is if the product of clueless "designers" are handled by similarly clueless prepress or print-shop guys.

claude72 · 09-12-2004, 06:07 PM

Hi Dr G

Just some answers to your post:

"try saving the Photoshop files as DCS - eps, with JPG preview AND maximum quality compression"

That's a common mistake made by Photoshop users to believe that the "Encoding" (hope I don't mistake in the translation: I use french softwares...) pop-up menu in the EPS (second menu) or DCS (third menu) save dialog box allows to choose the encoding of the preview... It's false, this pop-up is for the encoding of the PICTURE. By choosing "JPEG - xxx quality", you compress the picture with this awful destructive algorythm (OK, you're right, setting highest quality don't destroy the picture too much).
And as I said in my first post, these EPS JPEG encoded picture can't be separated by XPress or InDesign. Each time that somebody gives me EPS pictures, I am obliged to open EACH picture, then click "Save as" to check how is the encoding, and if they are JPEG encoded, change to binary encoding... I loose plenty of my time checking jobs of bad designers who don't know what is pre-press and printing job, and say me that "they work like that with 50 print-shop and have never had problem with them".

"I have never had any image loss with DCS jpged EPS files, they transfer via FTP quickly and all of my suppliers love it! "

Believe me, JPEG and jpged EPS files are one of the worst things for printers and most hated... but I will try to use DCS jpged EPS files and check their ability to separation. Which DCS do you use? 1.0 or 2.0?

"... with the exception of images linked to Illustrator files"

As far as I know, a picture cannot be linked "twice"... so it's normal that a linked picture of Illustrator is not found by XPress. If you want to link an Illustrator file with picture(s), this file must contain only embedded pictures.

"(why anyone put images in Illustrator is beyond me)"

- sometime it's easy to rebuilt a logo with Illustrator using some parts of the original TIFF or JPEG logo,
- some people never understand that Illustrator is not a text editing software and use it instead of XPress. That's called "incompetence"... Some other people have only Illustrator because XPress is too expensive (that's also a nightmare for pre-press workers). Once, a customer brought me such an Illustrator job: as I ask him to make a real XPress job, he brought me back an XPress file with a picture-block simply containing the Illustrator file... Another time, the "designer" answers me "I work like that with 50 print-shops and I never had troubles, if you are not able to print the job, we'll find another print-shop...".
Today, that's the new way for printing jobs (in France): the incompetent designers (who have often "never seen a printing press") decide how printers have to work. Sad job :-((

Claude

elbimbo · 09-12-2004, 07:09 PM

BTW, there are those who recommend the use of native photoshop (.psd) and native illustrator (.ai) in InDesign. Which is good because images saved in .eps format won't print in certain laser printers. Our Xerox 5400 and HP 5000 won't print .eps files saved with binary encoding. To avoid the hssle, save pictures either in .psd, tiff or pdf.

doctor grafix · 09-12-2004, 07:47 PM

Claude
Bonjour.
We were taught a little French dans école!

With regards to the DCS JPG etc.

I worked in many service bureaus, print shops and now on the agency side as a designer.
Take any format RGB, LAB or CMYK image and save as an Photoshop DCS1.O file. Then in the next option window that appears choose JPG preview, Colour composite DCS (72 pixel/inch)
And JPEG maximum quality encoding.
Try this in comparison to your normal output!

1. No need to worry about RGB - they automatically are converted to CMYK, place the image in a QXD document and output to film
2. It is off your screen faster - much faster
3. Check the quality of the final film/proof - cannot tell the difference
4. Smaller file sizes for storage or delivering
5. Output the same QXD file to your laser printer as a proof, quark will only image the 72 dpi composite making faster laser proofing.

This is just a hint to speed up workflow, not to be taken as an "I told you so"
* Note : there are some rips that do not handle dcs files, but most will uncompress each high res plate at the rip before imaging.

I have not had the opportunity to try this with InDesign and I know that Illustrator will not pick up the 4 high res plates as it writes Postscript to the RIP. I have posted another ?? in this forum regarding placing DCS2 images in Illustrator - even embedded I cannot get the Spot Channels to image as separations. We have many Logos supplied as Illustartor EPS files, with DCS2 images placed in them and I cannot use them in other applications.
Any Ideas??

Thanks

Dr G

biglug · 09-12-2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B&C Printing


	But does anyone else here who uses a RIPPING device have problems with Indesign CS? I don't here much from the print industry out there just the designers who don't have to deal with printing their work.

I run both a harlequin and meta (hiedelberg) rip here. Both going to Eskofot DPX platesetters. Neither the harlequin (6 years old) or the meta (current) have any problems with any of the files InDesign pumps out.

Until about a month ago we were 100% Quark 4.11. However that meant going through Classic. Illustrator 10 works as an OS-X app. That meant we had feet in both halves of the OS and it was getting annoying.

We recently went to Creative Suite so we have InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop all using the same methodologies and shortcut keys etc.

Best decision I've made in a long while.

There's several things I miss from Quark, the main one is the modifier-click to select behind.

The other problem I have is nothing to do with Quark/InDesign in particular. It's just the naming of Pantone colors. Why do Illustrator's colors have 'CV ' at the end but when you bring them into Quark or InDesign, that's gone? If you already have the color defined in Q/ID you end up with both colors! Not earth shattering, just annoying

Cheers!
Rick

doctor grafix · 09-12-2004, 10:33 PM

Hey Rick
Any issues with dropping a DCS2 file into InDesign? ...Can you output the spot plates?

Dr G

claude72 · 09-13-2004, 05:24 PM

Hi everybody

I just made some tests with ID 3 (CS), XPress 6.1, XPress 4.1 and EPS/DCS/TIFF pictures. The original picture is a CMJN TIFF file, of 580 x 581 pixels (6,64 x 6,65 cm @ 222 dpi), his "weight" is 1.3 Mo.
I made 5 new files of this picture:
1) DCS 1.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: total of the 5 files (preview +C+M+Y+B) =1.56 Mo
2) DCS 2.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 1.5 Mo
3) RVB picture, DCS 2.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 2.9 Mo
4) EPS standard (Mac preview and binary encoding): 1.7 Mo
5) EPS, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 1 Mo

As you can see, all the CMJN DCS files are
- bigger than the TIFF file,
- but lighter than the standard EPS file.
Quite surprising: the RVB DCS2 file is almost twice bigger (2.9 Mo) than the CMJN DCS2 file (1.5)???!!!

I made a document with 6 picture-boxes and I printed these 5 pictures and the original TIFF picture with my LaserWriter 8500 with color separation:
- from XP 4: TIFF, standard EPS, the three DCS picture are well separated, (including the RVB picture), but the EPS JPEG encoded is only printed on the black plate. No surprise.
- from ID CS: everything is good, including the EPS JPEG encoded and the DCS 2.0 files, I am very surprised that ID can separate the JPEG EPS file!!!
- from XP 6: everything is good, including the EPS JPEG encoded, and I am more than very surprised that ID can separate the JPEG EPS file!!!

I am really very surprised that the JPEG EPS file is separated with ID CS and XPress6... I'll make further tests with a real job with my imagesetter.

The picture I used for this test is a forest picture with two men in the foreground, but it avoid wide surface of the same colour (a sky for example), where the JPEG compression is very efficient: as you can see, the ratio between the standard binary encoded EPS file and the jpeged EPS file is only 1.7, while it is common to have 3 (of course, always with the maximum quality).
I tryed another picture, with a beautiful blue sky and an almost white floor: the TIFF file is 2.1 Mo, the EPS binary encoded is 2.7 Mo, but the DCS 2.0 file is only 1.7 Mo and the EPS jpged file is 1.1 Mo.

I'm glad to see that I mistaked about JPEG separation with the new softwares: that's a trouble less for printers and pre-press studios... but the JPEG format remains still a destructive compression format, that much damages the picture if the compression parameters aren't good understood and set by users...

Dr G, you're right: with "maximum quality" compression, there are only very few damages in the JPEG picture, and it is impossible after processing the film or printing the plates to see the difference with the original EPS or TIFF picture. Only an attentive examination with high zooming (more than 600%) in Photoshop can reveal the compression. That's why PDF for pre-press can be made with the maximum-quality JPEG setting.
The only trouble is: how to be sure that the original producer of the picture didn't any mistake with JPEG files??? Even a TIFF picture can be a bad JPEG file simply converted to TIFF file format... That's why I don't like JPEG!!!

Please elbimbo, can you say me what mean "BTW"?

BigDave · 09-14-2004, 02:29 AM

Claude: BTW = "By The Way".
Your tests were thorough and interesting, many thanks for that.

The JPG format was designed around its compression algorithm and were intended to be a way of sharing pictures with the smallest file size - hence the adoption of the format onto the web (and therefore everywhere else). The crunching of the file size can be drastic - and is undoable.

So once you've saved as JPG there's no point in saving as a TIF. The damage will have been done. Anyone that does this in a repro environment should be shot through the lungs (or perhaps I'm over-reacting....)

Dave

09-09-2004, 11:13 PM	#82
kurious Prospect Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 19	InDesign vs. Quark Hot Rod vs. Horse and buggie. Both will get you there, but only one will get you there quickly and in style: InDesign. InDesign is the present and future of real layout. Quark is the past trying to catch up. Ultimately you have to pick the path of least resistence when you are under the gun, but from my experiences, InDesign has never let me down. Quark on the other hand has been nothing but trouble. Transparency, superior type handling, nested styles and PDF creation alone should convince anyone that this is a superior layout program.

09-12-2004, 06:27 AM	#87
Farina Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4	Quark issues I also work in a Design agency and we are all running on OSX and on Quark 6, the problems we have encountered are up saving files from Quark 5 or older and all the text disappears for the document. This is extremely annoying while working on 30+ page document. Our company is eventually going to make the move to InDesign and the crossover from Quark to InDesign is apparently easy (I have tried it once). Plus Adobe is alot cheaper.

09-12-2004, 09:35 AM	#89
doctor grafix Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 33	Whats wrong with 6.1? I have been using 6 since its launch, it worked well in OS 10.1 and still works great in 10.3. It is compatable with imposition software, handles fonts with ease, file sizes are small, images and text are editable with ease. I have created 32 page die cut presentations with full colour on all pages. I have set up huge displays, in store POS displays... it has never let me down. Be sure you are manageing your fonts correctly (ie get rid of all truetype and non essential system fonts, use Suitcase 11 ( not fontbook) and update all print drivers. Hint: Before importing your photoshop images into 6 , save them as (CMYK) DCS files with JPEG preview, Quark will then import and display only the LoRes 5th plate, this may keep your redraw and file sizes manageable. When the file is sent to a laser printer, fiery rip or even desktop inkjet printer, only the lo-res will print, this makes outputting proofs and mockups at the studio level much quicker, and does not tie up the printer or the network. Then when the file is sent for film output, either quark will automatically send the 4 high res plates to our RIP. In Design as well as Illustrator are not Typography friendly. Kerning is most difficult in these vector based programs. If Quark goes under, we will have really lost out in the typesetting dept. Body copy will not be viwed as an artistic component of the design. Rivers, widows, leading, kerning, all left to the imagination of a machine! In reply to sending large files to service bureaus for output, try saving the Photoshop files as DCS - eps, with JPG preview AND maximum quality compression. I have never had any image loss with DCS jpged EPS files, they transfer via FTP quickly and all of my suppliers love it! Qxd 6 collect feature also works great, with the exception of images linked to Illustrator files (why anyone put images in Illustrator is beyond me) Qxd 6 collects all fonts etc. And having all of your layouts in one file, makes setting up, proofing, collecting, multiple pieces really easy. Thanks for letting me have my say PS I dont work for Quark - and I am honing my InDesign skills as I assume that Quark will eventually be phased out everywhere. Adobe fonts, Adobe RIPS, Adobe applications - do we fear the monoploly? Dr G

09-12-2004, 07:47 PM	#96
doctor grafix Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 33	Claude Bonjour. We were taught a little French dans école! With regards to the DCS JPG etc. I worked in many service bureaus, print shops and now on the agency side as a designer. Take any format RGB, LAB or CMYK image and save as an Photoshop DCS1.O file. Then in the next option window that appears choose JPG preview, Colour composite DCS (72 pixel/inch) And JPEG maximum quality encoding. Try this in comparison to your normal output! 1. No need to worry about RGB - they automatically are converted to CMYK, place the image in a QXD document and output to film 2. It is off your screen faster - much faster 3. Check the quality of the final film/proof - cannot tell the difference 4. Smaller file sizes for storage or delivering 5. Output the same QXD file to your laser printer as a proof, quark will only image the 72 dpi composite making faster laser proofing. This is just a hint to speed up workflow, not to be taken as an "I told you so" * Note : there are some rips that do not handle dcs files, but most will uncompress each high res plate at the rip before imaging. I have not had the opportunity to try this with InDesign and I know that Illustrator will not pick up the 4 high res plates as it writes Postscript to the RIP. I have posted another ?? in this forum regarding placing DCS2 images in Illustrator - even embedded I cannot get the Spot Channels to image as separations. We have many Logos supplied as Illustartor EPS files, with DCS2 images placed in them and I cannot use them in other applications. Any Ideas?? Thanks Dr G Last edited by doctor grafix; 09-12-2004 at 07:51 PM.

09-14-2004, 02:29 AM	#100
BigDave Major Leaguer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: East Anglia, England Posts: 391	Claude: BTW = "By The Way". Your tests were thorough and interesting, many thanks for that. The JPG format was designed around its compression algorithm and were intended to be a way of sharing pictures with the smallest file size - hence the adoption of the format onto the web (and therefore everywhere else). The crunching of the file size can be drastic - and is undoable. So once you've saved as JPG there's no point in saving as a TIF. The damage will have been done. Anyone that does this in a repro environment should be shot through the lungs (or perhaps I'm over-reacting....) Dave __________________ Big Dave The difference between theory and real life is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and real life, but in real life, there is a difference.

09-09-2004, 11:32 PM	#83
rubaiyat Prospect Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Over here Posts: 38	[QUOTE] You do know that you can assign your own keyboard shortcuts in ID? Oh indeedie I do! Does it work? Is it a good idea? NO WAY. Just another tick in ID3's "feature" list. Can't get a match for Quark's better and simpler shortcuts. I didn't mention ID3's halfbaked keyboard shortcuts for styles. Quark lets you just use the fast numeric keypad one handed and then embelish it with cmd/ctrl/opt/shift which I do systematically. One handed styling is such a good idea. Select with mouse, style with other hand. Compare this to Adobe's really bad idea for single character Tool shortcuts which drop characters into your text in moments of mental aberation. If you don't immediately notice them at the time, they end up in print. I make no excuses for Quark 5/6. Seems Quark is trying to discourage diehard users. It has certainly discouraged me. Kurious: "Hot Rod vs. Horse and buggie." How ironic! InDesign reminds me of my old Mitsubishi Executive. Someone forgot to fit an engine capable of getting it uphill without strapping booster rockets on the side.

09-12-2004, 12:43 AM	#85
katosx Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 6	"Major annoyances are Master template items remain locked on pages by default. I have always worked extensively building documents using a basic design on the template and fleshing it out and changing it on the page. ID is almost like PM with its uneditable MPs." Let's be fair, it's a lot more flexible than PM in this respect. BTW what's a major annoyance to you is one of the reasons I prefer ID to Quark. I have never liked the way Quark master pages work. I guess it depends on what you're doing.

09-12-2004, 06:19 AM	#86
rubaiyat Prospect Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Over here Posts: 38	I was not holding PM up as a good example, far from it. Nothing wrong with you prefering one working method over another. I think pluralism is great. So why does Adobe lock those of us who have extremely efficient work methods out of using them. Let us choose. I have good reasons for believing I know better how to do my work than Adobe. A common quarterly project for me was having to do 19 versions of a 4 page A3 newsletter with about 16 stories, maybe 5 graphics/photos along with 1 large and maybe 2 small tables of rate changes. When I was hitting my stride I could knock off each in under 10-15mins in Quark, depending on styling complexities. I've tried similar material in InDesign and there are so many obstacles to organised productivity, compounded by slow typeflow and refresh that I am lucky if I can do each in under an hour. I will give credit to ID's ability to produce one off complex work, but not for simpler jobs, where it is positively a hinderance. If Adobe rectified a few annoyances and stole a few more ideas from Quark (they've already done the measurements palette), there would be no competition.

09-12-2004, 08:29 AM	#88
rubaiyat Prospect Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Over here Posts: 38	I think we are all headed towards InDesign. Its shortcomings will be propped up by faster hardware and an acquiescent Design community. Doesn't mean we can't appreciate what we are losing as well as gaining. The faults of one program or system are not excused by its merits. We should expect the best and press for it in all things. Just as Quark had no competition and abused it, I am worried that InDesign will abuse its ultimate position of dominance without having fully earned it. Then where will the deep pockets come from to challenge a future Adobe monopoly that controls design as Microsoft controls the desktop?

09-12-2004, 10:45 AM	#90
elbimbo Triple-A Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Posts: 187	Hi Rubaiyat, Your request seem reasonable so why not visit the Adobe ID forum and add your request to the wish list. The people at Adobe are remarkably receptive to suggestions, one reason why many Quark lovers have or are migrating. Those things about Adobe's getting greedy if Quark continues with its plunge is also being discussed in the Adobe forums, so the Adobe people are being given ample warning not to follow Quark's way. Cheer up!

09-12-2004, 03:15 PM	#92
claude72 Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17	Hi everybody First I must apologize for my bad english: it's not my native language... I use XPress DAILY since 1993, and I switch to ID in November 1999, with the 1.0 release because I was tired of XPress. Even with all the "youth" defects, I found ID better than XPress. Today I always work with ID (CS) and XPress (6.1) and I don't change my mind. I find ID as friendly as XPress, simply with a different way. I didn't switch because of the price: I'm a print-shop, and I'm obliged to keep XPress (and keep it up-to-date), because all the jobs coming to me from "designers"* are still made with XPress. But all the jobs that I make are made with ID. So I spend much more money to keep TWO sofwares up-to-date, but the job is so easier with ID!!! The biggest problem with switching from XPress to ID is that you don't find "at first sight" in ID exactly the same features as XPress, and you must spend some time to adapt to a different software. When most people say "It's not possible to do that with ID", the truth is often "I don't find/understand how to do that with ID". Yes, the items of the master pages are locked, but simply click on the wished item while holding Shift and "Apple" key to un-lock this item... Yes, ID is slow and need a powerful Mac: that's because ID constantly saves the actions to recover the document in case of a crash... Yes, ID needs much memory, principally used for the infinite undo feature... XPress 3 to 5 has only one undo, and it doen't work for every action... Yes, the shortcuts are differents, but I don't use them, as I use the XPress shortcuts set, with some modifications. In case of re-installation, I simply backup my modified XPress shortcuts set on a ZIP disk. I confirm that ID as the same feature as XPress to snap an item to a guide and to a marging line (and even to the border of the page), but this feature, exactly as XPress, has to be activated. Somebody said that XPress is better for text and ID is like Illustrator. I don't understand that point of view: I find that ID works basically like XPress (with some more advanced features), but without two major defects: - with ID, changing the vertical line-spacing of one line doesn't modify the spacing of the other lines, - with ID (and also Illustrator), it's possible to add bold and italic only to fonts that include bold and italic. It's a major problem with XPress, because the "bold" and "italic" button make artificial bold and italic that work well on screen and with non-postscript printers, but doesn't work with all fonts when printing on postscript imagesetters. That's a big problem for print-shops and pre-press, as many people simply click on the "Bold" and "Italic" button, as they would do with Word or Publisher. I use XPress 6 since November 2003, and I found 8 bugs in this release... - one was known (bad screen-view of horizontal scaled text) and corrected in the 6.1, - the second is "registred to my name" and corrected in the 6.1, - 3 remain till the 3.1 release (and perhaps before) and 3 are new, but Quark gives me no answer, and "put his head in the sand" (like ostriches). Does somebody want to know this bugs and ask Quark about them? And I don't list the stupid defaut-settings, like RVB colours (but perhaps that I'm stupid and I don't know anything about printing, and that Quark's developpers know how to print with RVB colours???!!! ;-)) I read something that "raise my hairs on my head": JPEG images in a job for a print-shop!!! Arrghhh... that piece of ** is only for internet!!! Seriously, if you use EPS files with DCS, as the color-separation is made in the picture, it can probably work (I'll do the test). But NEVER use a JPEG compression in a standard CMYK EPS picture (without knowing EXACTLY how the print-shop will separe the colors: - if sending a composite file and using an In-RIP separation, there will be no problems. - if using the internal color-separation of XPress or ID, the picture will always print only on the black plate... that kind of problem has happened to every print-shop: JPEG compression is one of the biggest trouble of print-shops!!! (and one of the biggest ** of computing). More that this separation problem, the compression irreparably destroys datas in the picture, and more the quality is low, more the damages are obvious. About ripping: there is a major problem with all Harlequin (Xitron is Harlequin based) release 5.3 and prior: this RIPs, althought they are sold as fully Postsscript and PDF compatible, don't have really all the PDF features... They are unable to understand the CID fonts feature, which is part of the PDF, as this feature is simply not implemented... As it is not use neither by XPress nor by the Acrobat distiller, the developpers probably didn't want to loose their time with this "unuseful" feature, and Harlequin RIPs (and all the based RIPs) are in fact not fully Postscript RIP. And, as ID uses the CID fonts, the Harlequin RIP cannot process ID files or ID exported PDF, but some releases can process PDF distilled by Acrobat Distiller from ID PS files: try it. See this link: http://www.nickhodge.com/mne.php?mcid=801 As I wanted to buy an ECRM imagesetter with Harlequin RIP, I asked the question to ECRM hot-line... here is the answer: ""Hello Claude, Keeping up with changes in applications is a moving target, particularly with PDF. InDesign is based around a PDF workflow, and Adobe applications such as Illustrator are now using PDF 1.4 commands (soon to be 1.5) such as transparency. The ECRM Harlequin rip version 5.3 will interpret PDF1.2 and some version 1.3 commands, but we are now up to rip version 6.2, which fully supports PDF 1.4, the current release. The short answer is that you will need the latest version of rip if you expect to output files from the latest applications."" No comment...: you need to upgrade your Xitron RIP to get the real compatibility (that you have soon paid). I use a second-hand AGFA Viper 1.92 PS level 2 (REAL level 2) since 1998 and you know what? I'm happy... Claude * Why "designers", with quotation marks? Because today most of the designers are people who simply buy a Mac, XPress/Illustrator/Photoshop, a low-level scanner and ink-jet printer (non-postscript), and think that having the professional tools is enough to be a real designer... Almost all their jobs are simply not made to be printed in a print-shop.

09-12-2004, 06:07 PM	#94
claude72 Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17	Hi Dr G Just some answers to your post: "try saving the Photoshop files as DCS - eps, with JPG preview AND maximum quality compression" That's a common mistake made by Photoshop users to believe that the "Encoding" (hope I don't mistake in the translation: I use french softwares...) pop-up menu in the EPS (second menu) or DCS (third menu) save dialog box allows to choose the encoding of the preview... It's false, this pop-up is for the encoding of the PICTURE. By choosing "JPEG - xxx quality", you compress the picture with this awful destructive algorythm (OK, you're right, setting highest quality don't destroy the picture too much). And as I said in my first post, these EPS JPEG encoded picture can't be separated by XPress or InDesign. Each time that somebody gives me EPS pictures, I am obliged to open EACH picture, then click "Save as" to check how is the encoding, and if they are JPEG encoded, change to binary encoding... I loose plenty of my time checking jobs of bad designers who don't know what is pre-press and printing job, and say me that "they work like that with 50 print-shop and have never had problem with them". "I have never had any image loss with DCS jpged EPS files, they transfer via FTP quickly and all of my suppliers love it! " Believe me, JPEG and jpged EPS files are one of the worst things for printers and most hated... but I will try to use DCS jpged EPS files and check their ability to separation. Which DCS do you use? 1.0 or 2.0? "... with the exception of images linked to Illustrator files" As far as I know, a picture cannot be linked "twice"... so it's normal that a linked picture of Illustrator is not found by XPress. If you want to link an Illustrator file with picture(s), this file must contain only embedded pictures. "(why anyone put images in Illustrator is beyond me)" - sometime it's easy to rebuilt a logo with Illustrator using some parts of the original TIFF or JPEG logo, - some people never understand that Illustrator is not a text editing software and use it instead of XPress. That's called "incompetence"... Some other people have only Illustrator because XPress is too expensive (that's also a nightmare for pre-press workers). Once, a customer brought me such an Illustrator job: as I ask him to make a real XPress job, he brought me back an XPress file with a picture-block simply containing the Illustrator file... Another time, the "designer" answers me "I work like that with 50 print-shops and I never had troubles, if you are not able to print the job, we'll find another print-shop...". Today, that's the new way for printing jobs (in France): the incompetent designers (who have often "never seen a printing press") decide how printers have to work. Sad job :-(( Claude

09-12-2004, 07:09 PM	#95
elbimbo Triple-A Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Posts: 187	BTW, there are those who recommend the use of native photoshop (.psd) and native illustrator (.ai) in InDesign. Which is good because images saved in .eps format won't print in certain laser printers. Our Xerox 5400 and HP 5000 won't print .eps files saved with binary encoding. To avoid the hssle, save pictures either in .psd, tiff or pdf.

09-12-2004, 10:33 PM	#98
doctor grafix Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 33	Hey Rick Any issues with dropping a DCS2 file into InDesign? ...Can you output the spot plates? Dr G

09-13-2004, 05:24 PM	#99
claude72 Prospect Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17	Hi everybody I just made some tests with ID 3 (CS), XPress 6.1, XPress 4.1 and EPS/DCS/TIFF pictures. The original picture is a CMJN TIFF file, of 580 x 581 pixels (6,64 x 6,65 cm @ 222 dpi), his "weight" is 1.3 Mo. I made 5 new files of this picture: 1) DCS 1.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: total of the 5 files (preview +C+M+Y+B) =1.56 Mo 2) DCS 2.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 1.5 Mo 3) RVB picture, DCS 2.0, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 2.9 Mo 4) EPS standard (Mac preview and binary encoding): 1.7 Mo 5) EPS, JPEG preview, encoding JPEG max quality: 1 Mo As you can see, all the CMJN DCS files are - bigger than the TIFF file, - but lighter than the standard EPS file. Quite surprising: the RVB DCS2 file is almost twice bigger (2.9 Mo) than the CMJN DCS2 file (1.5)???!!! I made a document with 6 picture-boxes and I printed these 5 pictures and the original TIFF picture with my LaserWriter 8500 with color separation: - from XP 4: TIFF, standard EPS, the three DCS picture are well separated, (including the RVB picture), but the EPS JPEG encoded is only printed on the black plate. No surprise. - from ID CS: everything is good, including the EPS JPEG encoded and the DCS 2.0 files, I am very surprised that ID can separate the JPEG EPS file!!! - from XP 6: everything is good, including the EPS JPEG encoded, and I am more than very surprised that ID can separate the JPEG EPS file!!! I am really very surprised that the JPEG EPS file is separated with ID CS and XPress6... I'll make further tests with a real job with my imagesetter. The picture I used for this test is a forest picture with two men in the foreground, but it avoid wide surface of the same colour (a sky for example), where the JPEG compression is very efficient: as you can see, the ratio between the standard binary encoded EPS file and the jpeged EPS file is only 1.7, while it is common to have 3 (of course, always with the maximum quality). I tryed another picture, with a beautiful blue sky and an almost white floor: the TIFF file is 2.1 Mo, the EPS binary encoded is 2.7 Mo, but the DCS 2.0 file is only 1.7 Mo and the EPS jpged file is 1.1 Mo. I'm glad to see that I mistaked about JPEG separation with the new softwares: that's a trouble less for printers and pre-press studios... but the JPEG format remains still a destructive compression format, that much damages the picture if the compression parameters aren't good understood and set by users... Dr G, you're right: with "maximum quality" compression, there are only very few damages in the JPEG picture, and it is impossible after processing the film or printing the plates to see the difference with the original EPS or TIFF picture. Only an attentive examination with high zooming (more than 600%) in Photoshop can reveal the compression. That's why PDF for pre-press can be made with the maximum-quality JPEG setting. The only trouble is: how to be sure that the original producer of the picture didn't any mistake with JPEG files??? Even a TIFF picture can be a bad JPEG file simply converted to TIFF file format... That's why I don't like JPEG!!! Please elbimbo, can you say me what mean "BTW"?