Quark vs InDesign

[Mickie Mac]

I just reciently upgraded from OS 9.2 to 10.3. I have always used Quark since that was the program I was taught. I have heard a little about InDesign and was wondering what the Pro's and Con's to switching to InDeisgn are. :rolleyes:

[Balin64]

I like Adobe... a little, and a little more than I like MS as a designer; but InDesign truly integrates better than Quark. The latter just dropped the ball and spent wayyyy tooo long developing an OS X version. I deal with Quark files from other designers all the time... and they're a headache: even in the new version. Get the new Adobe CS suite. You won't regret it. RIP Quark... Even Aldus PageMaker was better... Man, I'm dating myself...

[tech4all]

I used Quark on my PC. But when I got my Mac I bought the Adobe CS Premium and InDesign came with it. I think it is a lot better than Quark and itegrates MUCH MORE with Photoshop and Illustrator. Plus you can do a lot more stuff with InDesign that you could have with Quark. (like affects and such). Go with InDesign.

[phonic pol]

I've used Indesign for the last 18 months. It's got some nice touches where Quark is a little rough around the edges. I find Indesign has more innovation in terms of useful features and integration where as Quark hasn't really evolved much over the past few years.

It's very cool to be able to switch in and out of Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign and share the same interface between the three. It can feel like you're just using one big app!

Another aspect to consider is pricing; Indesign is very economical, especially if purchased as part of the creative suite. In fact, if you're upgrading Illustrator and Photoshop it's hard not to get Indesign thrown into the deal, which I think is the way Adobe are viewing it. Chucking Indesign in for free and getting people hooked is probably the best way of taking on the competition when you've got a good product.

I for one won't be using Quark unless I have to.

[angelneo]

I agreed with all the posters that indesign would be a better choice. However, quark has been in a market for a long long time even before indesign and many companies have their templates, files so on in quark format. Furthermore, indesign CS can only import up to quark 4 (if i recall correctly) and there is no 3rd party component to import quark 6. Its a real hassle if you try to accommodate all the formats.

[Mickie Mac]

I do have InDesign on my computer as well as Quark 6. I'm just wondering if it's worth spending time to learn InDesign as well as I know Quark.

At work we use quark because of our RIP sotfware, so I'm use to it, but I'm thinking about my own projects.

Thanks for the comments and I'd love to hear more

[Horrortaxi]

If you're comfortable with Quark that could be reason enough to stay with it, though I pretty much have to agree with Balin64 about it.

Depending on your role in the world you might want to get both. A customer is as likely to send you stuff in 1 format as the other. If you're not dealing with customers, use whatever feels better to you.

Doesn't Adobe have downloadable demos? Give InDesign a try.

[Belly-laughs]

The only thing that keeps Quark alive is a large userbase of printers, conservatives or old that are unwilling to learn the superior tool. All designers I know that have tried InDesign have switched. What new features did Xpress get from 4.0 to 6.0? Tables? Man, get the Adobe package, it´s really easy to pick up, do a few tutorials from the Adobe site and you´re off.

Yup, R.I.P quark.

[stevehaslip]

i wouldnt say that R.I.P Quark is really necessary. but i totally agree that currently indesign is the best. you never have to worry about importing things in to indesign from photoshop or illustrator you can just do it - with no problems. but there are still quite a few people who are still using quark regardless of whether its the best.

However you have a choice, so choose the best!

maybe the next version of quark will be good? :p

[JFreak]

quark handles spot colors way better than indesign, and it is altogether better integrated with the print workflow. that said, indesign is way better in actual content creation. it is only a matter of preference, really, and in my opinion indesign in its current "CS" incarnation is a very good tool, plus integration with photoshop is a very big plus.

try indesign, there is a demo version available at adobe.com website. you'll either love it or hate it, and let yourself be the judge.

[iGav]

The only thing that keeps Quark alive is a large userbase of printers, conservatives or old that are unwilling to learn the superior tool.

That used to be a huge issue back in the day, but many printers offer full PDF workflow now. If a printer doesn't, it's time to change printers. ;)

[tech4all]

quark handles spot colors way better than indesign.

Could you explain that further? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I just want to know how Quark is better with spot colors. (and is a spot color the same as a Pantone color?)

[CaptainHaddock]

Quark allowed custom inks through mixing spot colours, but I think InDesign CS now has that feature; it was really the only thing missing.

I've used both Quark and InDesign extensively for production work, and when I switched to InDesign, I found it easier, more intuitive, and a bit more powerful than Quark.

What's also vital for me is InDesign's vastly superior typographic tools, including OpenType support and full Unicode support. Unicode is now the de facto standard for text, but Quark isn't even planning Unicode support in the foreseeable future. I recently had to do some catalogs in Japanese, and using Quark would not have been possible (or at least, not easy).

InDesign also has a really powerful engine for generating artwork that combines raster and vector elements. This allows for interesting effects like drop shadows to be applied to vector elements in the program.

[Blue Velvet]

We'll have both on our set-ups for the next five years.

I'm a print designer and have used Quark constantly for the last 7 years although our studio is considering making a transition at some point to InDesign, particularly with the release of the latest version with its support for multi-inks.

However, as one of the earlier posters pointed out, in a production setting there is more to think about than just 'effects' or features.

As we plan our transition we have to consider: our archive of work & templates, our ability to hire other staff, our downtime for retraining, etc.

Against that: is the cost of Quark, its inability to improve any 'useful' features, product activation, an uninspiring and ugly OSX version, poor type handling & representation... a clumsy PDF process.

However, currently about 75-85% of work for press & job opportunities in the UK are still done or insist on Quark, although many of the larger magazine houses have moved to InDesign -- you can see those tell-tale drop-shadows everywhere!

But Adobe's current policy of virtually giving it away for free with CS won't last forever...

So I guess my answer is: if you have Quark skills then go for InDesign.
If you're a working independent designer you'll need both.

It never hurts to be ahead of the curve... but be prepared to have to deal with Quark for a while yet.
As Balin64 said 'I deal with Quark files from other designers all the time'.

Everything for Quark will rest on version 7 and how good/expensive it is.
Many studios -- particularly the smaller ones -- are still turning out fantastic work with OS9 & Quark 4....
There's some life in the old dog yet.

[Mickie Mac]

Thanks so much for the input!

I currently work in a prepress department and we mainly work with PDF files and some Quark (along with some very scary PC Pagemaker files :eek: ). So I know what it's like to recieve files of all kinds. I'm going to check out some tutorials at the adobe site.

Are there any things I should try first with InDesign? I just found a way to turn text into an image box in Quark 6, is there something like that in InDesign?

[JFreak]

Could you explain that further? I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I just want to know how Quark is better with spot colors. (and is a spot color the same as a Pantone color?)

unfortunately, no, as i don't work with them myself. my friend however insists on doing spot prints via quark - he always goes angry when he tries to do it in indesign. and the same guy never ever uses illustrator because freehand is so much better ;)

i'm telling a second-hand experience here. take it with a grain of salt.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The only thing that keeps Quark alive is a large userbase of printers, conservatives or old that are unwilling to learn the superior tool. All designers I know that have tried InDesign have switched. What new features did Xpress get from 4.0 to 6.0? Tables? Man, get the Adobe package, it´s really easy to pick up, do a few tutorials from the Adobe site and you´re off.

Yup, R.I.P quark.

For many of the houses that I have talked with They stay with Quark more from a business cost decision. As I have been told there is a learning curve when making a move to a new program. Not too mention that many of the shops have their stuff boiler-plated, and InDesign does not handle the Quark conversion well (must be in 4 or earlier I think).

[phonic pol]

and the same guy never ever uses illustrator because freehand is so much better ;)

Wow, first time I've heard that! I'd love to know where Freehand is superior to Illustrator? My experience has always shown the opposite. The only advantage to using Freehand that I've found is cost. Looks like I need some education, what am I missing?

[Blue Velvet]

Pantone inks are spot colours but not all spot colours are Pantone inks.

Spot colours can also be Trumatch or any other ink system, even a spot UV varnish or similar.

[JFreak]

Wow, first time I've heard that! I'd love to know where Freehand is superior to Illustrator? My experience has always shown the opposite. The only advantage to using Freehand that I've found is cost. Looks like I need some education, what am I missing?

again, the colour handling. overprints are much easier to handle with freehand - and even i have faced this issue having legal copy of both illustrator & freehand.

at least here in finland freehand files are accepted in print houses straight away, whereas offering illustrator files requires sending a pdf reference with them. in my experience print houses usually charge extra if i try to send them anything else than freehand or a print-quality pdf.

[phonic pol]

Jfreak: That's interesting and something I've not come accross in the UK. I tend to send most things for print as EPS files direct from illustrator unless compiled in indesign. If it's indesign I tend to output with pdf's because their so universal.

One of the reasons I've prefered illustrator is because it's always had better gradient tools and transparency than freehand. These are both paricularly useful when creating life-like product visuals and concepts as I tend to do. These features may form the reasoning behind freehand dealing with colour in a different way. Using gradients and transparency can complicate printing and illustrator often warns of potential spot colour issues.

I've found my way into graphics through product design so I've probably had different experiences with illustrator & freehand to someone who's concentrated on graphic design from the outset.

[superninjagoat]

I agree that the feature set of InDesign is FAR superior to that of Quark XPress. I love the simplification of workflows using native PhotShop and Illustrator files, as well as live, feathered drop shadows and vignettes. But the Pallet interface infuriates me.

I'm a newspaperman, and speed is everything for me. XPress is great for a graphics-heavy section front -- there it might save me time -- but for a basic six-column inside page with no frills, it takes me 20 to 40 percent longer to get a clean page.

The secret is that XPress uses dialogue boxes to imput information, so I can hit shift+apple+D (opens the character dialogue), tap tab four times, hit "-3" and enter and BAM, I've baseline shifted my text and my focus is back in the document. It sound like a lot of work, but it is so much faster than hitting the keyboard command for the character pallet in InDesign, then putting the curser in the appropriate text field, going back to the keyboard to type "-3" and enter, and then putting your cursor back in the document to change focus. (There is a way to change your focus in InDesign via the keyboard, but I can never get the damn thing to work in a way I deem useful -- compared with XPress.)

I'm not trying to say that XPress is better. I fight with it daily. But I've used both programs extensively, and XPress is faster for basic design. As newspapers migrate to InDesign, I think Adobe will address that problem (which will in turn cause more papers to migrate). And frankly, I can't wait. I'd love to throw off the shackles that are Quark.

For now, I use the tool that best suits my task, just like any other program in my arsenal.

[Blue Velvet]

The secret is that XPress uses dialogue boxes to imput information, so I can hit shift+apple+D (opens the character dialogue), tap tab four times, hit "-3" and enter and BAM, I've baseline shifted my text and my focus is back in the document. It sound like a lot of work, but it is so much faster than hitting the keyboard command for the character pallet in InDesign, then putting the curser in the appropriate text field, going back to the keyboard to type "-3" and enter, and then putting your cursor back in the document to change focus. (There is a way to change your focus in InDesign via the keyboard, but I can never get the damn thing to work in a way I deem useful -- compared with XPress.)

Hear-hear.
But try selecting your text then "shift-alt-apple +" or "-" for baseline shifting -- much faster. No dialog boxes at all.

[superninjagoat]

Hear-hear.
But try selecting your text then "shift-alt-apple +" or "-" for baseline shifting -- much faster. No dialog boxes at all.

That actually was a bad example. :o But there are others. I love shift-option-apple-M to get into the font field of the inspector pallet.

Please see through the complete absence of thought that went into my last post to my actual point. Dialogues are inherently better because they can be called navigated and dismissed from the keyboard without multile trips from the mouse to the keyboard.

EDIT: I just remembered why I used to do this method of baseline shifting: While I was graphic editor, I would check up on other people's pages to see if they were following style. To make things fit, other designers would cheat and adjust the baseline shifting (our default was -3 to fit with out baseline grid) and the tracking, which could be legaly adjusted three either way. Rather than check each individual line to see what the designers had done, I would just apple-A and move into the character box to reset all the crap they'd done to their text block. It was just a bad example for this forum.

[Blue Velvet]

I think for those who have to use these tools every day for their jobs it comes down to muscle memory -- and not having to think about how you're going to get to your final result.

If you gave Keith Jarrett an instrument that sounded exactly like a piano but looked like a trumpet (!), I don't think he'd get the same results, somehow...

People who have used Quark for years prefer it because of its interface, not because they're conservative or old as somebody said earlier. Time is money in production.

Indesign is a fantastic program and I am looking forward to using it but I don't want to see any company with a monopoly on design software -- see the Illustrator v. Freehand discussion further back.

When you look at a page, you shouldn't be thinking 'hmmm... I wonder whether that was done in Photoshop 5 or 7 or whatever...' It doesn't matter.

There are too many users around that need to have the latest of anything.
Doesn't make them a better designer.

[superninjagoat]

I think for those who have to use these tools every day for their jobs it comes down to muscle memory -- and not having to think about how you're going to get to your final result.

If you gave Keith Jarrett an instrument that sounded exactly like a piano but looked like a trumpet (!), I don't think he'd get the same results, somehow...

People who have used Quark for years prefer it because of its interface, not because they're conservative or old as somebody said earlier. Time is money in production.

Indesign is a fantastic program and I am looking forward to using it but I don't want to see any company with a monopoly on design software -- see the Illustrator v. Freehand discussion further back.

When you look at a page, you shouldn't be thinking 'hmmm... I wonder whether that was done in Photoshop 5 or 7 or whatever...' It doesn't matter.

There are too many users around that need to have the latest of anything.
Doesn't make them a better designer.

I agree. Muscle memory is a lot of the battle.

But there is a (imho) fundamental difference between XPress and InDesign. XPress is centered around fast turnaround time for simple design work. In the Quark philosophy, complicated elements should be produced elsewhere and moved into XPress.

InDesign is designer and workflow oriented. I see that as a breath of fresh air.

If Quark could produce a product that integrated like InDesign and supported modern effects like feathered shadows and native file formats, InDesign would be sunk. XPress is still a more mature design platform. But Quark's too slow to do that.

Adobe, otoh, has no problem adapting to what consumers want. They've already created a piece of software that's light-years ahead of XPress for many small print shop design tasks. They have a way to go before tight-deadline press publications adopt, but it's coming. Just look at PhotoShop. That program meets the needs of artists who want to muck with reality, but it's also THE tool used by photojournalists. Same thing with Illustrator.

It's just a matter of time, I think, before we'll all be learning new muscle memory to the Adobe tune. It's just a question of when InDesign gets the features you (plural) are looking for.

[Blue Velvet]

...It's just a matter of time, I think, before we'll all be learning new muscle memory to the Adobe tune. It's just a question of when InDesign gets the features you (plural) are looking for.

I agree with you.

The point I was also trying to make was the prevalence of people who have to have the latest & coolest without knowing the fundamentals.

[superninjagoat]

I agree with you.

The point I was also trying to make was the prevalence of people who have to have the latest & coolest without knowing the fundamentals.

That's a pet peeve of mine as well. When you know the fundamentals, you can make a beautiful layout in MS word it you have to (your print bureau would go nuts, however). I've had to produce trifolds in PowerPoint. I wasn't happy, but the result looked nice. I've got "colleagues" who have the fastest computer with the newest software. And they're designs look more like a rebel band of typographers snuck into their shop at night and declared war on the Golden Section.

A tool's a tool. Design's design. Bad design's vaguely nauseating.

Which of the two software programs do you prefer? For me it's still a tossup depending on the project.

[Blue Velvet]

... Which of the two software programs do you prefer? For me it's still a tossup depending on the project.

I use Quark 5 all day at work, am moving to OS X & Qaurk 6.1 in the office within the next 6 weeks (new dual 2.5s on order). 10.3.4 at home with Quark 5 in classic (with classic redraw xtension).

However... have got our new copies of Adobe CS in so will be looking closely at Indesign but know little about it so far -- am attracted by certain features already discussed earlier in the thread. We do a lot of 2-colour work so multi-inks were a must-have and now InDesign has them...

We will have both at work and will make moves towards InDesign but not without considering every step along the way. Everybody has to be on board -- can't force anybody here.

So for now, it's still Quark (albeit reluctantly). Although, they've being going insane recently -- sending us coupons for discounts, writing to us, even picking up the phone when you call them! Desparation...

[superninjagoat]

I use Quark 5 all day at work, am moving to OS X & Qaurk 6.1 in the office within the next 6 weeks (new dual 2.5s on order). 10.3.4 at home with Quark 5 in classic (with classic redraw xtension).

However... have got our new copies of Adobe CS in so will be looking closely at Indesign but know little about it so far -- am attracted by certain features already discussed earlier in the thread. We do a lot of 2-colour work so multi-inks were a must-have and now InDesign has them...

We will have both at work and will make moves towards InDesign but not without considering every step along the way. Everybody has to be on board -- can't force anybody here.

So for now, it's still Quark (albeit reluctantly). Although, they've being going insane recently -- sending us coupons for discounts, writing to us, even picking up the phone when you call them! Desparation...

They answer the phone now? wow! :)

I do hold a certain fondness for XPress, and in a sick way, I'd like to see them beat InDesign. Do you think they're desperate enought to start listening to customers too? Cause that would be fantastic.

[Blue Velvet]

They answer the phone now? wow! :)

I do hold a certain fondness for XPress, and in a sick way, I'd like to see them beat InDesign. Do you think they're desperate enought to start listening to customers too? Cause that would be fantastic.

Letters telling us how many more engineers they have now, new sales team in UK, new office in London. Coupons giving us approx.US$700 off our orders of Quark 6.... Immediate email replies to license consolidation issues, the removal of the stupid mobile licensing (you can now install your copy of Xpress on 2 macs)... They're trying very hard and won't give up without a fight.

Sneak previews of Quark 7 have been already held at a developers conference under strict non-disclosure agreements (unicode support for soomebody who asked for it before)

ps. Speaking of work, I better do some... back in a few hours.

[phonic pol]

When you look at a page, you shouldn't be thinking 'hmmm... I wonder whether that was done in Photoshop 5 or 7 or whatever...' It doesn't matter.

There are too many users around that need to have the latest of anything.
Doesn't make them a better designer.

Granted, having the latest software doesn't make you a better designer but it's crucial to know what tools are out there and how they can lead to improvements in visual results and increased workflow. I think that's the essence of this thread and helps us all develop as creatives'.

This post has been particularly interesting because we have input from people with different professions using software with different priorities e.g. newspapers are all about speed opposed to other areas of graphics that focus less on speed, though still important, and more on the creative impact of, for example, corporate identities, marketing and advertising etc.

I agree, lets not get hung up on whether an image was created in Photoshop 6 or cs but, at the same time, let's acknowledge that the same designer has more at his or her disposal in version cs over 6 and it's important to make sure you have the tools that suit you best whatever your creative niche. Most of us are in the business of delivering the best we can in the shortest timeframe and often a software update can give us a temporary edge, be it a speedier method of what we currently do or a quicker way of creating a favored effect.

There is one more essential point to consider when choosing your software and hardware and that is; if your options give you the same results, which one is going to give you the most pleasure? Most of us have answered that with the Mac vs. PC debate – they both do the same job, right? But at the end it’s largely down to preference and I get the impression here that indesign is winning people over and I sense a larger shift happening within the industry. I think Quark will have to pull something magnificent out of their sleeves, and soon, if they are to remain #1.

[superninjagoat]

Granted, having the latest software doesn't make you a better designer but it's crucial to know what tools are out there and how they can lead to improvements in visual results and increased workflow. I think that's the essence of this thread and helps us all develop as creatives'.

This post has been particularly interesting because we have input from people with different professions using software with different priorities e.g. newspapers are all about speed opposed to other areas of graphics that focus less on speed, though still important, and more on the creative impact of, for example, corporate identities, marketing and advertising etc.

I agree, lets not get hung up on whether an image was created in Photoshop 6 or cs but, at the same time, let's acknowledge that the same designer has more at his or her disposal in version cs over 6 and it's important to make sure you have the tools that suit you best whatever your creative niche. Most of us are in the business of delivering the best we can in the shortest timeframe and often a software update can give us a temporary edge, be it a speedier method of what we currently do or a quicker way of creating a favored effect.

There is one more essential point to consider when choosing your software and hardware and that is; if your options give you the same results, which one is going to give you the most pleasure? Most of us have answered that with the Mac vs. PC debate – they both do the same job, right? But at the end it’s largely down to preference and I get the impression here that indesign is winning people over and I sense a larger shift happening within the industry. I think Quark will have to pull something magnificent out of their sleeves, and soon, if they are to remain #1.

I think what Blue Velvet and I were getting at was more the type of person that thinks he knows how to do graphic design just because he has the best equiptment. Like a person with a great set of woodworking tools that can't doesn't know woodworking. (that person wouldn't have a table leg to stand on, see! yuk yuk yuk!)

If you are a creative, know how to use the programs AND know good design, great. You can use the tools to their advantage. But tools do not the designer make.

[Tremaine]

As a creative director for a large publisher, I must say that Quark remains the industry standard. It will not be going away anytime soon. If you are a designer or someone who wants to work professionally in print, you have to know Quark. I can count on my hand how many companies I know that have switched to InDesign. A couple of them say that they have just as many problems with InDesign as they did with Quark.

There are plenty of positives and negatives to both. They are just tools that produce similar results. In my company, we use Quark because designers and production artists are more efficient with it (they know it better). That said, as a home user, freelance designer, etc, I would use InDesign for the cost benefits.

[zarathustra]

I hope Quark dies a quick death...

We have been on InDesign since 1.0 (a dog of a product) and beta tested 2.0, CS and now the next major release of InDesign.

I have InDesign running pretty much all the time and cannot even compare it to Quark. They are in a different league. Once I broke all the habits that were ingrained in me from using Quark, InDesign was a breath of fresh air.

The fact that I can customize my keyboard layout alone is a lifesaver. i have customized all the most often used commands and features into a set. Instead of having to go through dialog after dialog, I just give it a 3 finger salute. :)

I would love to answer any questions as far as "I can do this in Quark, how come you can't in InDesign..." or "This is so much better in Quark, while InDesign sucks ...".

99% of the time that Quark users criticize the shortcomings of InDesign they have not actually tried to do it in InDesign. Or the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.

Any pre-press or press that is still using Quark exclusively are simply outdated. just like we don't use photo plates anymore, an all quark workflow is on the way out. It will still have it's place kind of like linotype presses and 1 color Heidelberg presses do. I can send my work a 100% of the time as a PDF and 95% of the time as an InDesign document.
;)

[Blue Velvet]

...Once I broke all the habits that were ingrained in me from using Quark, InDesign was a breath of fresh air.
;)

Just out of curiousity:
How long did it take you to break all your Quark habits? How did you manage your transition and did you use both apps. equally for a while?

In fact, anybody here with interesting & valuable comments on switching over would have a grateful audience of at least one... tell all!

[&RU]

I have been using Quark for as long as I can remember. I still use XPress 4.1 because certain clients are trapped in the stone age. I didn't want to like InDesign. I tried it out when I purchased the CS Suite and now I really don't like XPress. I don't need Xtensions or Distiller to get my work out anymore. Being able to work at full resolution is a treat too - again without an Xtension. The fact that it is set up similarly to Photoshop and Illustrator helps more than you realise - especially when you switch between them alot.

I could go on, but as you can see - I lean towards InDesign.

[Tremaine]

Is it possible to save an InDesign file in Quark 4.0 format? So someone in the stone age can open it. :p

[Chip NoVaMac]

Is it possible to save an InDesign file in Quark 4.0 format? So someone in the stone age can open it. :p

Unless I missed it, nope.

[Belly-laughs]

The secret is that XPress uses dialogue boxes to imput information, so I can hit shift+apple+D (opens the character dialogue), tap tab four times, hit "-3" and enter and BAM, I've baseline shifted my text and my focus is back in the document. It sound like a lot of work, but it is so much faster than hitting the keyboard command for the character pallet in InDesign, then putting the curser in the appropriate text field, going back to the keyboard to type "-3" and enter, and then putting your cursor back in the document to change focus. (There is a way to change your focus in InDesign via the keyboard, but I can never get the damn thing to work in a way I deem useful -- compared with XPress.)

InDesign; select text, hit option+shift+up/down arrows... In fact, most palette commands and menu items can be assigned shortcuts of your preference, shortcuts can be saved as different sets etc. You can even use Quark shortcuts throughout.

[VooDooPope]

As a quark user from the begining I was reluctant to switch. Once I did I was so glad to be done with Quark.

IMO Indesign is a far supperior product. My wife is also a designer and she wants to switch but the creative director at her company is an old fart who doesn't want to learn a new program. I've tried to tell him that if you know Illustrator and Photoshop then you already know Indesign (Not 100% truth but real close).

The only thing about indesign I don't like as much as I like in quark are way style sheets operate. That said being able to load the eye dropper with type specs makes this an issue only on the rarest of occasions.

[zelmo]

I manage the prepress department for a commercial printer, around $20 million in annual sales volume (avg job is only $1200 - do the math and shudder). Historically, about 85% of all files (Mac/PC) were coming in Quark. Less than 5% were InDesign through v2. With CS, Adobe has a definite winner on it's hands. The design community has noticed, big time. In about one years' time, we have seen InDesign climb to almost 30% of all incoming files.
We used to rush out and purchase 25 copies of Quark whenever an upgrade came out, because we had to start preparing for the onslaught of early adopters. We only have 7 copies of Quark 6, while we have increased InDesign from 2 copies to 6. I'm sure we'll be adding copies of InDesign before we have to purchase Quark upgrades.

Quark or InDesign? Whatever you are comfortable with. I'll take either all day long. I'd just like to stop getting Publisher, Word and Powerpoint files from clients who think a $100 app is all they need to produce stellar print documents that color separate easily. :rolleyes:

[zarathustra]

Just out of curiousity:
How long did it take you to break all your Quark habits? How did you manage your transition and did you use both apps. equally for a while?

In fact, anybody here with interesting & valuable comments on switching over would have a grateful audience of at least one... tell all!

I have used Quark for a good 4 years by the time InDesign showed up and we were simultaneously using Quark 3.32 (I think) and Quark 4 with InDesign 1.0 & 1.5 for about 8 months until InDesign 2.0 came out. Since then we have completely abandoned our Quark licenses and have gone to an all Adobe suite.

I would say that the first 3 projects were difficult, but by the 5th, I was wondering why in the hell didn't Adobe come out with it earlier. There is an option in InDesign to simulate the keyboard layout in Quark, if that's what you like. However, I found it easier to just use my Illustrator and Photoshop knowledge and experiment.

About the only thing that Quark and ID have in common besides being layout apps, is that you place Frames that can contain placed files, Text or a set of paths. From there it is a weird iteration of Illustrator.

The type engine is so much more developed than in Quark (OpenType, Unicode, Single line and Paragraph compositor, Optical Kerning, Optical Margin Allignment etc.)

So all in all, I would say that as long as you don't try to do things the Quark way, but instead concentrate on logical, intuitive ways of doing things, you will get a hang of it in no time.

[ethernet76]

Both have there upsides. For advanced design you'd see in graphics design, you'd probably want to go with Indesign.

However, there is one thing Quark is better at. Speed design. Being in the fast-paced news design sector, I prefer quark because it is no frills and is linked well with certain non-adobe products like NewsEdit Pro - a brilliant workflow manager for text and photos.

However, indesign has a lot of benefits, being able to get file info from a picture without opening the files.

We recently switched to Indesign from Quark 4. I'm not a fan of Indesign mostly because I have to use new shortcut keys, and what I could do in 30 minutes now takes an hour or so.

However, the industry standard is now Indesign, and I can think of a couple of places that are switching to Indesign from Quark 4 or pagination.

So, in the long run I'd think indesign would be a better bet.

[ethernet76]

I manage the prepress department for a commercial printer, around $20 million in annual sales volume (avg job is only $1200 - do the math and shudder). Historically, about 85% of all files (Mac/PC) were coming in Quark. Less than 5% were InDesign through v2. With CS, Adobe has a definite winner on it's hands. The design community has noticed, big time. In about one years' time, we have seen InDesign climb to almost 30% of all incoming files.
We used to rush out and purchase 25 copies of Quark whenever an upgrade came out, because we had to start preparing for the onslaught of early adopters. We only have 7 copies of Quark 6, while we have increased InDesign from 2 copies to 6. I'm sure we'll be adding copies of InDesign before we have to purchase Quark upgrades.

Quark or InDesign? Whatever you are comfortable with. I'll take either all day long. I'd just like to stop getting Publisher, Word and Powerpoint files from clients who think a $100 app is all they need to produce stellar print documents that color separate easily. :rolleyes:

What percent of files you get are PDF? Even back in highschool we were using FTP to upload files to our printer in Indiana.

[Sparky's]

I've been using Quark since 2.x in the late '80s, all the way to 6.1 now. I switched to InDesign as my main app 2 years ago. Here is a publication that (even though may seem a little biased) has a great deal of information and being as it is Volume 1 Issue 1 I look forward to my subscription.
http://www.indesignmag.com/idm/trialissue.html

For additional information about InDesign check out: http://www.prepressforums.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=index&c=1

This is a relatively new forum but it's growing rapidly. It is dedicated solely to Printing Pre-press and has attracted many knowledgeable professionals.

The Quark vs InDesign debate will eventually end up as the Ford vs Chevy issue (please don't start)

I am totally committed to InDesign not only as a far superior program over Quark but also as a small part of the Adobe suite that works together to increase our productivity and ease of product deadline.

[zelmo]

What percent of files you get are PDF? Even back in highschool we were using FTP to upload files to our printer in Indiana.

I would bet that fewer than 5% of the files we get come in pdf. More than half of those are not correct - no bleed, wrong size, fonts nort embedded, something not correct). We make pdf's as soft proofs on maybe 25% of our jobs, which the clients often use for internal purposes. Haven't really seen the pdf explosion Adobe was predicting several years ago.
As for ftp, that is certainly a growing file delivery method, but CD rules. Can't remember the last time we got a zip. Remember when they revolutionized file delivery just a few years back? Now we have a box of old zip drives in a closet.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'd just like to stop getting Publisher, Word and Powerpoint files from clients who think a $100 app is all they need to produce stellar print documents that color separate easily. :rolleyes:

Be nice to some of us like that. :)

I was forced to use MS Publisher for almost 2 years in producing our newspaper ads. It was only after my boss wanted some really tight spacing of text blocks, that I was able to convince that we needed to move to a more "professional" set of tools.

And could not be happier with InDesign.

[zelmo]

Be nice to some of us like that. :)

I was forced to use MS Publisher for almost 2 years in producing our newspaper ads. It was only after my boss wanted some really tight spacing of text blocks, that I was able to convince that we needed to move to a more "professional" set of tools.

And could not be happier with InDesign.

Hey, we printers love real design folk. It's the ones who pretend they are designers, or who decide that any administrative assistant with MS Office can produce all their publications, that truly frighten us. :eek:

Publisher is not the worst. We had a client who wanted us to convert their Broderbund Print Shop Deluxe file into a 3 PMS job, because they didn't want to spring for 4CP. It only took a couple hours to completely re-create their job in Quark (pre-InDesign days).

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hey, we printers love real design folk. It's the ones who pretend they are designers, or who decide that any administrative assistant with MS Office can produce all their publications, that truly frighten us. :eek:

Publisher is not the worst. We had a client who wanted us to convert their Broderbund Print Shop Deluxe file into a 3 PMS job, because they didn't want to spring for 4CP. It only took a couple hours to completely re-create their job in Quark (pre-InDesign days).

Be kind to newbie design folks. :) We really do try hard. Never pretended to be a real designer, I beg forgiveness and try to learn from the printers we use.

Had a laugh about the admin assistant comment. Just got a word file from one of group of a flyer they wanted me to add graphics to so they could send it out for printing. Some are just trying to protect their jobs, others just want to do it all themselves.

With the customer with the Print Shop Deluxe file, I hope you billed them out for the time. :)

[zelmo]

Be kind to newbie design folks. :) We really do try hard. Never pretended to be a real designer, I beg forgiveness and try to learn from the printers we use.

Had a laugh about the admin assistant comment. Just got a word file from one of group of a flyer they wanted me to add graphics to so they could send it out for printing. Some are just trying to protect their jobs, others just want to do it all themselves.

With the customer with the Print Shop Deluxe file, I hope you billed them out for the time. :)

It is in our best interest to do everything we can to help educate every client. It forges a strong bond between us, and also makes production easier. Any printer who does not understand that shouldn't be in busines for long.
We deal with a lot of clients who want to do it all themselves, but don't see the point in purchasing the right programs because they are "too expensive." What many fail to understand, no matter how hard we try to explain it to them, is that they pay a hefty premium on every job they send to their printer. After just a few print jobs, the hours of technical support add up to far more than $700 for quark or even $1300 for Adobe CS Standard. Some printers may not announce that they charge more for handling these programs, but they do (or they refuse the files. I know one printer who won't accept anything but Quark or Adobe CS files - gutsy).

[Sparky's]

It is in our best interest to do everything we can to help educate every client. It forges a strong bond between us, and also makes production easier. Any printer who does not understand that shouldn't be in business for long.
We deal with a lot of clients who want to do it all themselves, but don't see the point in purchasing the right programs because they are "too expensive." What many fail to understand, no matter how hard we try to explain it to them, is that they pay a hefty premium on every job they send to their printer. After just a few print jobs, the hours of technical support add up to far more than $700 for quark or even $1300 for Adobe CS Standard. Some printers may not announce that they charge more for handling these programs, but they do (or they refuse the files. I know one printer who won't accept anything but Quark or Adobe CS files - gutsy).
I once worked for a company (trade shop in LA) who refused anything but Quark files (at the time when 3.x was the mainstay, and ID 1.0 was. a dream in the eye... well you know) Anyway, I found out they didn't keep that attitude for long and finally even though they caved to other desktop apps finally folded. Now we (the shop I work for in NY) will accept any file in any platform regardless. We have instituted a huge program to educate our clients as to the proper apps to use and how to produce "print friendly" files but I agree, I spend so much time rooting our problems with RGB colors in .eps files and Index colors in .gif files (amazing how clients seem to feel that if you see it on the web you can print it to paper :eek: )
The cost of all these AAs would supply most of the schools in my area with the proper teachers AND the proper tools to teach the difference.