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. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quark vs InDesign
- Thread starter Mickie Mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
InDesign all the Way...
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...
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...
InDesign
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indesign
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Yup, R.I.P quark.
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?
However you have a choice, so choose the best!
maybe the next version of quark will be good?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ). 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?
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
). 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?
tech4all said:
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.
Belly-laughs said:
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).
JFreak said: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?
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.
Spot colours can also be Trumatch or any other ink system, even a spot UV varnish or similar.
phonic pol said:
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.
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.
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.
BUt XPress is faster ...
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.
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.
superninjagoat said:
Hear-hear.
But try selecting your text then "shift-alt-apple +" or "-" for baseline shifting -- much faster. No dialog boxes at all.
Blue Velvet said:
That actually was a bad example.
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.
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.
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.