InDesign cannot replace Quark

Kick back on the couch and discuss all things not directly related to QuarkXPress.
iebng
Posts: 41
Joined: 04 May 2007, 06:36

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by iebng » 29 Jan 2008, 14:16

My company has been using Quark for a long time suddenly for the sake of pdf's they have introduced us to InDesign CS3.

Only we(designers) have started doing few pages in InDesign, we are using features in InDesign such as Transparency and Drop Shadow.

I have seen in this thread people liking to InDesign but based on the grounds facts people(in general) are not likely to shift to InDesign. You see they are only 5 designers here and only two or fours pages of features in week maximum we do here and the rest pages are done by Sub-Editors which do not require any effects.
Recently our Chief Designer at our company HQ said eve there people see no gain in InDesing and deciding to use Quark instead.
We use Quark 5.

I have tried Quark 7 trail version and it is really fast has the features of InDesign CS3, i love it. Speaking of Creative Suite I think a media house consisting of 50 people including sub-editors and designer(say) not all the people will be using photoshop and Illustrator for there pages, if you have graphics done make it eps or tiff file and place it in a picture box.

Will the scene in my company is We have installed InDesign CS3 and and we have only 4 or 2 pages of feature pages and not that much illustration or to say we don't even have illustrator, we use Corel Draw. We designers see it difficult to work with InDesign. what just for the sake of using transparency and drop shadow we use InDesign and for pdf's instead of using Adobe Distiller.

Well, therefore i conclude I love quark we designers love quark we are looking forward for quark 7.

Not only us, people in Newspaper industry will not shift so fast, they will retain their quark.

Tony Morse
Posts: 21
Joined: 24 May 2007, 08:51

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by Tony Morse » 30 Jan 2008, 00:17

Not going to get into Quark bashing here, but the rest of the world does not share your opinions. The vast majority of printing facilities have moved to InDesign as the program of choice and I know many that no longer work with Quark at all.

Quark 7 does not have all the features of ID CS3 and in fact has literally been patching Q7 to include more CS3 features every few months.

I have never met a true professional designer who thinks it's difficult to work with InDesign.

And look around - the newspaper industry has already shifted.

rcantin
Posts: 442
Joined: 13 Sep 2006, 08:12

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by rcantin » 30 Jan 2008, 08:30

[strong]Tony Morse:[/strong]The vast majority of printing facilities have moved to InDesign as the program of choice and I know many that no longer work with Quark at all.

Wrong.

Printing facilities uses the program the documents are created with. Printing facilities refusing Quark document is a fantasy.

Sunburst369
Posts: 25
Joined: 25 Feb 2005, 09:33

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by Sunburst369 » 30 Jan 2008, 08:38

[strong]Tony Morse:[/strong]I have never met a true professional designer who thinks it's difficult to work with InDesign.you haven't met me then 8)

thing
Posts: 984
Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 04:36

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by thing » 30 Jan 2008, 09:14

Sorry to be picky but a 'true professional' works with the appropriate tool, not the one he/she likes most. :lol:

But for what it's worth in the last 3 months I've been for about 12 interviews at major ad agencies in the UK and all bar one have, sadly, dropped Quark.

Repro departments in printers will, of course, always be an exception if they've got any sense. They'll have copies of everything and, in my experience, every release too! But mainline agencies, at least the ones I've had dealings with lately, are moving away from XPress.

Greg

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by Jim Oblak » 30 Jan 2008, 09:15

[strong]iebng:[/strong]the rest pages are done by Sub-Editors which do not require any effects.

You seem to be confusing InDesign with a program that is intended for effects. It is just as much of a meat and potatoes workhorse as QuarkXPress. It can do plain old boring text documents too.

[strong]iebng:[/strong]I have tried Quark 7 trail version and it is really fast has the features of InDesign CS3, i love it.If you are currently using QuarkXPress 5, you have a very myopic view of the publishing/design world. QXP5 is 5 years old. At the time it came out, you could have bought InDesign 2, which offers some features that just made it into QuarkXPress 7.

I can understand your issue if InDesign is being poorly integrated into a Quark workflow but there seems to be a significant amount of bias based on ignorance and inexperience. I would suspect that the addition of InDesign at your place of employment was because of more than just transparency effects.

[strong]iebng:[/strong]Not only us, people in Newspaper industry will not shift so fast, they will retain their quark.

Regardless of industry, people go with the program with greater features and lower price. There is no secret what this program is.

If you are not content with being forced to use InDesign, find another employer that only uses QuarkXPress. Your employability really hangs on if you can use both apps.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3273
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by eyoungren » 30 Jan 2008, 10:25

Speaking as a "people in the newspaper industry" all I have to say to this is that I find our shop having to use ID more and more in our daily routine. Our editorial/layout side has been using ID CS2 since Nov. 2006 already so we will see what happens in the future.

One question though. If XPress 7 seems to have many of the features that ID CS2/3 has, why not just use ID CS2/3? ID CS2/3 is guaranteed to have all the features that ID CS2/3 is supposed to have! :D

almaink
Posts: 237
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 08:38

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by almaink » 30 Jan 2008, 10:31

"Printing facilities uses the program the documents are created with. Printing facilities refusing Quark document is a fantasy."

I used to think this way, until Quark 7 came out. Since it's inclusion of transparency wasn't implemented properly, we had no choice but to drop support for version 7. We still except Quark 6 files, but back-saving doesn't work from 7 for transparency and flattening can also cause rip issues so, currently we only except press ready PDF's from customers who have either bought, or upgraded to version 7. That way it's the customers responsibility to check anything that does get flattened in the PDF and either fix it, or find another way to achieve the desired effects.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3273
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by eyoungren » 30 Jan 2008, 10:37

almaink, can I make my "diehard Quark fan" apologist comment now? :D

almaink
Posts: 237
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 08:38

InDesign cannot replace Quark

Post by almaink » 30 Jan 2008, 10:41

LOL, sure :D

Post Reply

Return to “Sofa Threads”