Quark 6 vs. In design

Kick back on the couch and discuss all things not directly related to QuarkXPress.
a.hayton
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 Dec 1969, 19:00

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by a.hayton » 07 Jul 2004, 02:02

What type of file is the monotone image?
If it is a normal eps then you can't create a composite pdf to include spot colours. If it is a dcs file then again you can't create a composite pdf but you can create separations which does work.

John K
Posts: 6
Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 16:45

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by John K » 07 Jul 2004, 08:59

Normal eps duotone.

I personally detest dcs images and have not had a need for them for the last few years preferring workarounds that allowed spot raster (not talking duotones) either by itself or with cmyk to be used is a composite workflow that will separate correctly.

Now, I only deal with client supplied dcs images.

As with monotones (and every other placed image with spot color) make sure the pms name matches EXACTLY with the placed files name. Quark's remapping of the spot colors causes issues.

I can send you sample files if you wish to examine them. (Quark document, placed duotone and resulting pdf)

email me and I will send the files to you:

john(at)orionprinting(dot)com

a.hayton
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 Dec 1969, 19:00

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by a.hayton » 12 Jul 2004, 05:59

Hi John,

I have just looked at your files and you are right in the fact that the colour information is there in the composite file but it looks greyscale on the screen. When it prints it is in the correct colour. The only downside is that the embedded colour information is in rgb values and not cmyk which might confuse or even change the colour when it is printed on a 4 col press.
The monotone that you sent was not a good test as it is only low res and it could have been set as greyscale as there were no adjsutments to the colour. This would have allowed you to colour the greyscale image in quark.

In design does embed the colour in the pdf and is also CMYK so I stand corrected on that point. I have not used In Design too much.

It seems that from quark it is best to create seperated files for multi tone eps files so that there are no problems at the printing stage. Perhaps Quark need to have a closer look at what they are doing.

so_mad
Posts: 1
Joined: 19 Jul 2004, 13:31

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by so_mad » 19 Jul 2004, 13:36

Short answer: InDesign, Hands down.

Longer answer: Quark 6 needs a LOT of work. I would hold onto OS 9 for a few more months, using Quark 4. Wait it out if you can to see if Quark can get it's act together. I can't believe it was released as is.

dttype
Posts: 3
Joined: 24 Jul 2004, 13:03

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by dttype » 31 Jul 2004, 22:25

I am one of countless designers who have reluctantly abandoned QuarkXPress. I don't want to, but I must. I tried to stay with Quark, really I did. I have been an avid advocate for 16 years.

But w/QXP 6.1, I couldn't print the most basic of files (one eps image, one font) to my low-end postscript-emulation HP 1300. I do not have the time, hand strength (carpal tunnel here) or wherewithal to beta test 6.1. Once you go to OSX, it's a whole different world (a UNIX world), and troubleshooting is a whole new ballgame. Mac owners now know what it's like owning a PC. But eventually you have to migrate to OSX and it means all new software and all new problems. It feels like 1989 without all the rebooting.

InDesign works and works well. It is easier to learn a new program with Illustrator & Photoshop's familiar interface than troubleshoot QXP 6.1 on a Panther system. All my QXP files are 4.2, so they open w/InDesign.

Luckily, my upgrade to QXP 6 was relatively cheap ($145 + shipping w/the $50 coupons Quark sent w/ their infamous "please please stay" letter), so it is a $145 lesson. I've had more expensive lessons. At least I will not wonder whether I should have upgraded; I will know I couldn't make it work.

One QXP defender has said in another thread, "For a small company, I think they do pretty well with their products against an almost-monopoly the size of Adobe." Yes, they have. And as she says, since Adobe owns the postscript code and doesn't hand it out to Quark, Quark cannot make use of it like Adobe does in its apps' print engines. Which makes my case.

FYI, "InDesign for QuarkXPress Users" by David Blatner is supposed to be really helpful. Blatner is the last person you'd think would switch, but he has.

My deicision was tremendously difficult. But until the point QXP can print to my printer the most basic of files, I gotta go to Adobe's full product line. Other threads here have good links to in-depth comparisons; please seek them out -- I can't do them justice.

Best of luck in your decision.

J Talmadge
Posts: 32
Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 12:46

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by J Talmadge » 01 Aug 2004, 09:15

I'll happily take your qxp 6 off your hands for you if you care to sell it.
:) I'll give you a very fair price too. Let me know and we can private email.

Bivouac Ponzetti
Posts: 40
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 09:12

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by Bivouac Ponzetti » 01 Aug 2004, 10:05

[strong]dttype:[/strong]since Adobe owns the postscript code and doesn't hand it out to Quark, Quark cannot make use of it like Adobe does in its apps' print engines.
:?: :?: :?:

This is really a non-issue. PostScript is an open standard. Adobe sells its own proprietary RIPs, and even those can be licensed. PDF is the same thing. Just as there are 'clone' RIPs, there are clone distillers.

Quark has always written its own print engine, up until v6 it's really only spoken PS level 1. It's PS has never been DSC compliant (DSC being the closest thing there is to a set of rules of how you structure a PS file), and their code has always been full of their own, proprietary code that RIP vendors have had to figure out how to support.

Bottom line is that PostScript is not something that Adobe hides from other developers, and neither is PDF. Adobe 'hands out' SDK's for these things.

Adobe certainly has technology it won't share with others, but PostScript and PDF are standards to which everyone out there has access.

InDesigner
Posts: 35
Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 17:38

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by InDesigner » 01 Aug 2004, 19:55

[strong]dttype:[/strong]Once you go to OSX, it's a whole different world (a UNIX world), and troubleshooting is a whole new ballgame. Mac owners now know what it's like owning a PC. But eventually you have to migrate to OSX and it means all new software and all new problems. It feels like 1989 without all the rebooting.

I simply CANNOT let those statements go without a comment; absolutely ridiculous! And to blame an OS for the shortcomings of a 3rd party application, which has been successfully accepted by so many, is also outrageous. I strongly recommend you return to the world of OS 9 and QX 4 and stay there. Or maybe it's time for a new PC and Windows?

BAH!

Linda
Posts: 1510
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 14:57

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by Linda » 01 Aug 2004, 22:16

[img]../../themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">%20[strong]dttype:[/strong]One%20QXP%20defender%20has%20said%20in%20another%20thread,%20"For%20a%20small%20company,%20I%20think%20they%20do%20pretty%20well%20with%20their%20products%20against%20an%20almost-monopoly%20the%20size%20of%20Adobe.[/img]
At least get it right, okay??

1) I am not a QXP defender. I'm a user. I use the tools that work for me. I use the tools I can use to make money. I use the tools that clients pay me to use. Unfortunately, I have only one of several clients who will allow me to use InDesign.

2) I did not say anything about "hand out" -- you misquote me! I used the word license, and I gave teh example of why an EPS will print cleanly to an inkjet (non-postscript) printer from Photoshop, but not from XPress -- Adobe's print engine.

Nothing ticks me off more than to be misquoted and mischaracterized. :evil:

dttype
Posts: 3
Joined: 24 Jul 2004, 13:03

Quark 6 vs. In design

Post by dttype » 02 Aug 2004, 16:54

My goodness, what tempers. I'm only sharing my story - that it won't print on my system after a number of days troubleshooting. It's simply more effort than I am willing to give it. This thread started with someone asking the pro's and con's of switching to InDesign. I'm giving them my argument as to why I was forced to switch.

All I'm saying is that Quark 6 doesn't work for me here and since inDesign does, that's why I have to go with it. That's IT. That's all I meant. I can only print from InDesign; I can only print from quark if I make a .pdf. I never had Quark problems before; it's always been virtually problem free. I could print to any of my postscript printers. Since I can't make the upgrade work without a workaround, the decision ended up made for me.

The person who started the thread said they are thinking about moving to OSX along with the Quark jump, so I was pointing out that it does take more work to troubleshoot problems -- pre-OSX methods (from printing utilities and prefs to font management) no longer apply. Plus Quark's settings have to be just so. Lots of variables.

So with the OS making troubleshooting more difficult (cause I don't know it like I knew the OS9 and before), it's way hard for me to fix so I've given up. I'm not blaming the OS. I do blame Quark as many of us do. Should they fix this thing so I can use it, I will reconsider. Until then, I have to go the easier route.

I'm a Mac user since 1989. I will always be a Mac user. Idon't even know how to turn on a PC. It's just way harder now to troubleshoot. I had to upgrade my printers, too, to be able to work w/ a new G5--yet more variables.

Linda, certainly if your clients need you to use QXP, your decision was made for you. You have to make it work. Since I have no clients, I don't. Quark works for you and that's great. I meant no harm in misquoting you by using the words "hand out" rather than "license." I thought I was paraphrasing. There are clearly nuances there I am not aware of. I'm sorry I used the words "Quark defender." If I used a word here you believe is inappropriate, misused, misinterpreted or misquoted, I'm sorry in advance.

To the person who originally asked what the pro's and con's are of switching: it depends on your setup and your patience. I have recently retired from a magazine; we stayed w/Quark when we went to OSX, too, as a great many ads in our magazine came as Quark files and our workflow was so used to it. It worked fine on our HP PS level-2 network printers, after a couple days of pulling our hair out. Unfortunately, none of the solutions there worked for me here as I had anticipated.

Best of luck to all of you.

Post Reply

Return to “Sofa Threads”