This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Adobe Illustrator > July 2007 > Publishing software
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Publishing software
|
|
|
| Hi there, I'm an illustration graduate but have been out of the loop
for a long time. I've been working on an idea for a children's book
and would love some software that would help me to present the idea.
Is anyone able to suggest a good publishing software. My pictures
would be large format colour but I will have a fair amount of text
too. I'm no novice at computer software but I haven't ventured beyond
Photoshop since Polytechnic.
Thank you so much.
Lou
| |
|
| On 6/16/07 3:46 PM, Loupo commented:
> Hi there, I'm an illustration graduate but have been out of the loop
> for a long time. I've been working on an idea for a children's book
> and would love some software that would help me to present the idea.
> Is anyone able to suggest a good publishing software. My pictures
> would be large format colour but I will have a fair amount of text
> too. I'm no novice at computer software but I haven't ventured beyond
> Photoshop since Polytechnic.
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> Lou
If you intend to self-publish, first choose the book printer and find out
their requirements. Quark and Adobe InDesign are your professional choices
for layout, but some of these self-publish printers simply ask for *choke*
Word. Illustrator or (now defunct) Freehand for vector illustrations.
I assume by 'large format' you mean full-page, not billboard size for a
book;)
| |
|
| Hi inez, thank you so much for your words of wisdom, they are much
appreciated. I haven't used Quark since Poly so that will be
fascinating! I'd be interested to look into Adobe InDesign too. Now
that I have some names I'll do a little research to see which I'd be
most comfortable with.
I think full page pictures would be my size limit :o)
Thank you so much again!
Lou
| |
| steggy 2007-06-19, 6:23 pm |
| Loupo wrote:
> Hi inez, thank you so much for your words of wisdom, they are much
> appreciated. I haven't used Quark since Poly so that will be
> fascinating! I'd be interested to look into Adobe InDesign too. Now
> that I have some names I'll do a little research to see which I'd be
> most comfortable with.
>
> I think full page pictures would be my size limit :o)
>
> Thank you so much again!
>
> Lou
>
If you can afford it go for InDesign Lou.
Not sure what Quark asks nowadays, but InDesign is the
standard at the moment. And I must say I always hated Quark
in the old days, when I used Pagemaker;))
Now I work with InDesign and it is a blessing.
| |
| Sandman 2007-07-11, 6:14 pm |
| Hi
I would recommend InDesign. I have worked with this from version 1 and am
now on CS3. Like all pro software there is a learning curve. If you are
familiar with any of Adobe's other products then the interface is going to
be somewhat familiar. Never used Quark, but heard its complicated.
On 19/6/07 22:29, in article 5dr06nF35plhsU1@mid.individual.net, "steggy"
<steggy@me.privacy.net> wrote:
> Loupo wrote:
>
> If you can afford it go for InDesign Lou.
> Not sure what Quark asks nowadays, but InDesign is the
> standard at the moment. And I must say I always hated Quark
> in the old days, when I used Pagemaker;))
>
> Now I work with InDesign and it is a blessing.
-- Sandman --
Save the cheerleader. Save the world (Heroes 2007)
| |
| Waterspider 2007-07-12, 3:14 am |
| top post, cuz everybody else does:
I'm in love with InDesign; it's a powerful, intuitive, precise and stable
program. I've been in the business for longer than I like to acknowledge,
but I worked with PageStream on the Amiga and went to PageMaker (Adobe) from
there. Like Sandman, I've never used QE, but I know a few people who use
both and prefer InDesign. Haven't been able to find anyone who prefers
Quark, unless they've never used ID.
If you're already using Illustrator, and you mentioned PhotoShop, Creative
Suite would be the way to go. Upgrading is affordable and the programs all
play real nice together.
Waterspider
"Sandman" <g4sandman@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:C2BB127B.4A80%g4sandman@XXXXXXXXXX...
> Hi
>
> I would recommend InDesign. I have worked with this from version 1 and am
> now on CS3. Like all pro software there is a learning curve. If you are
> familiar with any of Adobe's other products then the interface is going to
> be somewhat familiar. Never used Quark, but heard its complicated.
>
>
> On 19/6/07 22:29, in article 5dr06nF35plhsU1@mid.individual.net, "steggy"
> <steggy@me.privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> -- Sandman --
>
> Save the cheerleader. Save the world (Heroes 2007)
>
| |
| Waterspider 2007-07-14, 3:14 am |
|
"Loupo" <louc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182026778.533049.171870@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there, I'm an illustration graduate but have been out of the loop
> for a long time. I've been working on an idea for a children's book
> and would love some software that would help me to present the idea.
> Is anyone able to suggest a good publishing software. My pictures
> would be large format colour but I will have a fair amount of text
> too. I'm no novice at computer software but I haven't ventured beyond
> Photoshop since Polytechnic.
> Thank you so much.
> Lou
>
You might want to take a look at this discussion on the Flickr photo site, a
Quark-InDesign debate of sorts...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/graphi...157600809052418
| |
|
| Waterspider wrote:
> You might want to take a look at this discussion on the Flickr photo site, a
> Quark-InDesign debate of sorts...
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/graphi...157600809052418
>
>
Just my two cents, but I think we the users always loose when any one
software company monopolizes the market. Competition is the incentive to
give users what they want when they want it. When competition dies
customer service goes out the window, upgrades become little more than
updates with a price tag, and we get only what they want to give us
whenever they feel like it.
I say, if you can, use both. Some clients, newspapers, etc. still
request Quark files, so you'll increase you deliverable range by owning
both AND you'll help keep competition alive.
I would love to be able to get InDesign, but I would still upgrade my
Quark. (Unfortunately I'm broke and using 20th century equipment & apps)
| |
| Waterspider 2007-07-14, 6:14 pm |
|
"inez" <nezmyth@or.fact> wrote in message news:f7apgv$cj6$1@aioe.org...
> Waterspider wrote:
>
>
> Just my two cents, but I think we the users always loose when any one
> software company monopolizes the market. Competition is the incentive to
> give users what they want when they want it. When competition dies
> customer service goes out the window, upgrades become little more than
> updates with a price tag, and we get only what they want to give us
> whenever they feel like it.
>
> I say, if you can, use both. Some clients, newspapers, etc. still request
> Quark files, so you'll increase you deliverable range by owning both AND
> you'll help keep competition alive.
>
> I would love to be able to get InDesign, but I would still upgrade my
> Quark. (Unfortunately I'm broke and using 20th century equipment & apps)
I agree that competition is healthy, but I will not support both (competing)
companies to achieve this. I believe that the company with the best product
for the money will sell more of its product, and that its competition will
have to do better to survive. It's certainly not the consumer's
responsibility to finance the company providing the inferior product;
otherwise I would be compelled to buy MicroSoft Publisher and a whole
collection of cheesy desktop publishing software. Adobe has hardly
monopolized the market.
Yes, I have encountered clients who request Quark files, but I've never
encountered one who would not accept anything *but* Quark files. Plug-ins
are available to convert the files, and .pdf files work for all commercial
printers as well as home-based publishing businesses with desktop equipment.
Waterspider
| |
|
| On 7/14/07 2:05 PM, Waterspider commented:
>
> "inez" <nezmyth@or.fact> wrote in message news:f7apgv$cj6$1@aioe.org...
>
> I agree that competition is healthy, but I will not support both (competing)
> companies to achieve this. I believe that the company with the best product
> for the money will sell more of its product, and that its competition will
> have to do better to survive. It's certainly not the consumer's
> responsibility to finance the company providing the inferior product;
> otherwise I would be compelled to buy MicroSoft Publisher and a whole
> collection of cheesy desktop publishing software. Adobe has hardly
> monopolized the market.
>
> Yes, I have encountered clients who request Quark files, but I've never
> encountered one who would not accept anything *but* Quark files. Plug-ins
> are available to convert the files, and .pdf files work for all commercial
> printers as well as home-based publishing businesses with desktop equipment.
>
> Waterspider
>
>
Not our responsibility, no. I like having more than one tool and I'm sure
InDesign will be a sharp learning curve for me. I use Illustrator most of
the time, but I dearly miss certain things that Freehand did differently,
and more intuitively from my point of view. So there are times I use other
apps, Freehand or Expression, for the initial concept, then finish the files
in Illustrator. But, not being an InD user yet, I'm unconvinced of its
'permanent' status as best. I think of it as just different. It has the plus
of being wed to the other Adobe apps though. I want both Quark and InDesign
so I can stay in the learning loop, just in case competition seesaws.
I agree about PDF, but unfortunately again, I'm in the 20th century. I can
only create PDF 1.3 from Distiller 4. Oft times a printer would rather take
my Quark doc, fonts and images and do file conversion themselves than to
deal with my PDF:( Sad, since I really don't like giving out my native
files for any reason unless it's just a basic layout. But I need a whole new
system before I can upgrade software, so...
I'm a oddball though, I know. I'd actually still like to buy Enhance It! for
Classic because I've always found MicroFrontier's (now Digimage Arts)
products to be more intuitive than Photoshop. How's that for heresy! ;)
| |
| Waterspider 2007-07-14, 6:14 pm |
|
"inez" <nezmyth@no.thank.you> wrote in message
news:C2BE9EF0.63EE5%nezmyth@no.thank.you...
> On 7/14/07 2:05 PM, Waterspider commented:
>
>
> Not our responsibility, no. I like having more than one tool and I'm sure
> InDesign will be a sharp learning curve for me. I use Illustrator most of
> the time, but I dearly miss certain things that Freehand did differently,
> and more intuitively from my point of view. So there are times I use
> other
> apps, Freehand or Expression, for the initial concept, then finish the
> files
> in Illustrator. But, not being an InD user yet, I'm unconvinced of its
> 'permanent' status as best. I think of it as just different. It has the
> plus
> of being wed to the other Adobe apps though. I want both Quark and
> InDesign
> so I can stay in the learning loop, just in case competition seesaws.
>
> I agree about PDF, but unfortunately again, I'm in the 20th century. I can
> only create PDF 1.3 from Distiller 4. Oft times a printer would rather
> take
> my Quark doc, fonts and images and do file conversion themselves than to
> deal with my PDF:( Sad, since I really don't like giving out my native
> files for any reason unless it's just a basic layout. But I need a whole
> new
> system before I can upgrade software, so...
>
> I'm a oddball though, I know. I'd actually still like to buy Enhance It!
> for
> Classic because I've always found MicroFrontier's (now Digimage Arts)
> products to be more intuitive than Photoshop. How's that for heresy! ;)
>
Lol @ Inez... they would have burned you at the stake a few hundred years
ago <g>
I think you're going to find the InDesign learning curve a lot less steep
than you're expecting, because of your experience with Illustrator and even
Quark. Even 'way back at the end of the 20th century, most software was
reasonably intuitive and Adobe embraced this concept well.
Back to marketing (because there's no other reason for this), both ID and QX
have evolved to make the transition from one to the other an easy one.
I am entirely self-taught, but work in a professional (read: formally
schooled) environment. To my great pride and joy, on more than one occasion
I've discovered that I "intuitively" use a more efficient method of
accomplishing a task in ID than do the formally trained users. When you make
the leap to InDesign, if you have any problems, I will be happy to help you
out. There's an old, seldom-used comp.graphics.apps.pagemaker form that
would probably be a better place for us to do this, so's not to bore and
irritate all the Illustrator users here.
Waterspider
(another heretic)
| |
|
| Waterspider wrote:
> I think you're going to find the InDesign learning curve a lot less steep
> than you're expecting, because of your experience with Illustrator and even
> Quark. Even 'way back at the end of the 20th century, most software was
> reasonably intuitive and Adobe embraced this concept well.
> Back to marketing (because there's no other reason for this), both ID and QX
> have evolved to make the transition from one to the other an easy one.
>
> I am entirely self-taught, but work in a professional (read: formally
> schooled) environment. To my great pride and joy, on more than one occasion
> I've discovered that I "intuitively" use a more efficient method of
> accomplishing a task in ID than do the formally trained users. When you make
> the leap to InDesign, if you have any problems, I will be happy to help you
> out. There's an old, seldom-used comp.graphics.apps.pagemaker form that
> would probably be a better place for us to do this, so's not to bore and
> irritate all the Illustrator users here.
>
> Waterspider
> (another heretic)
>
>
Well, it won't be any time soon unless I win the Lotto I never remember
to buy tickets for;) I need about $4M worth of hardware first. LOL
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|