Adobe InDesign CS apprentice :)
#1
Posted 05 December 2007 - 02:25 PM
Anyone out there uses InDesign as well? if yes, tell me some good and bad things that you've encountered so far, i haven't encounter any major problems in creating my artworks.
#2
Posted 05 December 2007 - 02:45 PM
I use it for menu design, brochures....anything that requires multiple pages, I use indesign for.
I use illustrator for my logo/illustration work...
#3
Posted 05 December 2007 - 02:54 PM
#4
Posted 05 December 2007 - 05:01 PM
If you want to do a only 2 pantone color print, you can mix the two pantone colors to get more colors.
What is bad in Indesign when you save the logo into eps you can't open in it Indesign to edit it.
#5
Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:18 AM
I started designing brochures in an early pre-release version of InDesign 2, and I found it much more easier to use than Quark, because of the familiarity of the Adobe family. Later on used InDesign CS and CS2.
Then I began working in prepress production, and let me say... there's nothing copared to Quark for the stability and fidelity. For some reason all works I received that were designed in Quark where most errorless ... but on InDesign I found the worst made work ever!!
That's not that Quark is better, the reason is people who uses Quark has always used it and knew how to design safe for imagesetting, the wide range option InDesign introduced for the time what not completly compatible. Issues like Transparencies in print work always brings trouble ... things that Quark never had to fight with.
By the way, what concerns drawing ... in completely shitty in Both InDesign and Quark... and that's because they ARE NOT ILLUSTRATION APPLICATIONS! For some reason the removed some drawing capabilities that were available in InDesign 2.0 and then not from CS on. InDesign 2 was almost as good as Illustrator for drawing, those who used it know what I say! ;-)
Don't you all prefer to draw in Illustrator and "copy-paste" artwork over into InDesign? Or link an vector EPS afterwards?
#7
Posted 27 June 2008 - 05:07 AM
[I]
Don't you all prefer to draw in Illustrator and "copy-paste" artwork over into InDesign? Or link an vector EPS afterwards?
It is definately preferable to do your vector based work in Illustrator. It is much more flexible and allows for much quicker fixes than InDesign. The interface is just so much more vector specific in Illustrator that your work flow will be alot smoother.
That said, I am so glad that they added the "Pathfinder" tool to InDesign. It makes me cry when I have to get things ready for the printer in Quark and have to go and measure everything "by hand." That tool is my favorit in both Illustrator and InDesign.
#8
Posted 13 July 2008 - 08:06 PM
I think the important point you make in your post is that the Quark audience, on average, has been using Quark longer, and preparing digital prepress files longer, than your average InDesign user, at least at the time of the ID2 version you're discussing (keeping in mind, allot of those users were probably PageMaker users, who likely did not have the prepress experience that your average Quark user at the time did). I've used everything from PageMaker, to Quark, to Word, to FrameMaker, to InDesign for layout. I find InDesign's prepress functionality every bit as good as Quark....as long as the files are set up correctly. And I see an awful lot of poorly prepared files.
And to address the original question, I definitely would keep rastar images in Photoshop, vector graphics in Illustrator, and merge the content with InDesign...just has been suggested elsewhere in this topic. And I would follow that with any layout application of similar functionality (i.e., Quark).
http://www.jdkds.com
#9
Posted 14 August 2008 - 08:37 PM
However, I think they are still better at what they are designated to do. If I were doing a logo, I would still use Illustrator and then If I needed to bring it into a brochure, I would use InDesign for it's strong page layout and typography tools.
#10
Posted 18 August 2008 - 05:00 PM
yep.. keep it easy, these programs are designed to work with each other. Photoshop for raster work and imagery, illustrator for vector graphics, logos, etc. Indesign for layout of said objects.
This is so true, especially since CS3 came out, the programs are very well integrated and meant to work out with each other. I know from my experience I use InDesign for all my layout work whether its a simple brochure or 20 giant display boards. I bring in all my logos, graphics, maps, ect. from Illustrator or Photoshop and place them into the layout.
InDesign works by linking to the files you place so that they are not embedded into the actual file which keeps the file size small. Once you finish a project you just package the whole thing up and it makes a nice neat little folder with all your fonts and images used.
And a nice little tip is that if you want to edit an image that you have placed in the InDesign file just right click on the image and click on "edit original" and that will open up the logo for example you created in Illustrator. Once you have made changes and saved all you have to do in InDesign is Relink that file in the Links pallet
#11
Posted 01 October 2008 - 02:41 PM
But over all I dig the 3 way adobe combo mentioned in previous posts, I am still strongest in PS and am currently striving to increase my skills in the other two.
#12
Posted 06 January 2009 - 01:46 PM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users