Help!

Publisher vs. InDesign

 
Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Commercial Printing RSS
Next:  attn: tiffie - highly amazing long retention - ji..  
Author Message
Debra
External


Since: Jan 24, 2007
Posts: 1



PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: Publisher vs. InDesign
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>publisher>prepress (more info?)

I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Mary Sauer
External


Since: Mar 25, 2006
Posts: 3845



PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

InDesign---$692.99
Publisher 2007---$154.99
(Amazon prices)

InDesign is more for the professional, however Publisher does quite well.


--
Mary Sauer MSFT MVP
http://office.microsoft.com/
http://msauer.mvps.org/
news://msnews.microsoft.com

"Debra" wrote in message

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
External


Since: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 1361



PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:40 am    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In addition to Mary's response, please keep in mind that the program is
merely a tool. Knowing how to use it goes a long way. Wink

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375




"Debra" wrote in message

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
> hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
> professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Chris Griffiths
External


Since: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 14



PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

> "Debra" wrote in message
>
>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
>> hear
>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>> professional
>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>
>

I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
is much more important then the software used. Having said that...

Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign. For
someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a steeper
learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the rewards
later.

For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign +
Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a lower-cost
option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images for commercial
print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but satisfactory,
alternative to the full Photoshop.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Griffiths email: chris@stroudprint.co.uk
StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
--------------------------------------------------------
I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
--------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
Iam_intrigued
External


Since: Jan 25, 2007
Posts: 2



PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Thanks for the response! It seems as though it might be worth my while to
adjust to a steep learning curve. Can you tell me Quark vs. InDesign? Also,
as far as the photo question, how will I know if I need to produce CMYK
images? When is that needed vs. just using a jpeg or such in a document?

I REALLY appreciate the help!

"Chris Griffiths" wrote:

> > "Debra" wrote in message
> >
> >> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
> >> hear
> >> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> >> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
> >> professional
> >> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
> >
> >
>
> I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
> is much more important then the software used. Having said that...
>
> Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
> them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign. For
> someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a steeper
> learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the rewards
> later.
>
> For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
> user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign +
> Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a lower-cost
> option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images for commercial
> print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but satisfactory,
> alternative to the full Photoshop.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Griffiths email: chris@stroudprint.co.uk
> StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
> Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
> --------------------------------------------------------
> I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Back to top
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
External


Since: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 1361



PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

I like Photoshop Elements as a substitute for Photoshop.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375




"Chris Griffiths" wrote in message

>> "Debra" wrote in message
>>
>>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
>>> hear
>>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>>> professional
>>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>>
>>
>
> I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the user
> is much more important then the software used. Having said that...
>
> Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
> them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign.
> For someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a
> steeper learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the
> rewards later.
>
> For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the same
> user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite (InDesign
> + Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a
> lower-cost option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images
> for commercial print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but
> satisfactory, alternative to the full Photoshop.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Griffiths email: chris@stroudprint.co.uk
> StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
> Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
> --------------------------------------------------------
> I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Back to top
tuff_gong
External


Since: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 8



PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

1. I believe photoshop elements does not support CMYK colorspace, so its use
is prepress is limited.
2, Indesign is the defacto standard for professional layout - I speak as
someone with 30 years in commerical printing. I see a dozens of files a week.
Quark only comprises about 20%.
Back to top
Chris Griffiths
External


Since: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 14



PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Iam_intrigued" wrote in message

> Thanks for the response! It seems as though it might be worth my while to
> adjust to a steep learning curve. Can you tell me Quark vs. InDesign?
> Also,
> as far as the photo question, how will I know if I need to produce CMYK
> images? When is that needed vs. just using a jpeg or such in a document?
>


I won't go into great depth on the Quark v InDesign debate in a Microsoft
group. (Ask on and then take cover!) I'll just
say that we switched from Quark to InDesign nearly three years ago and have
never looked back. I don't have direct experience of Quark 7, which has some
good reports, but to me the integration within Creative Suite and with PDF
makes the choice a no-brainer for someone who is not already in a Quark
environment.

The question about colour spaces is also part of a huge subject. Very
briefly: websites and print on desktop printers use the RGB colourspace;
commercial print normally uses a CMYK workflow. To learn about colour and
photos, the book "Real World Scanning and Halftones" (Peachpit Press) is one
of my favourites. "Real World Color Management" takes you deeper into the
murky waters, if you need to go there.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Griffiths email: chris@stroudprint.co.uk
StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
--------------------------------------------------------
I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
--------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
External


Since: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 1361



PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

No, it doesn't but you don't always need CMYK. And it costs a heck of a lot
less than Indesign.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375




"tuff_gong" wrote in message

> 1. I believe photoshop elements does not support CMYK colorspace, so its
> use
> is prepress is limited.
> 2, Indesign is the defacto standard for professional layout - I speak as
> someone with 30 years in commerical printing. I see a dozens of files a
> week.
> Quark only comprises about 20%.
Back to top
Iam_intrigued
External


Since: Jan 25, 2007
Posts: 2



PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Thanks for your help! InDesign and Photoshop is where it's at! Appreciate
the feedback.

"tuff_gong" wrote:

> 1. I believe photoshop elements does not support CMYK colorspace, so its use
> is prepress is limited.
> 2, Indesign is the defacto standard for professional layout - I speak as
> someone with 30 years in commerical printing. I see a dozens of files a week.
> Quark only comprises about 20%.
Back to top
emanon
External


Since: Feb 04, 2007
Posts: 1



PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In short, Quark is a dead end.

When I began working where I'm at now, they had Quark. HATE IT! So do the
people that used to work with it. InDesign is more flexible and adaptable to
the way *you* work. I can do a project in InDesign in much less time than
one of our experienced Quark users could. I could not believe the hoops they
had to jump through to use a piece of clip art with a clear background! And
oh yeah, that hardware gizmo you need with Quark so you can use the product,
don't break it or try to get another one, even though you paid for the
product and the licensing. Three years later, the second dongle is still
shipping to us.

If you add in the rest of the Creative Suite, or even the integration of
just either PhotoShop or Illustrator, it is no contest.

"Iam_intrigued" wrote in message

> Thanks for the response! It seems as though it might be worth my while to
> adjust to a steep learning curve. Can you tell me Quark vs. InDesign?
> Also,
> as far as the photo question, how will I know if I need to produce CMYK
> images? When is that needed vs. just using a jpeg or such in a document?
>
> I REALLY appreciate the help!
>
> "Chris Griffiths" wrote:
>
>> > "Debra" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign
>> >> but
>> >> hear
>> >> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more
>> >> complex
>> >> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>> >> professional
>> >> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I would underline what JoAnn said: the skill and understanding of the
>> user
>> is much more important then the software used. Having said that...
>>
>> Whilst we are very happy to take Publisher files from customers and print
>> them, when starting a job from scratch we would always choose InDesign.
>> For
>> someone who is completely unfamiliar with DTP, InDesign will have a
>> steeper
>> learning curve than Publisher, but a regular user will reap the rewards
>> later.
>>
>> For photo editing, Photoshop is the de facto standard, and shares the
>> same
>> user interface as Indesign. Although the packaged Creative Suite
>> (InDesign +
>> Photshop + Illustrator) is a good deal, Photoshop Elements is a
>> lower-cost
>> option, if you don't need the ability to produce CMYK images for
>> commercial
>> print. Corel PhotoPaint is an often overlooked, but satisfactory,
>> alternative to the full Photoshop.
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Griffiths email: chris@stroudprint.co.uk
>> StroudPrint phone: 01453 764251
>> Gloucestershire, England fax: 01453 752916
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> I v y d e n e A s s o c i a t e s L t d
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
Back to top
Mike Koewler
External


Since: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 1240



PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:43 am    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
creating files any printer can output without a problem.

It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.

Mike

Debra wrote:

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Matt Beals
External


Since: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 108



PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Well if you're going as far as Serif PagePlus, which nobody supports in
commercial printing save for one specific printer I know of, you might as
well go ahead and get Scribus. It's open source, runs on Windows, and many
flavors of UNIX including Mac OS X, can export a high quality PDF as well as
anything. As for image editing software get GIMP, GNU Image Manipulation
Program. It too is open source and runs on just about everything. It doesn't
work in CMYK but has most, if not all, the features you could possibly need.
It is no PhotoShop but then again so few people really use "all" of
PhotoShop's features that it really doesn't matter. Since there is no CMYK
support in GIMP you place the image into Scribus and export a CMYK PDF and
it is no longer a problem.

A few minutes setting it up, a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the
PDF Export options (PDF, PDF/X-3,etc) and you are ready to rock n' roll.


Matt Beals
Consultant
Enfocus Certified Trainer
Markzware Recognized Trainer
(206) 618-2537 - Cell
(720) 367-3869 - eFax
mailto:matt@mattbeals.com

Come visit me at:

http://www.mattbeals.com
http://forums.mattbeals.com
http://blog.mattbeals.com

Friends don't let friends write HTML email


On 2/4/07 6:43 PM, in article a83d3$45c699b5$d844dd7c$9866@FUSE.NET, "Mike
Koewler" wrote:

> Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
> has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
> creating files any printer can output without a problem.
>
> It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.
>
> Mike
>
> Debra wrote:
>
>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Mike Koewler
External


Since: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 1240



PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Matt,

Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
NeoOffice. Do you disagree?

Mike

Matt Beals wrote:

> Well if you're going as far as Serif PagePlus, which nobody supports in
> commercial printing save for one specific printer I know of, you might as
> well go ahead and get Scribus. It's open source, runs on Windows, and many
> flavors of UNIX including Mac OS X, can export a high quality PDF as well as
> anything. As for image editing software get GIMP, GNU Image Manipulation
> Program. It too is open source and runs on just about everything. It doesn't
> work in CMYK but has most, if not all, the features you could possibly need.
> It is no PhotoShop but then again so few people really use "all" of
> PhotoShop's features that it really doesn't matter. Since there is no CMYK
> support in GIMP you place the image into Scribus and export a CMYK PDF and
> it is no longer a problem.
>
> A few minutes setting it up, a few minutes familiarizing yourself with the
> PDF Export options (PDF, PDF/X-3,etc) and you are ready to rock n' roll.
>
>
> Matt Beals
> Consultant
> Enfocus Certified Trainer
> Markzware Recognized Trainer
> (206) 618-2537 - Cell
> (720) 367-3869 - eFax
> mailto:matt@mattbeals.com
>
> Come visit me at:
>
> http://www.mattbeals.com
> http://forums.mattbeals.com
> http://blog.mattbeals.com
>
> Friends don't let friends write HTML email
>
>
> On 2/4/07 6:43 PM, in article a83d3$45c699b5$d844dd7c$9866@FUSE.NET, "Mike
> Koewler" wrote:
>
>
>>Just to muddy the waters a bit (more), take a look at Serif PagePlus. It
>>has come a long way in the past few years and is quite capable of
>>creating files any printer can output without a problem.
>>
>>It's $64 shipped, and has a 30-day money back guarantee.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Debra wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
>>>that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>>>though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
>>>brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
>
>
Back to top
Matt Beals
External


Since: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 108



PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Nope, as long as it is usable by the print provider and reliable (a la PDF)
then it doesn't really matter what program you use. The rest of it is all
marketing and personal preference. An old friend of mine still codes his web
pages in BBEdit instead of DreamWeaver. He's been doing that for about 12
years or so.

Matt Beals
Consultant
Enfocus Certified Trainer
Markzware Recognized Trainer
(206) 618-2537 - Cell
(720) 367-3869 - eFax
mailto:matt@mattbeals.com

Come visit me at:

http://www.mattbeals.com
http://forums.mattbeals.com
http://blog.mattbeals.com

Friends don't let friends write HTML email


On 2/11/07 3:03 PM, in article 130f1$45cfa0a7$422a97cc$5693@FUSE.NET, "Mike
Koewler" wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
> image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
> produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
> difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
> NeoOffice. Do you disagree?
Back to top
Mike Koewler
External


Since: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 1240



PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:05 am    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Matt,

Dizzy Dean (a famous baseball player who later became an announcer) was
once chided because he used the word "ain't" when calling a game. His
reply was he know people who wouldn't use ain't but they ain't eating as
good as he was.

I've never been a fan of style over substance.

Mike

Matt Beals wrote:
> Nope, as long as it is usable by the print provider and reliable (a la PDF)
> then it doesn't really matter what program you use. The rest of it is all
> marketing and personal preference. An old friend of mine still codes his web
> pages in BBEdit instead of DreamWeaver. He's been doing that for about 12
> years or so.
>
> Matt Beals
> Consultant
> Enfocus Certified Trainer
> Markzware Recognized Trainer
> (206) 618-2537 - Cell
> (720) 367-3869 - eFax
> mailto:matt@mattbeals.com
>
> Come visit me at:
>
> http://www.mattbeals.com
> http://forums.mattbeals.com
> http://blog.mattbeals.com
>
> Friends don't let friends write HTML email
>
>
> On 2/11/07 3:03 PM, in article 130f1$45cfa0a7$422a97cc$5693@FUSE.NET, "Mike
> Koewler" wrote:
>
>
>>Matt,
>>
>>Nothing wrong with Scribus either. I figure as long as I can input files
>>image and text files I need to, and output files a printer can use to
>>produce a newspaper that looks like it was designed, it doesn't make any
>>difference to my readers whether I use Quark, ID, Pub, PP, Scribus or
>>NeoOffice. Do you disagree?
>
>
Back to top
Buffy
External


Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 3



PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: RE: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

I work for a small commercial real estate company and we do all of our
marketing materials inhouse - preparing, printing, etc. - in Microsoft
Office. Someone has suggested we go to Quark or InLine Design to make them
more professional looking. Both of these packages appeared to be quite
complicated unless you have some sort of graphics design background. After
all of your responses, what did you decide to do about software packages?



"Debra" wrote:

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
JoAnn Paules
External


Since: Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 347



PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Programs do NOT make documentation "professional looking". The skill of the
person doing the layout does. The right person could do the job with Paint.
(ugh!)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375


"Buffy" wrote in message

>I work for a small commercial real estate company and we do all of our
> marketing materials inhouse - preparing, printing, etc. - in Microsoft
> Office. Someone has suggested we go to Quark or InLine Design to make them
> more professional looking. Both of these packages appeared to be quite
> complicated unless you have some sort of graphics design background.
> After
> all of your responses, what did you decide to do about software packages?
>
>
>
> "Debra" wrote:
>
>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but
>> hear
>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for
>> professional
>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
creativechaos
External


Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 2



PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Really depends on what you do with your marketing materials. If it's off to
your usual printer they go then it depends on your printer. If you want a
tool that gives you a lot of latitude (i.e. Working with a lot of commercial
printers) go with InDesign. It is a very flexible tool and has a lot of
prepress capabilities built in. Don't worry about the complexity because
many of the default settings are what your printer wants... And you can
always package the file and send it to them.

The challenge with Publisher is that it is built on a RGB color space and it
can take a lot of work to get it to cough up a file that is "commercial
printer ready." You can use it without too much grief if you don't use spot
colors. Keep in mind that the RGB color space is much broader than the CMYK
color space... Why do you care? Translation results in color shifts more
often than not. In other words, if you're content with printed colors that
are somewhat like what you see on your monitor's screen then you're good to
go with Publisher. If on the other hand, you'd like the printed colors to
look like what you designed... Then avoid Publisher like the plague...

I can't dislike Publisher because it give me a lot of work... Wink

J.P.


On 5/9/07 8:12 AM, in article
B9D5AF29-6D81-4F98-B058-93AEE18616A9@microsoft.com, "Buffy"
wrote:

> I work for a small commercial real estate company and we do all of our
> marketing materials inhouse - preparing, printing, etc. - in Microsoft
> Office. Someone has suggested we go to Quark or InLine Design to make them
> more professional looking. Both of these packages appeared to be quite
> complicated unless you have some sort of graphics design background. After
> all of your responses, what did you decide to do about software packages?
>
>
>
> "Debra" wrote:
>
>> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
>> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
>> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
>> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Sher
External


Since: Jul 26, 2006
Posts: 5



PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:59 pm    Post subject: RE: Publisher vs. InDesign [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

There is a program called - Pub2Indesign, that can open publisher files in
the program indesign - gives you a head start when just learning Indesign.
http://www.graphic-design-employment.com/convert-publisher.html

It doesnt handle tables very well - but you can bring them in as photo files.

"Debra" wrote:

> I'm evaluating software packages. I know Publisher and NOT InDesign but hear
> that InDesign is better for commercial work. It seems much more complex
> though. Any suggestions? Does Publisher work well for you for professional
> brochures, etc.? Also - any suggestions on a photo editing software?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Commercial Printing All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum