DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > Print Design

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-24-2006, 07:54 AM   #1
dogmandouglas
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default Hidden costs of Indesign

A lot of people have swopped to Indesign, stating the obvious reason that's it cheaper than Quark. I have to agree that's it's cheaper, but I work for a printers and the Indesign jobs that we have coming in need a lot more work than a Quark job to get them to rip properly.
We have trouble with the black not overprinting in Indesign even though in the preferences of the job it has been "ticked" for overprinting. There is also a problem with text near a graphic that gets bitmapped.
When a job comes in, we process it with care and hope that we pick up any odd behaviour before the job rips (using Creo Brisque, or should I now say Kodak).
Quark jobs go through without any problems. Even though we have written scripts to allow for Indesign quirks there seems to be another one waiting around the corner for us.
The upshot of all this is that we spend more time putting Indesign jobs right and the customer gets charged for this time. So is Indesign cheaper in the long run. I think not.
dogmandouglas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 08:44 AM   #2
bmann
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 192
Default

I having been using InDesign CS and CS2, Quark 6.5 and 7, on Mac and PC for a few months. I prefer InDesign because of it's plethora of features, support for other file types, and UI. I guess it's the complexity that makes it difficult to straighten out when it comes to printing. What are some of the other odd behaviors?
bmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 10:37 AM   #3
dogmandouglas
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default

We sometimes have to tick the "print non printing boxes" option in the printing tab because a graphic might not be printing, even though there seems to be nothing wrong with the graphic in document.
dogmandouglas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 11:49 AM   #4
annc
Sysop
 
annc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Subtropical Queensland, Australia, between the mountains and the Coral Sea
Posts: 4,434
Default

Most of the printers here have gone to a PDF workflow. Do you still find the problems in InDesign if the designer sends a PDF with the settings according to a profile you supply?

   
__________________
annc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 12:23 PM   #5
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Quote:
the Indesign jobs that we have coming in need a lot more work than a Quark job to get them to rip properly
Do you find the faults you describe are characteristic of all versions of InDesign (four, I think, to date) or of individual versions? And which versions of QuarkXPress are you referring to?

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 12:34 PM   #6
PeterArnel
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North of Swindon in the UK on the edge of the Cotswolds
Posts: 997
Default

What do the Kodak care cente say to resolve the problem
Peter
I beta tested Brisque for Euriope a long time ago and now run Prinergy
PeterArnel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2006, 02:59 PM   #7
Shane Stanley
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmandouglas View Post
A lot of people have swopped to Indesign, stating the obvious reason that's it cheaper than Quark.
I reckon that's one of the worst reasons a person could have, given that the cost of the box is such a small percentage of job costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmandouglas View Post
I work for a printers and the Indesign jobs that we have coming in need a lot more work than a Quark job to get them to rip properly.
That's not altogether uncommon. I think there are a couple of reasons.

One is that Quark has been around for a long time, with very little in the way of changes, so people know where the bodies are buried. There's an enormous body of knowledge of what to do and what not to do with QXP.

The other is due to the fact that InDesign is more powerful and has a lot more options. It's a lot easier to press the wrong button in the cockpit of an airliner than it is in a car.

Shane
Shane Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quark and InDesign tables: Hidden feature? bmann Print Design 4 10-30-2006 11:30 AM
How to calculate inkjet printing costs? ElyseC Print Production & Automation 11 06-15-2006 11:39 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.