Layout Programs

[jgreywolf]

Just a curious question for people out there. What is your preferred layout program, and why?

And...

What is the one that you actually use?

This questions actually double - when you consider that I am asking this in regards to both PDF products, as well as print...

Thanks!

Justin

[DocBrown]

I use Macromedia Freehand almost exclusively for both print and pdf projects. It's pretty powerful and flexible, and serves my needs nicely.

I've been meening to take another look at InDesign (especially since Adobe bought Macromedia), but I haven't worked with it since version 1. I think there's a 30 day trial, so I'll eventually take a look at it.

[madelf]

Serif PagePlus.

It may not have all the bells and whistles of InDesign, but it's pretty darn good for the price.

[Prest0]

I use the latest InDesign for RPG layout. It blows Pagemaker out of the water. I use Macromedia Freehand in my day job. It works fine for short pieces like brochures and flyers-- anything less than 10 pages. But first and foremost its heart is still an illustration tool, so I find that dealing with longer documents becomes more of a pain-- at least compared to InDesign.

Both were created with print in mind, but both also come with built-in PDF export tools.

[Darklord]

I use serif page plus 10. It's got a couple of quirky features, but overall it is very powerful for the money. For internal layout, I'd choose nothing else for the price. Unfortunately, it's not an industry standard package, and so it's tough to get files you can read from other folks.

[jgreywolf]

Well - that is two votes for PagePlus so far :) And at the price, I can certianly understand why. Looks like it would meet all the needs of what I am looking for - and much more affordable than InDesign.

There are two things that concern ma about InDesign - price and learning curve.

I have PageMaker 7.0 now - anyone know how PagePlus compares?

[TargetBoy]

Just a note, Serif had demo versions (actually, fully functional, out of date versions) of their software at www.freeserifsoftware.com. You have to register with them, so it really isn't free, but it has not increased my spam volume from anywhere but Serif.

One thing to watch out for, the spell checker uses British spellings. I reformatted Flotilla with it and it wanted me to change "center" to "centre". Kind of funny, really.

Mike DeSanto
www.enter.net/~mdesanto

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

InDesign CS. Easy to use, incredibly flexible and functional, and I can easily manipulate the same file for a low res PDF or a high res print variation.

[jdagna]

I have both InDesign (2.0) and Quark XPress (6.5) and prefer Quark because InDesign 2's spell checker is absolutely worthless. I understand this has been fixed in later versions, but I'd rather not shell out another $200 for a functional spell checker when I'm far more comfortable with Quark to begin with. Both are very good for print and PDF.

I do occasionally use Illustrator 10 for graphics-heavy layouts like covers, posters and fliers.

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I have both InDesign (2.0) and Quark XPress (6.5) and prefer Quark because InDesign 2's spell checker is absolutely worthless. I understand this has been fixed in later versions, but I'd rather not shell out another $200 for a functional spell checker when I'm far more comfortable with Quark to begin with. Both are very good for print and PDF.Why would you be using your layout program's spell checker to begin with? You should definately be using your word processor for that considering the spell checker is more vital to the software's functionality, making it exponentially better.

[zedturtle]

I used Quark Xpress (3.0 - 5) for many years. I now have InDesign CS and have never looked back. It just blows my mind what I can do with InDesign.

BTW, Steve is right. It seems a lot of peope use their page layout application to be their word processing application... I'm even guilty of it at times. However, don't use a page layout app to do word processing and then complain the lack of word processing functionality.

That said, CS was a huge leap. I often have to use 2.0 at work for compatiblity reasons and it sucks compared to CS.

[Sacrosanct]

I write everything in Word, then use InDesign to do the actual layout. I've tried Quark Express 5.0 a couple of years ago, but didn't find it as easy as InDesign.

[jgreywolf]

Hmmm - so are there cheaper ways to purchase InDesign CS then I ahve found? Preferably legal ways ;)

Or has everyone just bitten the bullet and plopped down the, what is it 7-900 dollars?

There is something to be said for making the larger financial investment for something that will provide a much better (read, easier) product in return.

I am wondering if it might be worth it to go with a cheaper version to start with (like I already have Pagemaker 7.0, or perhaps going with PagePlus) - and then move up to InDesign when the financial situation is a bit more able to support such an expenditure....

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Hmmm - so are there cheaper ways to purchase InDesign CS then I ahve found? Preferably legal ways ;)
Look for people selling OEM versions. Not support and no manuals, but the former can easily be found online in independent forums whereas the latter can be resolved using any of the "Illustrated Guide to InDesign" books.

[Eldoria]

Greetings,

Our layout person uses InDesign CS. We were using MS Publisher for its ease of use, but when we got someone to do layout and he tried both programs, he likes the power and flexibility of InDesign.

William

[Sacrosanct]

Or has everyone just bitten the bullet and plopped down the, what is it 7-900 dollars?
...

$700-$900 dollars? Maybe you're thinking of Adobe Suite. InDesign by itself costs much less, especially if you're a student.

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

$700-$900 dollars? Maybe you're thinking of Adobe Suite. InDesign by itself costs much less, especially if you're a student.
I got my OEM version for $90 US, plus $65 Canadian for the "Illustrated ... " book, which is better than the manual that comes with it, as I understand.

[Prest0]

I am wondering if it might be worth it to go with a cheaper version to start with (like I already have Pagemaker 7.0, or perhaps going with PagePlus) - and then move up to InDesign when the financial situation is a bit more able to support such an expenditure....

With the addition of a PDF creation plugin, Pagemaker is functional enough to do what you need for now. By all means use what you already have and see how things go. RPG publishing will not bring you buckets of cash. It would be much wiser to spend that extra money on better art or even professional editing. It is true that InDesign CS makes life easier in a lot of small ways, but there are usually ways to produce the same results in Pagemaker. It's primarily a tradeoff in time.

[jgreywolf]

First, to address one response. No, the Adobe webstie lists InDesign as $699. Since I am not a student - there is no point in pursuing that avenue.

The problem with the OEM versions - is that really it is a form of software piracy. But it does give me a point to start learning from, and I can assuage any guilt I have later, by purchasing the retail version :)

As to another comment - I am not worried about making a ton of money at this. Lets face it - I cannot envision any realistic expectation of making as much as I do now (especially if you consider benefits). The only possible exception is to become as big as WOTC or White Wolf (snicker) - but still, I want to be able to do the best that I can....so I will play with InDesign.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

[Sacrosanct]

First, to address one response. No, the Adobe webstie lists InDesign as $699. Since I am not a student - there is no point in pursuing that avenue.
!

You just gotta know where to look. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=709626&Sku=A38-2164&SRCCODE=YAHOODF&CMP=SPC-YAHOO)

Also, you can still get unused copies of InDesign 2.02 for less than $100. That's what I still use, and it's fine.

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

The problem with the OEM versions - is that really it is a form of software piracy. But it does give me a point to start learning from, and I can assuage any guilt I have later, by purchasing the retail version :)
In no way is actual OEM software piracy. The person selling it has to be licensed in order to sell OEM. The fact that you aren't getting the full package is why the product is reduced, not because it is supposedly "pirated." Having once done sales between a supplier and OEM retailer, I can assure you of this. It is, however, up to you to research if the retailer is indeed selling authorized OEM product.

Dell, for example, is OEM hardware -- do you think Dell pirates its computer components?

[jgreywolf]

In no way is actual OEM software piracy. The person selling it has to be licensed in order to sell OEM. The fact that you aren't getting the full package is why the product is reduced, not because it is supposedly "pirated." Having once done sales between a supplier and OEM retailer, I can assure you of this. It is, however, up to you to research if the retailer is indeed selling authorized OEM product.

Dell, for example, is OEM hardware -- do you think Dell pirates its computer components?

Sorry - you are totally correct. OEM software, by itself, is not pirated software.

Let me try and expain what I am referring to here. OEM software is sold at a reduced, volume, rate to certain manufacturers - such as Dell, HP, IBM, etc, etc. These OEM Versions are only meant to be bundled with that companies products, as agreed to in the licensing agreements/deals that they have made with the software publisher.

Now - currently there are many slightly less reputable dealers that are selling copies of OEM software, or even software that is not OEM, but referred to as OEM to the customer, in methods that are not those agreed to with the software publisher. Now, when you have a retailer that is selling an online downloadeble .ISO (the file that you can use to make your own CD version of the product - in some cases even bootable) - this is NOT something that is normally allowed by the software publisher.

Obviously I cannot speak for any other company then the one that I work for (since I work in the Anti Piracy division of a software publisher), but for us - this is not something that I understand is allowed - hence the comment about piracy - because in effect, the sale of any software that goes against the licensing agreement for said product, is piracy.

Sorry for any confusion there...

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Sorry - you are totally correct. OEM software, by itself, is not pirated software.

Let me try and expain what I am referring to here. OEM software is sold at a reduced, volume, rate to certain manufacturers - such as Dell, HP, IBM, etc, etc. These OEM Versions are only meant to be bundled with that companies products, as agreed to in the licensing agreements/deals that they have made with the software publisher.

Now - currently there are many slightly less reputable dealers that are selling copies of OEM software, or even software that is not OEM, but referred to as OEM to the customer, in methods that are not those agreed to with the software publisher. Now, when you have a retailer that is selling an online downloadeble .ISO (the file that you can use to make your own CD version of the product - in some cases even bootable) - this is NOT something that is normally allowed by the software publisher.
That's why you'll find that the legitimate companies selling OEM software online advertise it as clearance OEM -- they have purchased OEM provider clearances in anticipation of new releases, which is why you can find InDesign CS OEM for sale but I've yet to see CS 2 show up. There are indeed common, legitimate ways for an individual to purchase OEM software without being a business. For a small publisher, it's incredibly handy.

[kiln publications]

I use InDesign 2.0. I used to use Quark to do layout a newspaper and that worked fine. However I have noticed that if you also use Photoshop or Illustrator, InDesign works very well since they are all of the Adobe family. I think really if you look at it Quark vs. InDesign is like the Mac vs. PC situation. I do agree about that spell checker problem, that is why I use Word's before I place it.

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

However I have noticed that if you also use Photoshop or Illustrator, InDesign works very well since they are all of the Adobe family.
This true compatability is one of the key features for me -- I love that I can use .ai and .psd files in InDesign without worry.

[kiln publications]

Exactly, I am doing it right now at my job and to be able to drop a Photoshop file in is great. Right click and you can edit on the fly...

[Tim Gray]

One thing to watch out for, the spell checker uses British spellings. I reformatted Flotilla with it and it wanted me to change "center" to "centre". Kind of funny, really.
If only that were true. Even with the language set to UK English (aka "English" :P) it takes some convincing on certain words. So I'd guess changing the standard language to US English would fix your problem.

Someone wondered why you'd use the spellchecker in DTP rather than WP. I work straight into PagePlus for my RPG stuff. I don't get on with Word anyway, and PagePlus is where the words need to end up. I don't really use a spellchecker at all, but sometimes it's handy to scan for the red underlines to catch typos.


Serif has long had a policy of giving registered users access to cheap upgrades. So you could probably get an old version from the free site then pay a small amount for a recent one. The price jumped up a bit with v10; v9 would be fine (and I've stuck on that for now). Computer mags here had v7 on the cover CDs recently - that's a good stable version.

[Chikahiro]

Has anyone else used Multiad Creator?

I've used Creator for the past 4 years at my last job (newspaper ad designer). We've been using Creator 7 Professional for at least six months now. Nice program, works well. One or two(?) of the members of the user group I was subscribed to had actually used it for 4cp magazine work (ie, laying the whole dang thing out in it).

Everything was very easy to use, and I picked up on it quickly. Never used their "export as PDF" option, but the GA Press Association discouraged using that for any application (including InDesign, odd enough).

I liked the program so much I even bought a copy for my PC (we were using Macs at the office - I had a G5...sniff...). They had a special where you could get it for $299, whereas it normally sells for $499. They have a consumer version for $99 as well.

You might be able to find an older copy for cheap if you look around (they sell it to mostly newspapers, I think). If you have a Mac, then no problem. If you've got a PC, then you'll need to find at least version 6.0, which you (trust me) need to immediately update to 6.5 or 7.0 (6.0 had some issues on Mac, sure the PC version did also).

They've got trial versions at www.creatorsoftware.com.

Creator Pro vs Creator Desktop (consumer) feature wise:
http://www.creatorsoftware.com/products/creator_desktop/product/why_upgrade/
Very quick write-up:
http://www.kevinslimp.com/news.ez?viewStory=67&Form.sess_id=330291&Form.sess_key=1118686871

Our PDFs (either PS then distill or EPS then distill) had to work for three other papers in our area, and with (regularly) 6 others (sometimes more!) outside our area. No problems. Sadly, I can't say the same about the PDFs we sometimes received, but oh well (probably due to them being made incorrectly as opposed to problems with the program they were made with). Our PDFs interacted with Pagemaker, Quark and InDesign with no reported problems.

BTW, I'm not getting a kickback for this, but please mention my name - maybe they'll start :D

[daemonica]

What do I prefer?

I really like the Adobe software products in terms of precision. Quark was great, very user-friendly once you figured out the hotkeys and such.

What do I actually use?

A mixture of MS Word (which I hate) and the Adobe Professional Suite. I was blessed, and bought it (Adobe) with a student discount through school. S-u-p-e-r cheap. I've found that Word will never get your layout quite right, and the newest version has some gooey features that throws everything off.

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Word will never get your layout quite right.
Word has definate problems with WYSIWYG ouput when not using native formats, that's for sure. A big part of the problem is that it is too reliant upon the machine's drivers, which will obviously vary radically.

[ZombieButch]

I learned layout on Quark back in the day, and it's still my program of choice. I've got 5.0 installed right now, and it's been working fine for me, so I've seen no reason to upgrade to a newer version.

That said, I've been working with PageMaker lately (7.0 if I remember correctly) and it's not bad at all.

Mrs. Palehorse is the art director for her company, and has used Quark, PageMaker, and InDesign a hell of a lot more than I ever will. She still prefers Quark (because, like me, that's what she learned on... no surprise since we were classmates!) but uses InDesign for most projects as it's what most of the printers and other companies she works with use. She says she likes it more nowadays, since she's gotten used to it, much more so than when she first switched from Quark.

[PlaidRab]

Just a curious question for people out there. What is your preferred layout program, and why?

And...

What is the one that you actually use?

This questions actually double - when you consider that I am asking this in regards to both PDF products, as well as print...

Thanks!

Justin

In the past, I've used Pagemaker ( up through InDesign 1.5, timeline-wise ) for Lace and Steel, Nobilis ( Peach ), Modern Knights, RoboMACs, and Hearts, Swords, Flowers.

I'd had plans to move to InDesign on later projects, but as time's moved on, I've gotten more and more out of date with my InDesign purchases that I've decided to give Scribus a go for my next book.

[Jiawen]

I'd had plans to move to InDesign on later projects, but as time's moved on, I've gotten more and more out of date with my InDesign purchases that I've decided to give Scribus a go for my next book.I'm very slowly trying to get a book going via Scribus. It's going okay, but there are a lot of things that seem way too hard (re-editing text, for example, or applying styles to large sections of imported text). What do you think of it? Is it worth fighting with, or will I have to plunk down money to get a professional DTP app?

[PlaidRab]

I'm very slowly trying to get a book going via Scribus. It's going okay, but there are a lot of things that seem way too hard (re-editing text, for example, or applying styles to large sections of imported text). What do you think of it? Is it worth fighting with, or will I have to plunk down money to get a professional DTP app?

I'm mixed on it. I don't think, in my discussions with folks on IRC< anyone has done anything nearly as large as the type of products I've done in the past, let alone the uber pretty and far more complex stuff that bril folks like Reed and Mangold pitch out. I have found it is rather slow with large chunks of text, and this is partly due to some design assumptions they made (That you'll only put one chapter ina file or only do smaller documents, etc ) that just don't jibe with how I personally work.

That said, I think you should reexamine your workflow. The text should be near final before it is ever touched by the DTP.

Should you feel you need a "professional" app, I'd say go with InDesign purely based on the customer experience. Quark customer horror stories are far too common. :)

[Alias]

That said, I think you should reexamine your workflow. The text should be near final before it is ever touched by the DTP.

I second that -- especially if there are software problems when trying to set styles.

The way I do it, I try, as much as possible, to have style names on the text matching those in the DTP template. That way, all styles are already in place when importing the text into the template and everything is thus formatted as it should be. This calls for some bits of preparation, but also cuts down enormous amounts of work.

There is a reason for word processors: they are usually easier to use and more flexible for those kind of manipulation: editing text, placing styles, etc.

[Chikahiro]

Third that.

Don't forget:

You can search for stuff a lot easier in a WP.
You're more likely to find somebody (a friend, a proofreader, etc) who can open a WP file (Word, Wordperfect, etc) than a DP one. Most word processesors have some level of Microsoft Word compatability, so a *.doc file is pretty safe if need be. Or...
You can export as a PDF! Let them read/print it out of Acrobat Reader. It's just a proof, so hey, not bad...
Spellcheck, Grammar check, etc. Not foolproof, but still very good to have.

Just doing layout/design work, it's so much better to have everything you need lined up: correct materials, a layout, etc, so when you start putting everything together, well, no problem. Better than having to go back two-dozen times to correct stuff that should've been corrected before you got to that phase.

[Tim Gray]

None of this convinces me that getting everything done in WP before importing into DTP is important. But then I'm not involving other people in the process and I don't get on with Word. *shrug*

[Alias]

None of this convinces me that getting everything done in WP before importing into DTP is important. But then I'm not involving other people in the process and I don't get on with Word. *shrug*

Basically, that's your call. You may feel more comfortable working in DTP rather than WP; as long as it's fine with you, I'm cool. I'd encourage you to at least try this kind of workflow, at least once, just to get the feel of it. I have close to fifteen years of experience working as a layout artist for a magazine and now for an international organization, it took me some time to get to this conclusion.

Besides, you're not obliged to use Word if you don't like it; there are alternatives.

[PlaidRab]

None of this convinces me that getting everything done in WP before importing into DTP is important. But then I'm not involving other people in the process and I don't get on with Word. *shrug*

Until terribly recently, I did the bulk of my personal writing in VDE.

I don't you've heard of it. It's a handrolled in assembler ( not by me, I'm not that particular flavor of mad ) Wordstar clone. These days I often use nano or pico. Sometimes vi if in a particularly foul mood.

Word isn't terribly important unless you're dealing with a redlining/editing process that uses Word's change control functions. These days I'm plugging AbiWord (http://www.abisource.com) as a good, general purpose text editor. I'm unsure how well it's Word compat is with regard to change control, but it's pretty spiff otherwise. OpenOffice/StarOffice are ( or at least were when I used it for this last ) quite capable of coping with Word's change control.

IMRLPBSEE ( In My Real Life Paid By Someone Else Experience ) all that matter was the ability to generate a clean RTF. Many programs do that adequately.