Member Offer
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Which Program for which job?

Discussion in 'General Software & Hardware Forum:' started by Fade, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. Fade

    Fade New Member

    What do people reckon is the best program to use for different things?

    Like...

    Web Layout - Photoshop...?
    Logos - Illustrator....?
    Posters - ?
    Print - ?

    etc. etc.

    I ask because I've only really ever done Web and a bit of logo design, but want to branch out more, so what do people think?

    :icon_smile:
     
  2. JMCDesigner

    JMCDesigner Member

    web layout-photoshop/after effects/fireworks
    Logos - Illustrator
    Posters - Illustrator
    Print - InDesign/Quark/Illustrator

    I sometimes use photoshop to do posters, but only because I'm more familiar with the prog. Should probably use Illustrator tho, for clarity of text :icon_tongue_smilie:

    I think that covers it?
     
  3. Helen

    Helen Member

    I use illustrator for practically everything, transferring into photoshop if needed
     
  4. Pixels Ink

    Pixels Ink Member

    I'm pretty much the same as yourself Helen and I've not hit any brick walls so far.
     
  5. dogsbody

    dogsbody Member

    Horses for courses. I use Quark, ID, Il, PS depending on what I need to achieve.
     
  6. LovesPrint

    LovesPrint Member

    Can't speak for web
    Logos - illustrator
    Posters - illustrator or InDesign (maybe photoshop if there are images involved and they require touching up)
    Print - InDesign or Quark generally. Some single page stuff can be done in illustrator, multipage (brochures etc) should always be done using a page layout programme like InDesign or Quark.
    Photoshop for pics.
     
  7. iguana_02

    iguana_02 New Member

    web layout: Illustrator, Photoshop, Notepad

    Logos: llustrator

    Posters: Illustrator

    Print: Illustrator, Indesign

    But Illustrator is the base for everything...;)
     
  8. NeedForBleed

    NeedForBleed Member

    Illy, Quark and Indy for print.

    All else in photoshop and illustrator, sometimes fireworks for those animated gifs for web.

    Microsoft publisher for creating fridge posters for my nan.
     
  9. jamjar

    jamjar New Member

    Yeah, I'd agree with the general consensus. I came to the party as a web designer and software developer so very much in the same vain as you Fade.

    My business partner, Emma is the graphic design genius and she swears by Illustrator for almost everything. We do use InDesign a lot for document origination - a lot of designers will still use Illustrator (and Emma did for quite a few years) but this can really affect your workflow, InDesign is very, very powerful - my advice, don't overlook it.

    Another really important consideration is that some clients may need adaptation to existing documents or ask you to work with specific software - this is a pain if you aren't up to speed with other programs. Don't get me started with Quark, for example, it is so lightweight compared with InDesign but you will probably need to invest in a copy at some point otherwise you will miss out on revenue.

    Tom
     
  10. JohnRoss

    JohnRoss Member

    Dunno what you are using them for, but I don't really get that 'lightweight.' Quark is still the application of choice for editorial design. If you only have to do brochures or business cards (I know you don't have to do business cards, I've looked at your website - and I'm pretty damn impressed - but if you did), InDesign would probably be more suitable.
     
  11. jamjar

    jamjar New Member

    Cheers for the compliments John,

    I guess what I mean is that we always find Quark pretty inflexible and lacking some of the functionality of InDesign. Most of the agencies, magazines etc we have worked with are moving away from Quark and every designer I've discussed this with (dare I say) "hated it". We only use Quark when we are dealing with legacy files - I think we have been asked to originate in Quark once which was an experience and a half.

    As always I guess it's down to personal preference.

    Tom
     
  12. JohnRoss

    JohnRoss Member

    I'm running the risk of being a bore, and if you or anyone else has different preferences to ours, fair enough, as you say, but I had a little 'eureka' moment reading that - a couple of things which I think are relevant to the topic of this thread.

    First, that 'originate.' We are never expected to do that, that's what the publisher does. We're supposed to put the publisher's ideas into practice (I'm new at this, and it might be the way our little corner of the editorial design world works, but I had the idea that was what most graphic design was about. If it isn't the author or publisher, it's an agency or a PR genius, or whatever - someone else has the ideas, the designer makes them reality). Anyway, we (or strictly speaking, my wife) find(s) Quark more effective for that purpose.

    Secondly, I have the impression lots of offices are being seduced by InDesign and away from Quark, not because it is better, but in the same way they were convinced years ago to abandon WordPerfect in favour of Word. WP was by far the better app, but Word was cheaper, easier for non-experts and, crucially, Word came with the Office suite. Adobe is doing the same with InDesign and the CS series as Microsoft did.

    I find myself led to a reflection which might be relevant for someone choosing which software to learn how to use. Is that 'funcionality' of InDesign another way to say 'it does some of the work for me,' in other words, are InDesign users letting the program take over some of the actual design process? If so, I would have thought it was something to be resisted at all costs. Next thing you know, there'll be people considering themselves designers because they know how to use FrameMaker. Or FrontPage. :icon_yucky:
     
  13. matobo

    matobo Member

    Hi John. Just so that you know... I think the 'originate' mentioned above is used in the context as a 'preparing for outputting to print' term (brilliant English hey?) ;0) It has nothing to do with the initial origination of the idea or concept behind the artwork.

    :icon_thumbup:
     

Share This Page