[mike_1337]

Hey,

From what I've read, it seems Quark + InDesign are the most popular for doing this - but can this be done in photoshop alone? We're talking maybe 30 pages

Someone asked me to look into making a magazine for them.

Cheers
Mike

[bumfluff]

mike_1337, on May 10 2008, 13:06, said:

Hey,

From what I've read, it seems Quark + InDesign are the most popular for doing this - but can this be done in photoshop alone? We're talking maybe 30 pages

Someone asked me to look into making a magazine for them.

Cheers
Mike

It could, but it'd look cheaply done. Photoshop is for bitmap stuff, and you need vectors for clarity in a magazine

[notbanksy]

mike_1337, on May 10 2008, 13:06, said:

Hey,

From what I've read, it seems Quark + InDesign are the most popular for doing this - but can this be done in photoshop alone? We're talking maybe 30 pages

Someone asked me to look into making a magazine for them.

Cheers
Mike

I think photoshop could do it, but I think you'd find quark, Indesign or Scribus (free & open source) might be better suited to the job. Quark is not that hard to learn, I can't speak for the other two.
I recently did a CD booklet in Photoshop and I found it a bit of a pain...

[kip0130]

Use idesign or illustrator. there not that hard to do.

[Dizi]

Photoshop can be fine just remember 2 things if this magazine is for print:

300dpi

CYMK



there we go sorted


EDIT: the reason why indesign and quark are used is because they are made for print work so you can see how each of the pages will look and flow as a magazine, as they are all held in the same document. You can also position pages together so you can see how double pages would look. So it just makes it easier really

[bumfluff]

Dizi, on May 10 2008, 21:18, said:

Photoshop can be fine just remember 2 things if this magazine is for print:

300dpi

CYMK

Disagree there. There's a noticeable difference in quality when you compare even 300dpi text to vector output. It just doesn't have the same crispness. You could maybe get away with it on titles and headers and stuff, but I really wouldn't want to read a whole article of bitmapped text.

[Dizi]

Actually with the correct settings it can look just as good, and the text can be crisp. You just have to know all the right settings. This why photoshop can be fine and I know this because I used to cheat when I was running late for a hand in on my Graphic Design degree, if I didn't have time to go and use Quark on the uni macs I would use photoshop on my pc, and my high quality prints looked just as good as everyone else's who used Quark xpress.

Photoshop is used by a lot of print people for high quality posters and adverts in magazines...if the quality of text was as bad as your implying it wouldn't be used.


I am not at all saying it is the best option, he asked if it can be done in photoshop alone and it can be...it will take more time when doing lots of pages and you wouldn't have the more specialist tools that you have in something like Indesign, but it can be done.

[bumfluff]

Dizi, on May 11 2008, 10:13, said:

Photoshop is used by a lot of print people for high quality posters and adverts in magazines...if the quality of text was as bad as your implying it wouldn't be used.

Posters and ads aren't the same as articles. First off, even on an ad, you wouldn't normally be using bitmap text for regular copy. For display copy, sure, but that's generally much shorter and larger.. even then, it would be unusual unless there were a particular need for it to be bitmapped (perhaps text effects or something). Second, there's a lot less text in ad/poster than in a magazine, so print quality isn't such an issue as it would be when there's a lot of small text.

I'm not sure how bad I implied the quality was, but I'd still stand by my opinion that it's unsuitable for a magazine. Yes, you could do it.. but then, you could lay out a magazine using MS Paint. Personally, I wouldn't use bitmap text for laying out whole articles because I don't think the result would be of an acceptable standard. I guess it depends on how the designer or client defines an acceptable standard.

[Dizi]

Have you looked at some ads that people do in photoshop, how small some of the text is and how crisp it can be? Have you seen some of the ads published in magazines that you know are done in photoshop as you were there at the process? Some of them look like articles themselves the amount of text they place in them.

I am not saying that it is the best way, as it isn't at all the best way to do it, but it isn't as bad as you are implying it to be. Thinking and knowing are two totally different things...but you have your opinion and I have mine. I agree photoshop is not the best option, but won't agree that the quality will be as bad as you say it will, as my eyes don't lie to me. I just know from past experience how it looks...but if you are implying that my eye for detail isn't great then that is fine, your entitled to that opinion also, but as you haven't seen any of my print work then its a misguided assumption.


So we will just agree that we disagree on the matter as I could go on and on about this but I know when to stop, as I know we will never agree.

[notbanksy]

Dizi - I'd be interested to know how much more difficult it is to make high quality print products in photoshop other than specifying CYMK and 300 dpi?
If you have time...

[bumfluff]

Just to set the record straight, I haven't been doing any 'implying'. There's no hidden meanings about you having bad eyesight or standards or whatever. I've got no reason to imply anything when I could just come right out and say it - IF that's what I wanted to say.

[Dizi]

Sorry this bit seemed like a dig at me for saying photoshop can produce high quality text:

Quote

I wouldn't use bitmap text for laying out whole articles because I don't think the result would be of an acceptable standard. I guess it depends on how the designer or client defines an acceptable standard.

@notbanksy, I'd be happy to when I have time but friends have just shown up so I should really entertain, when I have more time I will

[bumfluff]

Dizi, on May 11 2008, 16:50, said:

Sorry this bit seemed like a dig at me for saying photoshop can produce high quality text:

Nah. We just have different opinions.. I'm not going to get personal over that.

What I meant there is that print quality isn't always the number one priority (eg, fanzines, or something with a deliberately homegrown look).. whether it is or not is something that the designer and client can decide. Sorry if it came across wrong.

[notbanksy]

Dizi, on May 11 2008, 17:50, said:

Sorry this bit seemed like a dig at me for saying photoshop can produce high quality text:
@notbanksy, I'd be happy to when I have time but friends have just shown up so I should really entertain, when I have more time I will

Thanks Dizi
Enjoy your social gathering

[kip0130]

Photoshop for printing text? shame.... Photoshop doesn't render the glyphs as illustrator or in design would. Ie,vector outputs while photoshop is raster. If your going to print text out in PS like i did a few years back i would design in 600DPI as thats the max the human eye can recognize.

Good luck.

[Mark]

from my experience Indesign is 10 times more friendly that quark, and if you design suite premium cs3 then i'd advise using illustrator for artworking and design for layout and print files.

[mike_1337]

Tried out scribus ... great software + FREE!