Tricky dropout effect with Quark?

[katydid]

I've been trying to recreate my employer's logo with live fonts in Quark 6. It has this dropout effect that stumps me.

Have tried to convert Text to Box but the ampersand's line is soo fine, Quark quits on me when I try this.

Am I an idiot? (I'm pretty sure I could swing it with Photoshop, but our printer detests my using it...) Can you help?

[D-Frag]

why dont you use illustrator? i know you can do it in quark, i just cant think of it off the top of my head.

[CkretAjint]

why dont you use illustrator?

ditto

[katydid]

Woulda if I coulda -- we don't have it at work. Anyone whose opinion really counts there is a Quark disciple. (I don't know, still new here, but am wondering if they're just a titch out of date?)

[urstwile]

This doesn't help your problem, but they seriously need to invest in at least one copy of Illustrator.

What type of place is this that you're working at?

[katydid]

It's a gallery and a miniscule business (I'm their one part-time employee). usually I dig the challenge of creating something good with what we have. I am still on a steep learning curve, anyway -- was hired basically to update the website and help out anywhere possible -- and I don't kid myself I could create something gorgeous/smart at this point.

That said, we might be getting a new iMac with CS3...the sexiness of it all is a little intimidating! Does that mean I'm a tech prude?

[urstwile]

LOL, no, a neo-Luddite, maybe. ;)

Anyway, I think you'll find that you'll gain greater flexibility by having more tools to work with. All of the programs have their strengths and weaknesses. Quark was never meant to be a program to create logos with, it's meant to be a page layout application, so some of the things you can't do now having just Quark you'll more than likely be able to do with a broader set of tools.

The tools won't help you do better design, but they will be able to help you execute what you have in mind to do more easily.

[katydid]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. All the more I wish (in the meantime) I could use Photoshop to design everything -- the announcements and ads I do typically involve three, four lines of text and I always think the image handling is more important, anyway, since they're pieces for a gallery. Quark just strikes me as so clunky and I actually frequently have issues with the kerning I see onscreen being pretty different than in a printout. (screen resolution prob? Don't know)

Didn't mean to turn this into a Quark v. World thing...but it doesn't seem to fit what we do. Honestly a big reason I have to use it is so my boss can tweak things, as well, and she is not tech-savvy -- is overwhelmed by Photoshop (and I bet the same would go for Illustrator, sadly).

Will have to find a way to Illustrator on my own, anyway!

[Ned]

Just how much stuff does your company do, that requires better graphical capabilities than Quark provides?

Perhaps you could invest in the Adobe Creative Suite for yourself (if you don't already have it on your system), and tell your boss you can freelance your services to him, after work-hours. :D

After a while, he'll probably see the worth of purchasing the programs himself, so he can get your services at the discounted hourly wage he no doubt pays you. :)

[urstwile]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. All the more I wish (in the meantime) I could use Photoshop to design everything -- the announcements and ads I do typically involve three, four lines of text and I always think the image handling is more important, anyway, since they're pieces for a gallery....
Puh-leeze, do not use Photoshop to design everything, or think that you can, ever.

No, the image handling is not more important, or less important, it should be equal. Type is a harsh and unforgiving mistress. It doesn't look good when rasterized, for the most part, and your design is not well served by rasterized type that's been sacrificed to the vagaries of rasterization at 300 dpi print resolution.

Unless you have a) printers who can handle Photoshop EPS files with vector info saved, or b) a gazillion megs of RAM so that the resolution of your file can do your type some small amount of justice because you have your dpi set to at least 600-800 dpi, you'll be best served by handling your image needs in Photoshop and your type needs and layout in a layout program, like Indesign, Illustrator or Quark (stated in my personal order of preference, your preferences might vary).

[Ned]

like Indesign, Illustrator or Quark (stated in my personal order of preference, your preferences might vary).

Illustrator, InDesign, and Quark.

Oh sorry, were you not starting a preference poll? :rolleyes:

[urstwile]

Nope! :rolleyes:

[Typically]

why doesn't quark just go away already? i think i'd rather punch myself in the face then try to do a logo in it.

[katydid]

I see my noobiness is showing! :o
urstwhile, what you said about print resolution is just what our printer said when she forbid me to use it. stubbornly, I thought that if I saved the finished file as a PDF, the fonts would never be rasterized? (...as I'm writing this, the issue of flattening layers is looming its ugly head...maybe I'm damned to be rasterized in Photoshop, no matter what?)

Textual face-slaps welcome. It's the only way I'll learn!

Yup, I do frequently wish Quark would cough up a lung and die. But seeing as I'm fairly clueless, maybe I better reserve judgment here.

Ned, that's the reason I don't dare charge for freelance, although your idea sounds great for savvier designers.

[urstwile]

Check to see if your printer can handle a Photoshop EPS with vector info saved. If they can, then you can get it to work in Photoshop. However, some printers have trouble with this file format, so it's best to check first.