Comments on: How to Copy a Color from a Picture in QuarkXPress

By: Jay Nelson

Jay Nelson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:19:40 +0000

Kieran: The Picture Effects palette can be opened/closed from the Window menu: Window> Show Picture Effects. See http://planetquark.com/2009/11/04/safely-export-pictures-from-quarkxpress/ for more fun with that feature…

By: Kieran

Kieran — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:54:07 +0000

Wow, a lotta angry dudes out there! I LOVE QUARK 8. It really is fab. Long over due but brings us long time users back up there, right at the top.
Q for Jay; this might give everyone a laugh, but WHERE is the picture effects palette!!! ? Q8.1

By: D Siddharthan

D Siddharthan — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:57:41 +0000

Sir,

I selected 5th colour of Pantone or spot in a image of Photoshop. How do out put or make pdf file of 5 colours (c+m+y+k+Pantone) from QuarkXpress. Please some one know let us.

By: geozinger

geozinger — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:37:01 +0000

I have to concur with Fred, don’t buy into the whole ‘software as a religion’ attitude, it just limits you more than you can know.

Having 25 years in the business, going from drawing tables to all computer production, I have learned all kinds of software and all have their drawbacks and advantages.

Keep an open mind.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:11:21 +0000

Back in the day, I was the first in my agency’s creative department to use Indesign (much to our production coordinator’s consternation). Why? Because it was out there, so I needed to know how to use it.

I am currently the last in this department to start projects in Quark, but still do so at every opportunity. Others must be able to work with those files, and I don’t allow any Markzware conversions. Why? Because Quark’s out there, and everyone needs to know how to use it.

Quark was complacent when it was it, but Adobe is Microsoft with a smile.
Each does some things better than the other. Don’t voluntarily limit your toolkit.
People who pigeonhole themselves into any one app are eventually crippled.

By: FOX

FOX — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:35:47 +0000

quark is great I love it, indesign is soul less and i only ever use it if I have to, I usually just recreate in quark, yes its behind the times but what it lacks in bells and whistles it makes up for in being simple and easy to use.

By: Michael H

Michael H — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:20:31 +0000

Well I just have to weigh in on what Dee brought up. The medium-sized agency where I work has several print designers equally proficient with InDesign and Quark. Some of our legacy and inherited files are in InDesign, but every one of us prefers to design print materials, from ads to brochures to catalogs, etc. from scratch with Quark. The type handling workflows and windows of Quark are hands down better (read: get your work done faster) than InDesign. On the other hand, InDesign is marginally easier/faster with image editing (like the eyedropper tool) but remarkably awkward with image sizing and cropping. In addition, every pre-press at large printers that we use prefers Quakr.

Dee brings up a good point, though, since Adobe gave away thousands of copies of CS to schools, the young have had little or no exposure to Quark. The result is rabidly uninformed kids (like Dee) who wouldn’t survive a week in a hyperactive design studio. I know this because every summer an intern or two leaves the office after a week in tears because “the real world is just not like art school,” sniff, sniff.

For an unbiased report comparing Quark with InDesign go here:
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/report_qxpvsidcs/

On another (related) topic, we’re starting to design simple web sites with Quark Interactive. So far so good, and MUCH faster than any other app (NightmareWeaver anyone?) and beautifully WYSIWYG. The code is a bit awkward, but who cares if it works? We’ve seen some European sites supposedly done all in Quark with good Flash that are fantastic. Europe is the new California–everything good in design is happening there first.

Thanks for letting me rant, Jay… Mike

By: Jay Nelson

Jay Nelson — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:22:49 +0000

Kevin, the steps you’re outlining are true for someone who has no intention of using this feature. But for those who do use it, the palette will be open, the info part will be displaying, and I believe the number of clicks do indeed match my previous observation.

I agree (definitely!) that Quark should have added an eyedropper tool about 10 years ago. They should have added a number of features 10 years ago…

I can also make a lengthy list of features that Adobe took 10 years too long to implement. Seriously. In particular, Illustrator lagged significantly behind FreeHand because they were afraid to cannibalize sales of Photoshop, PageMaker, and now InDesign.

This tip is simply a description of how to work around Quark’s lack of an eyedropper tool. Can’t we just leave it at that?

By: Jay Nelson

Jay Nelson — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:15:41 +0000

Well hey, Dee! Aren’t you nice? Thanks for your constructive comments, and for contributing helpful information to this “by QuarkXPress users, for QuarkXPress users” website. When you learn more about how QuarkXPress works, and how many of its features surpass other products, your contributions will be even more valuable.

By: Dee Sadler

Dee Sadler — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:02:38 +0000

The eyedropper tool is just the letter I on your keyboard. Most Adobe programs use similar keyboard shortcuts and of course you can change them all to be the same.

The fact that QuarkXsucks has image effects gives me the creeps. Why would you want to change those things in there instead of Photoshop, which if I remember even Quark can even go back and forth between these days. From your screenshots, it looks like Quark has only changed minimally since the old days.

Plus you’d have to type those values in, or are you already taking that into the steps. So you had to choose an image effect, then write down the values, then type them into a new swatch. Versus InDesign where you type the letter I on your keyboard, choose the color, and drag that into the swatches panel.

So Quark still only has a few tools? Weird. How about making a PDF? What engine does it use? Not Adobe’s I am sure. What about gradients? Are they actual gradients instead of blends?

Sorry, not that I care, I just heard about a Quark website and I had to see it for myself that Quark was still being talked about by someone. Not even most schools teach Quark any more do they? It had it’s time, and I hated it then, glad to see it lose it’s place on top of the hill. Competition is a good thing, as it learned the hard way.