RE: desktop pubs was Re: "Dick Stevens' book."
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: desktop pubs was Re: "Dick Stevens' book."
- From: EJN Photo <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:23:04 -0500
- Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Thread-Index;b=OmapeIesMg9pO1AGQJIFQ0h0T3RL5xbb/VyU0VgHolo62SnM/xm0+s5dcTKNsk0Abcq1ypUcpIn8WYYzwhpAFdT161fxpU5Uy/O955jTRLuW1xRHDkIvgqFWy1IrtyTylyCHUcZ6zfeXUpy8CezRLzEmT+wTrxlbv/EH6vWG8Po= ;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AcdsxjOyjpRKPmrqShyU5nLyuqe0qAAChrqg
Ryuji, I have been a Indesign user since 2.0. It works very well for my
needs. Lightroom on the other hand, doesn't like large tiff files. It does
fine on the new scans, but it does not handle the "to print" files very
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
Skype : ejprinter> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suzuki [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:08 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: desktop pubs was Re: "Dick Stevens' book."
> I didn't follow where this came from, so it might have been
> I tried Scribus a couple of years back, and I decided that its
> of font files was vastly inadequate. The software at that time
> even use ligatures and the kerning information in the font was
> ignored. This is what most "office" softwares do, as their type
> handling is vastly inadequate, but I found this to be
> unacceptable for
> the type of software it is. Also Scribus was very slow and
> on Linux platform. I went ahead with Adobe InDesign CS2 and I'm
> happy with it. It may be that Scribus improved a lot since
> then, though.
> Now for a differet application but I think Lightroom is
> exciting. It
> does much better job than Bridge in CS2 in handling TIFF files
> I get
> from scanned negatives. I would love it if it had "scan"
> module... but
> even with a separate scan software it works very nicely.
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:49:39 -0600, "Gordon J. Holtslander"
> <email@example.com> said:
> > If you want to try an alternative to pagemaker try scribus
> > http://www.scribus.net/
> > Its free, will run on mac windows and linux.
> > Don't know if its "mature" enough for serious use.
> > I haven't used it enough to judge how it compares with
> pagemaker -
> > haven't used pagemaker for 15+ years either.
> > Gord
> > On March 22, 2007 5:26:26 am Erie Patsellis wrote:
> > > I agree, Pagemaker isn't the same since Adobe bought Aldus
> > > (hopefully that statement isn't showing my age). I can
> > > using framemaker on a NEXTCube, now that's vintage, though
> it was
> > > stable as hell, and display postscript that worked
> > >
> > >
> > > erie
> > >
> > > Judy Seigel wrote:
> > > > Eric wrote:
> > > >> When will I read it again? Perhaps after I get done
> playing with
> > > >> Lightroom and beating Adobe up for not allowing NON
> maximized PSD
> > > >> files to be imported or that there is no way to export a
> > > >> file of those files that don't get imported for any
> number of
> > > >> reasons. I also have a boat load of images just waiting
> to be
> > > >> processed.