Would anyone be able to explain to me in laymens terms on the differences in these three programs?

Im having a hrd enough time trying to teach myself one of em....BUt people tell me, that each one will do different thing I will need at some point...

Basically, I ewanna be able to design flyers, print ads, and stuff like that..nothing to crazy...

i have some basic knowlege of photoshop and feel comfortable in continuing with this one...

can i get away with just photoshop?

you can probably get away with sticking with photoshop. Quark is pretty much for laying out text-heavy pages like magazine or newspaper pages. Illustrator is good for creating vector images, but you can probably never need to do that.

You will never need Illustrator.

I hear Quark is way awesome at putting together graphics.

damn, i should have created a poll.

so one vote for quark, one for PS, and one to not use Illistrator at all..

im not spelling illistrator right, am i? looks wrong.

perhaps you could read the way other people are spelling it.

yeah, that seems kind of involved.
Ill figure it out one day!

It's doubtful you will need Illustrator. I don't use it often, since I'm really not an Illustrator at all, but I use it for logos since it's easier to limit color choices and resize to my hearts content without any loss of quality.

If you have Photoshop, it will work fine. When I first started using it I bought a couple of Scott Kelby's books to teach me a few techniques that really made life simpler and open a few doors. Some of the stuff is way to effect riddled for some practical tastes, but the basic steps and techniques were generally useful. After that, I got a Bert Monroy book and was blown away.

As for Quark, if you are paying for it, don't shell for it. It's a page layout program that can do anything from a business card to a book, really. If you need that sort of capability, get Adobe InDesign. Integrates very well with Photoshop and the other Adobe products, it has some fonts packaged in (Quark doesn't) and I've found the interface much friendlier and the learning curve isn't nearly as steep.

Just keep in mind that in the end, it's going to be your layout skills that really make it all work to your advantage, regardless of software.

Now that I think about it, are you on CC? I may be able to slip you an "archive" copy of InDesign 2.0. It's not the newest release, but you can at least try it out.

thanks ya.. i think i am gonna make a go of photoshop 7, which i got for free, and found a used copy of 'ps7 for dummies' online, which seems bout right for me...

They are 3 very different things.

Outside of somebody doing serious print layout work Quark is useless. It was created for doing magazines, newspapers, press material..that is all. Now that Adobe has gotten on the ball with InDesign you really don't need Quark at all either.

Illustrator is extremely useful for doing more graphic, less text/body intensive layout work, and for illustrations of course. It gets heavy use in most design studios, and has plenty of tools that Photoshop has no answer for despite recent additions of vector tools in photoshop. If you plan on doing any sort of print work and want to do image layout, Illustrator is the way to go.

Everybody loves photoshop, it is *the* tool to know of the three you mentioned. There are plenty of things that it can't do, but unless you are really going to be doing a lot content creation you probably won't need the other tools. If you want to touch up some photos or do some editing this is obviously the way to go. (yes, you can paint in it, or do text work, or do vector art..but it doesn't excell at those things.)

I don't know what you do for a living, or what you might be in school for, so it is hard to really tell you what to pick up. If you just want to learn something though by all means go with Photoshop. Otherwise:

Photoshop = Image editing, touch up
Illustrator = vector art creation, graphic text work, light layout work.
InDesign = PDF/Document creation, heavy layout work where text is involved
Dreamweaver = Web site creation, GoLive is crap
Flash = 2D animation and interface design, don't go to flash without knowing Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver first.

Well damn, sorry Kung Fu, didn't realize we were posting at about the same time there.

Thanks!!

Basically.. I have a record label.

I wanna be able to create flyers promoting the bands shows, which is liottle more then taking an existing picture, add some logo's and text above it....

really, nothing to nutty...seems that i picked the right one.

You should be fine, just work in hi-res (300 dpi) if you're machine is up to the task so the text and image stays sharp. Then, if you want a smaller file size for printing and moving to another machine or something save as a JPG with quality 10-12 and you should be fine for flyers and the like.

it kinda seems to me like you're being given some not-so-good advice, unintentionally of course, in that people are telling you that you can get away with using only Photoshop. Which, technically, is true, but believe me, Photoshop is not a good tool at all for text layout, and if you are going to be making flyers, you will run into the limitations Photoshop gives you with text in a hurry. Illustrator is so much better for text and so much easier to work with because it is vector based, and makes it so much easier to scale and move things (like text.) If you're using imagery on your flyer, scan it/make it/scale it/adjust it in photoshop, thin bring your image into Illustrator to put text on it. The text will be so much cleaner and easy to work with and you won't have to worry about pixelation or anything.

gotta side with brickhouse here. i basically never use p-shop for text these days.

KPH

illustrator - create vector art

photoshop - manipulate and modify images and art

quark - page layout app that can link art created in the apps above

my career demands that i use all 3 every day.

Xist covered it perfectly in his post above.

This is true, but considering a learning curve here, it would be even easier to use InDesign rather than Illustrator for layout and setting text. Illustrator can be pretty intimidating and there's a lot that will never get used. Plus, if they are just flyers that are going to be done short run and not high quality, the Photoshop job will work. It's not going to be an annual report or anything, but the average joe on the street or looking at the bulletin board in the record store really aren't going to give a shit. That's where the layout is going to set your design apart. From 3-5 feet away, most people will never see the pixelation.

Illustrator is not a particularly intuitive or user-friendly program for those with limited experience. Photoshop and InDesign, however, are much more similar and the chance of the user having even minor experience with another DTP application like PageMaker or heaven forbid even Publisher is much more likely than a passing knowledge of a vector-based app.

Given my grasp of the needs of the situation, Photoshop is the Ford Focus that will get you to work every day, but I wouldn't drive it to grandma's house two states away. InDesign is a more comfortable ride and will make your trip a bit easier and able to accommodate a few more passengers and their luggage. Illustrator is like buying a small plane with no pilot's license.

illustrator is my favorite program ever.
so much you can do with it that you can't do in photoshop.

you can probably get away with not ever learning Quark or InDesign if you aren just making flyers.

i disagree. illustrator is just as easy to learn as photoshop. in fact, i grasped the concept of illustrator much quicker than photoshop.

that is if you never want a job in the design industry. most firms [including the one i'm employed by] require extensive knowledge of quark or indesign [or both].

Fair enough. I still prefer InDesign for my daily layout tasks, and have gotten a warmer response than that for Illustrator. Why don't we pitch in and buy the whole CS suite, mark it up 40%, sell it to him, then split the take?

Bullshit. I use Illustrator everyday. And I'm just the receptionist.

maybe it's wishful thinking, but i don't think that's true at all. weather they know it or not i think people do notice those types of things. they might not consciously know why they like one flyer more than another, but i think they notice.

oh yah, i spend half my life on Quark. but he's just making flyers for himself.

or we just burn him copies and sell it to him for full price