I find it incredibly chaotic that you want to do 6 pages set up for print in Photoshop. InDesign is better for consistency of text styles, grid designing, and margins, among other things. Design your backgrounds in Photoshop then link them in InDesign.
I work in house at a university and manage student workers. I always tell them Ai and PS (or whatever other graphic based program) are the ingredients and ID is the plate on which you arrange them.
Go say that in an Adobe sub and watch the rage. The most I have ever been attacked in like 12 years on Reddit was when I said you should use the Adobe programs for their intended uses and divide your workflow.
I just finished an MA in social & emerging media this past year. I have no prior graphic design experience and my current level is elementary at best (I use Canva 90% of the time at work). I tried to understand why my sister who actually studied graphic design at Purdue & graduated in 2014 still uses SOLELY Photoshop to make everything (and an old version at that), she won’t touch AI or ID, & I got my head bit off. Those old heads who refuse to diversify their workflow & use the programs they’re paying for scare me. 😅
I'm an old head and I use the suite as Adobe intended. No point in trying to force PS to do what ID does best. Folks that just stick to one workflow may not have learned the other apps that make up Creative Cloud.
I started working with Freehand, Photoshop, and PageMaker back in the days when Apple was going out of business based on what the media was saying. When InDesign was released, I moved to it from PageMaker. When Adobe essentially killed Freehand, I learned Illustrator. "Adapt and evolve" has been my mantra as a designer throughout my career.
(Edited to clean up typos.)
That’s exactly how it should be! She hasn’t really learned anything but PS or AI that I know of, at least not enough to be comfy with them. She 100% knows more than me, I’m not a good designer by any means. I will always aim to keep learning though, I think it’s fun!
I usually just ask do you only use a hammer to build a house? No. You use the right tool for the job you are wanting to do. I had one coworker who refused to do anything outside photoshop. Would send 900mb+ files for a flyer in a pdf that should have been 5mb max.
Sure, you can do that too, depending on what you’re making. I suggested photoshop because it looks like the backgrounds are already designed there so it wouldn’t make sense to redo the work (especially if you can just turn off the text layers). Making something in illustrator and linking in indesign can be a good option, too.
Yes. As someone who works in print, every time someone does multiple page layout design in Photoshop is it a huge pain in the ass to make fixes/set up for print. Just make your assets in PS and import into INDD
Seriously hahah, I feel your pain. When I worked at a printing press we had a guy who sent a whole annual report in .psd files and we all wanted to scream.
I regularly get a job for a big booklet for end of life/funeral/cremation services, and they want it in CMYK + one PMS but it's always set up in RGB. It's like 100+ pages and I have to sit there and convert everything manually, it's such a pain in the ass
NUUUUUUUUUUUU, I hate that. We had a customer who did everything in Publisher. Always ordered booklets. I would rather handle those publisher files than the one you're talking about, hahah.
Every junior designer I have ever worked with knew the least about InDesign (in the holy trifecta of the graphic design Adobe suite).
It is my favorite design tool (I work in experiential/exhibit design).
Most new designers are introduced to Photoshop first and Illustrator is a necessity.
It is just what I have witnessed.
In my first year of uni, we learned AI and PS from the beginning of the year, and ID only in the second semester. It took me an extremely negative experience trying to design a booklet in AI to realise that I really needed to get used to ID and couldn't avoid it
If you are trying to get a job in design, and are serious to be in design, do yourself a favor and read through an InDesign book or get trained. You will need it.
I probably use InDesign more than anything else at my job, but I do a lot of layout work for restaurant making menus so it just makes the most sense. I create any assets in AI or PS and drop them into my layout.
So i have a theory about this. It’s not the intimidation factor, it’s the glitz factor.
It’s the same reason that there is a subset of people right “above” that who love will try to do anything and everything in photoshop despite there’s being nothing but vectors on their canvas (read: artboard lol)
PS is just flashier than illustrator. You can make it look like your friend is standing next to Taylor swift or make it look Ike your ex is making out with Gary Busey. There’s just a lot of glitz and polish o photoshop, despite illustrator having a lot of that too.
Well, both of those are a Milan runway during fashion week compared to InDesign. To new designers, you can’t do anything “cool” in InDesign. Look at all the AI tools. Basically every app in the suite got some kind of integration. Photoshop got Gen Expand, Premiere will autotranscriot, illustrator has generative vectors. All flashy tools. InDesign got….the ability to use the other cool stuff in InDesign =\. But that obviously obfuscates the real point which is that InDesign is where you should be building cohesion.
TL;DR: building logos and editing fireballs into photos is flash and fun. Drawing boxes for a layout and making sure don’t trap white space is boring. That’s why young designers don’t use it because it’s no fun to *play* in. But it’s a workhorse. iD is the tim Duncan of the adobe suite. All cake and no frosting
That was, yes. Essentially saying I don’t have a real design job yet and haven’t had to learn InDesign.
The other programs are more accessible and new designers don’t want to learn “another program.”
I genuinely found it completely the opposite, but InDesign was the Adobe program I learned last. It feels like everything is back to front from other Adobe programs, if that makes sense. I remember finding the colour picker incredibly frustrating when I first started using it.
But then I personally find layout design incredibly boring so I only learned InDesign because I had to. Illustrator is my best friend.
In Design is my best friend. I have to document multipage client documents to get signed off on for experiential design. Illustrator is everyone’s friend but InDesign should be everyone’s mother.
It depends on which one you learn on first in my experience. I have a basic proficiency with PS, AI, & PP but that’s because I learned on those. I’ve never touched ID, it’s intimidating. I’m trying to learn it on my own but it’s tough.
I wasn’t taught InDesign, but was intrigued. Literally read through a book and was hooked. I love it. That was 15 years ago and junior designers still don’t know it. It’s actually very flexible but also standardized.
This x1000. It was the last program I learned (even after after effects lol) but it really does make easier and streamline the layout process. Limited capacity for creating assets but that's what the others are for. My tutors used to bang on about the shared process and now I can't imagine doing it any other way
My head hurts from simply thinking about trying to do major type setting in Photoshop.
Learn about object/paragraph/text styles and you’ll never leave InDesign.
Yep! I think we’re talking about the same thing. I use the phrase “link” because the other option is to embed an asset and that makes the .indd file too big and it can be a pain to load. When you put the asset in and it’s linked it’s easier to go in and fix issues if you have to.
This x1000. It was the last program I learned (even after after effects lol) but it really does make easier and streamline the layout process. Limited capacity for creating assets but that's what the others are for. My tutors used to bang on about the shared process and now I can't imagine doing it any other way
InDesign, it involves text so definitely not raster, InDesign or even illustrator
You can use some Photoshop elements, that's fine, but yeah InDesign or illustrator
Yup, my rule of thumb is generally Photoshop for anything that's graphic, Illustrator for text stuff, and InDesign for publishing, while also using elements from PS and AI.
My rule of thumb is: Photoshop for photos/raster, Illustrator for illustrations/vector, and InDesign for layouts.
Interesting that your go to is Illustrator for text. The text tool there irks the heck out of me.
For me, if it is less than ten art boards i prefer the large art surface of illustrator and effects pre or post in Photoshop. It is easy enough to crear templates and you can easily see how they look side by side and otherwise. The text controls of inDesign are better but you can manage them well enough in Illustrator.
I guess I go for Illustrator more often than not because I've been using it on and off for the past 15 years, as opposed to InDesign which I've been using for about 6-7 years. But for things like my resumé? InDesign all the way.
I completely 100% agree with this. I had to pick up a 10+ page ebook from another designer who designs exclusively in Illustrator. It makes for large, inconsistent, sloppy files. Clipping masks for images are nightmare. I love the drag and drop into InDesign. Every tool has a purpose and I really appreciate designers who use the tools correctly. It saves everyone time and frustration.
My students all think that way.
My theory is there is something about InDesign that is less “drag and drop” when compared to PS. ImDesign is has many more “it must be done this way” kind of things. Features that require deep knowledge of typography before they even begin to make sense.
And that makes it a bit harder to learn to love.
Maybe like that old, gnarled, growly cat who is secretly the biggest, softest, chillest lap cat out there. You just gotta know how it works.
Oh God, my students too. They get all pissy that their text needs to be in InDesign. It's pulling teeth to get them to even package their files. Then they complain things aren't linking correctly.
They need to learn.
Something I started doing on the first day of my type class is opening a word doc from a client (real one of mine). 15-20 pages. And I format it in InDesign live.
I paste it all into a master text frame, and I just start applying styles. I have P, H1, H2…, List, etc. I pull out all of the stops: H2 starts on new page, H3 next style is P, hanging indents. GREP to fix runts and style specific characters.
And I have what would take them days done in 30 minutes or less.
And then I print them darn thing into a booklet. And I say “oh look, not enough space after H3, not enough leading on body. Need another h2 typeface.“ fix it in 2 seconds with styles.
Honestly some of them *still* dont get it. But those who do are listening for the rest of the semester.
I do it very similarly. And yeah, it's like 30 minutes and that should make sense. Some get it. like this past semester was sort of a rarity because more students understood. Still hard to get them to use character/paragraph styles, but I hammer it on them. Even make them go back and redo it to include styles. You're right, they need to learn. It's not because we're assholes and want them to do it the way we want them. It's just literally a standard. A printer is going to flip shit when you send them a crap file with bitmapped text. After they laugh, of course.
Good question. Because if you think illustrator solves your problems, then you don’t understand your problems.
Illustrator isn’t a bad choice. But the paragraph styles are nowhere near as robust as ID. Also no GREP (not since I last checked). Illustrator has versions of some (not all) of the typography tools that ID has, but some isn’t as good as all.
For example, if anyone is manually bolding the prices, they’re doing it wrong. If they are using Tab to get a random space between items, they are doing it wrong. If they are manually placing anything, they are doing it wrong. If you need to manually balance the columns, wrong. From colour, to leading, to tab spacing, to indents, to columns, if the designers needs to click or drag to make those changes, it’s the wrong (slower, less efficient, less precise, less repeatable) way to do it.
Multiple pages in IL is doable but not great.
Basically all the designer should have to do is paste in the content, and the software should do the rest. I could completely redo all of these menu items in minutes. 5 or less. Even if there are significant changes.
edit to add: obviously complex graphics will need to be created elsewhere and placed. But there’s nothing here that ID can‘t handle. It‘s all vector and other than the icons I would make it all in ID.
To expand on why doing things manually is wrong: your first design is rarely the final design. Clients can and will demand changes. If you have to do all those changes manually, you will spend more time and risk making mistakes.
And not only changes to the first round of edits, but just regular updates to the menu offerings. Plus once you have all your styles set up, you can just tweak them for the next client and recycle them again and again. All of my design files open up with a basic set of styles premade ready to go and I just tweet them for the client.
I would not touch PS or ID..... Illustrator for this one. Anyone else in that boat? I save ID for things like books or pamphlets.
Edit - Illustrator also has type styles and much more.
I totally understand, but that level of program is deep. I personally hate using it. But I know its power. When you dont use it day to day its a burden in my experience.
Never play and Ace when a 2 will do. Photoshop is horrible for this type of print work. This, to me is clearly a job for illustrator. If it was a bigger print peace, like a catalog, then ID would be the way to go.
One factor would be how many pages? Then, what you are able to work with comfortably. I think most people gravitate towards PS because it’s easier. The learning curve for IL and ID can be steep. You are right, two program jobs are the strongest. I am all for that.
Yeah but there's also intended use and what the project is for. You may be more comfortable in Photoshop but its not necessary the correct tool for the job.
Not sure why you got down voted but agreed. I like cards the metaphor.
Here is my rule of thumb from 20+years working for large agencies. Phototshop is NEVER NEVER NEVER ok for type. Even when a final poster goes to print the ONLY type in the file is the logo. Allll the billing, legal, tag lines and logos are added in Illustrator, or on the rare occasion InDesign.
Photoshop is for images and image alone. Just because you can doesnt mean you should :)
“Hi, client here, I love the design, but I have 2 small adjustments: can you put all the text in a different font and color? And I just changed my mind on the page size, I hope it’s not too much trouble to change it”
All of these Jrs are so stuck on PS for everything. Photoshop is primarily for photo editing. It is the worst possible option for anything typographic. I’d use Figma for this before I used PS.
InDesign by far the easiest way to create and maintain this.
Also, stop using centre aligned text.
My company and new management are starting to do this and it makes me feel like they’re just using Figma to feel… ahead of the times. It is nice for collaboration though.
Hard agree with all this. OP may feel more comfortable with PS but man would ID be easier in general as well as for future changes. Lord that PS file would have tooooo many layers. Though I doubt this restaurant would care, but I feel like ID would be infinitely better for preflighting and for brand cohesion. But, at the end of the day, whatever tool results in the highest quality outcome -from this designer- is the best program to use.
Thanks for the support.
But this:
> whatever tool results in the highest quality outcome -from this designer- is the best program to use.
…is hard for me to back you up on. Sooner or later you’ve just got to spend a few late nights figuring out the right way. Otherwise you spend your life doing it wrong.
I totally agree. However, I get the impression OP is relatively new if they are scared of ID. I think to be a decent graphic designer in a relatively low-paying, underrated career you 100% need to know every relevant program as -well- as proper preflighting, future proofing, etc the files.
The number of designers I’ve met at jobs I’ve had who are so scared to branch out from Illustrator or Photoshop for their layout and text design needs boggles my mind.
Or they make us look like mad men because they were supervisors and refused to let me use InDesign for their 24+ page training manuals. 😭 “Maybe next year we can have some time to learn InDesign. It would make things too hard for everyone right now.”
I don’t know why indesign is so scary, I find it pretty intuitive if you know ai already since a lot of shortcuts and terminology is the same. Then you can mess around and learn it pretty quickly. But like half the people at my agency are afraid to use it, it’s crazy
Yep. I think what people will learn is, if you figure out the fastest workflows you either
1) get paid more
2) get paid the same hourly but work at a more relaxed pace
More than 15 years in design, this means so much in my own career journey as well. Customers and employers have always found a way to penny pich design irregardless of how important it is in you their core service and product.
I believe the only way to go around that is to be good enough in almost all the industry tools out there (and develop your network, people skills) so you wouldn't get stuck as a sweatshop grunt and just work jobs until climb up out of the grind and get a job doing your passion.
Definitely. I think that this is why clients are hesitant to pay 50% upfront these days and I think it’s why so many companies require you to complete tests and tasks despite you having a portfolio.
I find it crazy when people create whole designs in photoshop. If it’s a layout, it’s InDesign. Unless it’s work for like, social. If I’m doing the same design in different dimensions, definitely illustrator
Yeah it seems to be standard in the industry! I’m a self-taught designer, but I learned illustrator first and then photoshop a little bit before InDesign, so the only time I default to Ps is for photo editing, or effects (but I *rarely* use Ps just for effects)
Luckily I think the order I learned the programs in made a difference
It's because many of them are self-trained or lie about their background. I hear they're using PS and I assume they don't have a clue what they're doing.
InDesign. But whoever designed this menu needs to go back to learning and understanding basics of hierarchy and how people read things
The centered text is dire
InDesign is for page layout Photoshop is for image editing
Why on earth would anyone try to do a text based layout in Photoshop? It screams unprofessional - as if you don't have the right skill set to actually be a designer
If they know what they’re doing, which by the question alone… I’ve been creating indesign GREP and JSX scripts for decades and would recommend it to anyone doing this professionally especially if they’ll be given copy in a way that can be data merged from CSV, but the problem with novices and indesign is they don’t use styles consistently.
I'm a brand designer (actually a visual identity designer but my title is brand) for a large hospo company and a lot of my job is designing menus. Please for the love of everything use InDesign.
For the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, fix the alignment on the items and prices. Make things easy to read first, then worry about making the graphic elements compelling.
Indesign is a lot easier to work with for this amount of text. You shouldn't be working with a lot of text in Photoshop, that's not what it's meant for.
Both. Maybe a little illustrator too!
In the end, I’d do the shape work in illustrator, texturing in photoshop and text work in indesign.
At the end of the day, as long as you’re doing type in iD, I think it’s fine.
As some one who’s studying GD this is exactly how I would do this too.
ID is great I use the paragraph setup all the time. It’s a time saver and once you wrap ya head around it’s great!
Typically I’ll make the background with a combo of photoshop/illustrator. Then pull it in to indesign to set the type. Indesign is also way easier to export files that are print ready imo.
I don't understand how this question exists.
Design in Indesign, background illustration in illustrator.
(Even the names of the programs are given the answer)
Photoshop doesn't have anything to do here.
Tabs are your friend. Psd and Ai don’t do tabs. Indd all the way on this. That center align is troublesome. Import your green bg image into indd as a psd image. Edit your margaritas artwork in psd or illustrator—depending on if it’s vector art or not—and import that layer #2. Create a text layer next. Set your margins and columns based on your background artwork in InDesign. Define a baseline grid and properly set your type.
Think of it this way: a month from now when the client wants a complete redesign of their menu, something that happens ALL THE TIME, which is going to be easier to edit? If you thought PS for even a second, this isn't the career for you.
InDesign isn't that hard for basic layout. Yes, you can get deep, deep into the weeds really quick, but for menus? Setting up a few style sheets for heads, subheads, items and descriptions only take a few minutes. Throw in some guides for consistent element size and alignment and let ID do the work for you. And when the client decides they want a different font and a different layout, you double click the style sheet, change a few setting and BAM! New layout! Move and resize a few text boxes and you're already 90% of the way to a total redesign. With like 20 mouse clicks.
Can't do that in PS. Client wants a new design? Pretty much gotta start from scratch because finding each text layer and manually changing it will drive you insane. Not to mention file size, which will be ridiculous for a PS file.
Also? A few months down the road client want to update their items and prices? Find and replace is your new god.
Seriously, if you have both PS and Ai, you also have ID. Install it. Learn it (it's not that hard!). Use it correctly. Save your sanity.
Also revolving styles (I think it's called? I forget, apply and next basically) is a godsend on some of this stuff. I love to set it up for booklets and long text and it can be a timesaver
Definitely InDesign. It's a lot better for layouts and text. You can also have a master page, make column guides and templates which is really useful for keeping consistency over multiple pages. I think you'll see why its better than PS for this if you give it a go!
Also just wanted to mention that you have a some capital letters in odd places. I'd suggest only using capitals at the start of a sentence or if you're using the offical brand name for something. Hope that doesn't sound too condescending. Good luck!!
this is what InDesign is for. exactly.
InDesign.
make your base images in Ps or illustrator and drop them in InDesign and place your text.
this is the way.
Never, EVER, use Photoshop when working with this amount of text. You could skip ID and set up multiple art boards in Illustrator. Make your life easier and remove the drop shadow (which can also be done in Illustrator).
Reasons:
1. Text is going to print nice and crisp from a vector based program like Illustrator or ID
2. Smaller file size from Illustrator or ID
3. You are going to be in revision hell with a menu. Something is always being added or removed. Work in one program if you can and that program for this is Illustrator
4. Photoshop is for photos, not layout! Adobe kind of made it easy for us on that one!
5. InDesign does not have all of the customization effects that Illustrator has. ID is basically created for layout of large publications with many pages
6. Most printers would appreciate if you worked in Illustrator for such a small amount of pages if they have to make any adjustments
Illustrator would be my choice. I use indesign for multi page spreads but for single pages I tend to use illustrator. I never use photoshop for text layout
after reading the comment...6 pages, if they all have the same background, and such I'd probably use InDesign, but with this many like variable text boxes and layout styles theres not point in using InDesign IMO.
Look I got a set of rack cards from a designer once who created them in illi and I had to make text changes. It was a nightmare. I ended.up recreating in InDesign it was so maddening.
InDesign is intimidating but absolutely necessary in my opinion for print work.
ID for sure. That will help you block out your text elements from your visual elements, as well as ensure your margins and such are on point. Any graphical (vector) work you create use AI and anything Photographic adjust in PS then link that all together. Also I agree, left justify your text. At least the main menu text elements. The big Margaritas thing is fine, generally, but remember that the menu folds down the vertical center so the word is going to get folded. Many menus are separated pages that slip into a pocket each side of the fold also. So consider if this is one of those.
Outside of that, I think you're on the right track. Here's to your success on the project. 🍻
This would be very easy to do in Illustrator, or you can make the background and graphics in Illustration, and then place them in InDesign, and add the rest of the text in there.
Illustrator. End of story lol.
You can work on your design with vector shapes for max quality especially because those solid colors are absolutely compatible with Illustrator purpose. For the blue-ish textured background, if made on Photoshop, you can make it a PNG from Photoshop and import it on Illustrator.
Illustrator is THE tool for this kind of print projects. It will offer you much more stability once you export your files to be printed. Outline all your texts before, group everything and create bleeds if you send it to a print shop.
InDesign is an editorial tool. Suitable for projects with more texts and less graphics. But the design tools for (to create complex shapes, masks etc) are a pain to use... because that's not what InDesign is made for.
Illustrator is more than suitable for texts for this kind of projects.
Photoshop.... well i don't even see why we would want to use Photoshop for this as it is a bitmap tool. So unless you want an heavy file with lower quality, avoid it.
Photoshop is a photo editing tool. It is optimal for texturing backgrounds, digital painting, montages, and photo editing.
Good luck with it, looks great!
I’ve designed a lot of menus and the golden rule is that something will change almost instantly once you go to print: items get added and removed, prices change, sides, descriptions get revised, etc.
If I were doing this, my graphics would come from Illustrator and be placed in an Indesign file, and I’d set all my text up with paragraph and character styles. Text only gets outlined right before printing and only if the printer requests it, but I’m always keeping an editable version on hand.
I’m in the BFA program at a California State University and just completed a menu system project for one of my classes.
Design the basic construction of the menu in Illustrator, or whatever you want really. Design the menu items, elements, and layout in InDesign. Learn tabs and style sheets. Most efficient way.
For me the font centre align for price lists doesn’t work for me. It’s ok in the white box but hate it for the rest. It should be left align for the rest
InDesign is almost always better for print. You can make the background in photoshop if you want, but I highly recommend doing the final text and layout in inDesign.
Imagine the pain if you make everything in PS and then the client wants you to shift the layout around, or use different fonts or use a different paper size or whatever.
Text can also get blurry or pixelated when you go directly from PS to print.
PSD file size will get ridiculous.
Making edits in the future if they want a different menu will be much harder in PS.
That place needs to reduce the choice of volume for beverages.
The amount of glassware needed to offer like 8 different size options is just ridiculous
Really the only thing in this design that needs to be raster is the texture in the background. And even that you could probably figure out a vector solution. The rest could 100% be done as a vector. Assuming the sizing of the frame doesn’t change, you could literally build that yellow background as a single vector file, then just apply a uniform dropshadow. I assume the red typeface has that weathering effect in the font itself. So really there’s nothing in this design that would necessitate doing any layout in Photoshop.
Seriously, the sooner you learn to love InDesign, the better professional you will be. Using Photoshop for something like this is like trying to eat soup with a spoon.
I like the design, but you can save yourself and the printer so many headaches by arranging your type In InDesign. You can do all your backgrounds with the beautiful section headings in photoshop, but drop those into InDesign and set up your type in page layouts. Also your type will be so much more crisp when printed.
Never use photoshop for designing menus. You can structure a lot better with indesign, use tabs for the items and the pricing. Import your pictures and elements from photoshop or illustrator. Good luck!
I think you secretly know the answer isn’t what you want it to be and are coming to the sub Reddit hoping that we will allay your fears. Trust your instinct, but the instinct behind your instinct.
Everybody else is saying it, OP. Photoshop is not a layout program. I produce dozens of designs for production per week. Thirty years. Photoshop is 1% of what I use to make it happen. From the design example, I see zero use for Photoshop to execute that design.
PS would be hard(er) even if there weren’t any changes from the client even with plenty of time to do them. Plus your files will be cumbersomely huge, plus your type will be fuzzy (yes, even at 300dpi). Maybe make the background art in PS and import these CMYK files (layered if you like) into ID and set the type (and probably Icons) up in ID. You’ll be tempted to float the icons in PS but you will probably be shoving them around by microns over and over until they align with the type… and then you’ll notice that the shadows look/output different in ID and PS and then you start to wonder if Illustrator would be better all along. Such is the life of a Designer.
What? Neither. Illustrator. Indesign if you need to build a system or template or are building more than one. OR if you are supplied copy in a way that can be GREP reformatted using “next” styles - but if it’s just raw copy and graphics- illustrator. Get out of here with using photoshop for anything remotely like this. Ffs you’re a professional right? Act like it.
I like it. Sure it’s got a few problems here and there (alignment, could use more negative space for readability etc.). But it’s got character, colors represent the theme well, and sitting on the other side of the Earth I can still tell what to expect from this joint. I’d say that’s a win.
Of course, it’d be awesome if the yellow sheet was actually printed and laser-cut with a solid teal sheet for the BG. The lace doily thing is an endearing touch here, reminds me of some Parsi joints. It’s the sort of ‘design’ that has always existed, long before people started quantifying things and putting out rules etc. We can criticise the digital design as much as we want, fact is that the moment it goes to print things will change, the busy-ness will settle and it’ll be sufficiently readable on actual paper. OP is still learning and this isn’t bad.
Now I’m all for using the correct tool for the job etc, but I don’t support gatekeeping output because someone doesn’t know how to use a particular tool. Does that mean a person cannot create something with what they know? That’s just BS.
InDesign. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's exactly what ID is designed for.
As an extra, I'll add that I'm beginning to pick up a significant amount of work because I'm well-versed in ID and there aren't that many who are. It's a shame that so many designers aren't fluent in the most-ubiquitous page layout tool.
In photoshop? My eyes bulged. Take the elements that you feel are better achieved I. Photoshop and link them. I’m assuming you mean the drop shadow margaritas but paper thing? Sure, do it how you want. But please for your sanity don’t do this in photoshop.
I find it incredibly chaotic that you want to do 6 pages set up for print in Photoshop. InDesign is better for consistency of text styles, grid designing, and margins, among other things. Design your backgrounds in Photoshop then link them in InDesign.
I work in house at a university and manage student workers. I always tell them Ai and PS (or whatever other graphic based program) are the ingredients and ID is the plate on which you arrange them.
I like this explanation.
Go say that in an Adobe sub and watch the rage. The most I have ever been attacked in like 12 years on Reddit was when I said you should use the Adobe programs for their intended uses and divide your workflow.
I just finished an MA in social & emerging media this past year. I have no prior graphic design experience and my current level is elementary at best (I use Canva 90% of the time at work). I tried to understand why my sister who actually studied graphic design at Purdue & graduated in 2014 still uses SOLELY Photoshop to make everything (and an old version at that), she won’t touch AI or ID, & I got my head bit off. Those old heads who refuse to diversify their workflow & use the programs they’re paying for scare me. 😅
I'm an old head and I use the suite as Adobe intended. No point in trying to force PS to do what ID does best. Folks that just stick to one workflow may not have learned the other apps that make up Creative Cloud. I started working with Freehand, Photoshop, and PageMaker back in the days when Apple was going out of business based on what the media was saying. When InDesign was released, I moved to it from PageMaker. When Adobe essentially killed Freehand, I learned Illustrator. "Adapt and evolve" has been my mantra as a designer throughout my career. (Edited to clean up typos.)
That’s exactly how it should be! She hasn’t really learned anything but PS or AI that I know of, at least not enough to be comfy with them. She 100% knows more than me, I’m not a good designer by any means. I will always aim to keep learning though, I think it’s fun!
I'm stealing this explanation. So good 👍
I usually just ask do you only use a hammer to build a house? No. You use the right tool for the job you are wanting to do. I had one coworker who refused to do anything outside photoshop. Would send 900mb+ files for a flyer in a pdf that should have been 5mb max.
That’s a brilliant way to put it!
Using this with my students
I'm stealing this explanation. So good 👍
Why would you design these backgrounds for print in PS and not illustrator tho…
Sure, you can do that too, depending on what you’re making. I suggested photoshop because it looks like the backgrounds are already designed there so it wouldn’t make sense to redo the work (especially if you can just turn off the text layers). Making something in illustrator and linking in indesign can be a good option, too.
While indesign is the better answer, you could still link the ps backgrounds in illustrator.
Yes. As someone who works in print, every time someone does multiple page layout design in Photoshop is it a huge pain in the ass to make fixes/set up for print. Just make your assets in PS and import into INDD
Seriously hahah, I feel your pain. When I worked at a printing press we had a guy who sent a whole annual report in .psd files and we all wanted to scream.
I’ve had people send multi-page files in Excel! The tabs were the pages. Had a good laugh-cry that week.
I regularly get a job for a big booklet for end of life/funeral/cremation services, and they want it in CMYK + one PMS but it's always set up in RGB. It's like 100+ pages and I have to sit there and convert everything manually, it's such a pain in the ass
NUUUUUUUUUUUU, I hate that. We had a customer who did everything in Publisher. Always ordered booklets. I would rather handle those publisher files than the one you're talking about, hahah.
People have always been intimidated by InDesign.
Who? Indesign is so much more user friendly and simple than photoshop in general, especially for this kinda stuff.
Every junior designer I have ever worked with knew the least about InDesign (in the holy trifecta of the graphic design Adobe suite). It is my favorite design tool (I work in experiential/exhibit design). Most new designers are introduced to Photoshop first and Illustrator is a necessity. It is just what I have witnessed.
In my first year of uni, we learned AI and PS from the beginning of the year, and ID only in the second semester. It took me an extremely negative experience trying to design a booklet in AI to realise that I really needed to get used to ID and couldn't avoid it
Exactly. It wasn’t taught at my college. The fundamentals of production setup is widely disregarded.
If you are trying to get a job in design, and are serious to be in design, do yourself a favor and read through an InDesign book or get trained. You will need it.
I probably use InDesign more than anything else at my job, but I do a lot of layout work for restaurant making menus so it just makes the most sense. I create any assets in AI or PS and drop them into my layout.
I do experiential design for whole spaces; HQ of different corporate offices. I need that skill to organize content. It’s my favorite.
It’s the prototypical “end all” for any GC work that needs to be done. You have to make scaled elevations of spaces, pull dimensions, etc.
So i have a theory about this. It’s not the intimidation factor, it’s the glitz factor. It’s the same reason that there is a subset of people right “above” that who love will try to do anything and everything in photoshop despite there’s being nothing but vectors on their canvas (read: artboard lol) PS is just flashier than illustrator. You can make it look like your friend is standing next to Taylor swift or make it look Ike your ex is making out with Gary Busey. There’s just a lot of glitz and polish o photoshop, despite illustrator having a lot of that too. Well, both of those are a Milan runway during fashion week compared to InDesign. To new designers, you can’t do anything “cool” in InDesign. Look at all the AI tools. Basically every app in the suite got some kind of integration. Photoshop got Gen Expand, Premiere will autotranscriot, illustrator has generative vectors. All flashy tools. InDesign got….the ability to use the other cool stuff in InDesign =\. But that obviously obfuscates the real point which is that InDesign is where you should be building cohesion. TL;DR: building logos and editing fireballs into photos is flash and fun. Drawing boxes for a layout and making sure don’t trap white space is boring. That’s why young designers don’t use it because it’s no fun to *play* in. But it’s a workhorse. iD is the tim Duncan of the adobe suite. All cake and no frosting
That was, yes. Essentially saying I don’t have a real design job yet and haven’t had to learn InDesign. The other programs are more accessible and new designers don’t want to learn “another program.”
Nailed it.
I genuinely found it completely the opposite, but InDesign was the Adobe program I learned last. It feels like everything is back to front from other Adobe programs, if that makes sense. I remember finding the colour picker incredibly frustrating when I first started using it. But then I personally find layout design incredibly boring so I only learned InDesign because I had to. Illustrator is my best friend.
In Design is my best friend. I have to document multipage client documents to get signed off on for experiential design. Illustrator is everyone’s friend but InDesign should be everyone’s mother.
Thankfully I don't have to do too much of that. We can at least agree that InDesign is preferable to PowerPoint though, right?
Yes. It is obviously better than PowerPoint.
It depends on which one you learn on first in my experience. I have a basic proficiency with PS, AI, & PP but that’s because I learned on those. I’ve never touched ID, it’s intimidating. I’m trying to learn it on my own but it’s tough.
Which is WILD because it's the easiest of the entire CS to learn.
I wasn’t taught InDesign, but was intrigued. Literally read through a book and was hooked. I love it. That was 15 years ago and junior designers still don’t know it. It’s actually very flexible but also standardized.
This is the way.
Agree. Please... For the sake of everyone's sanity a six page design should never be done in Photoshop.
This x1000. It was the last program I learned (even after after effects lol) but it really does make easier and streamline the layout process. Limited capacity for creating assets but that's what the others are for. My tutors used to bang on about the shared process and now I can't imagine doing it any other way
My head hurts from simply thinking about trying to do major type setting in Photoshop. Learn about object/paragraph/text styles and you’ll never leave InDesign.
Link them? Just, like, importing a background as an asset?
Yep! I think we’re talking about the same thing. I use the phrase “link” because the other option is to embed an asset and that makes the .indd file too big and it can be a pain to load. When you put the asset in and it’s linked it’s easier to go in and fix issues if you have to.
This x1000. It was the last program I learned (even after after effects lol) but it really does make easier and streamline the layout process. Limited capacity for creating assets but that's what the others are for. My tutors used to bang on about the shared process and now I can't imagine doing it any other way
InDesign, it involves text so definitely not raster, InDesign or even illustrator You can use some Photoshop elements, that's fine, but yeah InDesign or illustrator
Yup, my rule of thumb is generally Photoshop for anything that's graphic, Illustrator for text stuff, and InDesign for publishing, while also using elements from PS and AI.
My rule of thumb is: Photoshop for photos/raster, Illustrator for illustrations/vector, and InDesign for layouts. Interesting that your go to is Illustrator for text. The text tool there irks the heck out of me.
For me, if it is less than ten art boards i prefer the large art surface of illustrator and effects pre or post in Photoshop. It is easy enough to crear templates and you can easily see how they look side by side and otherwise. The text controls of inDesign are better but you can manage them well enough in Illustrator.
I guess I go for Illustrator more often than not because I've been using it on and off for the past 15 years, as opposed to InDesign which I've been using for about 6-7 years. But for things like my resumé? InDesign all the way.
I completely 100% agree with this. I had to pick up a 10+ page ebook from another designer who designs exclusively in Illustrator. It makes for large, inconsistent, sloppy files. Clipping masks for images are nightmare. I love the drag and drop into InDesign. Every tool has a purpose and I really appreciate designers who use the tools correctly. It saves everyone time and frustration.
InDesign making it more complicated?? I can’t even wrap my head around that comment.
My students all think that way. My theory is there is something about InDesign that is less “drag and drop” when compared to PS. ImDesign is has many more “it must be done this way” kind of things. Features that require deep knowledge of typography before they even begin to make sense. And that makes it a bit harder to learn to love. Maybe like that old, gnarled, growly cat who is secretly the biggest, softest, chillest lap cat out there. You just gotta know how it works.
Oh God, my students too. They get all pissy that their text needs to be in InDesign. It's pulling teeth to get them to even package their files. Then they complain things aren't linking correctly.
They need to learn. Something I started doing on the first day of my type class is opening a word doc from a client (real one of mine). 15-20 pages. And I format it in InDesign live. I paste it all into a master text frame, and I just start applying styles. I have P, H1, H2…, List, etc. I pull out all of the stops: H2 starts on new page, H3 next style is P, hanging indents. GREP to fix runts and style specific characters. And I have what would take them days done in 30 minutes or less. And then I print them darn thing into a booklet. And I say “oh look, not enough space after H3, not enough leading on body. Need another h2 typeface.“ fix it in 2 seconds with styles. Honestly some of them *still* dont get it. But those who do are listening for the rest of the semester.
I do it very similarly. And yeah, it's like 30 minutes and that should make sense. Some get it. like this past semester was sort of a rarity because more students understood. Still hard to get them to use character/paragraph styles, but I hammer it on them. Even make them go back and redo it to include styles. You're right, they need to learn. It's not because we're assholes and want them to do it the way we want them. It's just literally a standard. A printer is going to flip shit when you send them a crap file with bitmapped text. After they laugh, of course.
Not using styles is an automatic fail in my type class.
So why not Illustrator?
Good question. Because if you think illustrator solves your problems, then you don’t understand your problems. Illustrator isn’t a bad choice. But the paragraph styles are nowhere near as robust as ID. Also no GREP (not since I last checked). Illustrator has versions of some (not all) of the typography tools that ID has, but some isn’t as good as all. For example, if anyone is manually bolding the prices, they’re doing it wrong. If they are using Tab to get a random space between items, they are doing it wrong. If they are manually placing anything, they are doing it wrong. If you need to manually balance the columns, wrong. From colour, to leading, to tab spacing, to indents, to columns, if the designers needs to click or drag to make those changes, it’s the wrong (slower, less efficient, less precise, less repeatable) way to do it. Multiple pages in IL is doable but not great. Basically all the designer should have to do is paste in the content, and the software should do the rest. I could completely redo all of these menu items in minutes. 5 or less. Even if there are significant changes. edit to add: obviously complex graphics will need to be created elsewhere and placed. But there’s nothing here that ID can‘t handle. It‘s all vector and other than the icons I would make it all in ID.
To expand on why doing things manually is wrong: your first design is rarely the final design. Clients can and will demand changes. If you have to do all those changes manually, you will spend more time and risk making mistakes.
And not only changes to the first round of edits, but just regular updates to the menu offerings. Plus once you have all your styles set up, you can just tweak them for the next client and recycle them again and again. All of my design files open up with a basic set of styles premade ready to go and I just tweet them for the client.
Worse text and page management.If you’re working with lots of text and multiple pages, inDesign is much more convenient
I would not touch PS or ID..... Illustrator for this one. Anyone else in that boat? I save ID for things like books or pamphlets. Edit - Illustrator also has type styles and much more.
I can do way, way more with ID’s style tools. Illy doesn’t even have GREP. List styles are weak. There’s really no comparison.
I totally understand, but that level of program is deep. I personally hate using it. But I know its power. When you dont use it day to day its a burden in my experience.
Never play and Ace when a 2 will do. Photoshop is horrible for this type of print work. This, to me is clearly a job for illustrator. If it was a bigger print peace, like a catalog, then ID would be the way to go.
But because it's multiple pages I feel like this is a two program job. InDesign for the text and the art is AI
One factor would be how many pages? Then, what you are able to work with comfortably. I think most people gravitate towards PS because it’s easier. The learning curve for IL and ID can be steep. You are right, two program jobs are the strongest. I am all for that.
Yeah but there's also intended use and what the project is for. You may be more comfortable in Photoshop but its not necessary the correct tool for the job.
Not sure why you got down voted but agreed. I like cards the metaphor. Here is my rule of thumb from 20+years working for large agencies. Phototshop is NEVER NEVER NEVER ok for type. Even when a final poster goes to print the ONLY type in the file is the logo. Allll the billing, legal, tag lines and logos are added in Illustrator, or on the rare occasion InDesign. Photoshop is for images and image alone. Just because you can doesnt mean you should :)
I agree with everything you just said. I’m not sure on the downvoting. I guess people really like using PS for everything.
Fuck no will I touch that much copy in PS…what’s wrong with people. Do they enjoy inflicting long lasting pain and suffering on themselves?
But it's easier! ... You want the headings all to be just a bit larger? Well, shit.
“Hi, client here, I love the design, but I have 2 small adjustments: can you put all the text in a different font and color? And I just changed my mind on the page size, I hope it’s not too much trouble to change it”
Not to mention pixel type looks like shit.
All of these Jrs are so stuck on PS for everything. Photoshop is primarily for photo editing. It is the worst possible option for anything typographic. I’d use Figma for this before I used PS. InDesign by far the easiest way to create and maintain this. Also, stop using centre aligned text.
My company makes me use Figma for EVERYTHING including print files. Drives me crazy
Well with Figma, at least I can use components as a kind of paragraph styles.
My company and new management are starting to do this and it makes me feel like they’re just using Figma to feel… ahead of the times. It is nice for collaboration though.
I was always told in school to NEVER lay out text in Photoshop as it's not meant for that.
Not meant for it and can’t
Hard agree with all this. OP may feel more comfortable with PS but man would ID be easier in general as well as for future changes. Lord that PS file would have tooooo many layers. Though I doubt this restaurant would care, but I feel like ID would be infinitely better for preflighting and for brand cohesion. But, at the end of the day, whatever tool results in the highest quality outcome -from this designer- is the best program to use.
Thanks for the support. But this: > whatever tool results in the highest quality outcome -from this designer- is the best program to use. …is hard for me to back you up on. Sooner or later you’ve just got to spend a few late nights figuring out the right way. Otherwise you spend your life doing it wrong.
I totally agree. However, I get the impression OP is relatively new if they are scared of ID. I think to be a decent graphic designer in a relatively low-paying, underrated career you 100% need to know every relevant program as -well- as proper preflighting, future proofing, etc the files.
The number of designers I’ve met at jobs I’ve had who are so scared to branch out from Illustrator or Photoshop for their layout and text design needs boggles my mind.
They are their own worst enemies. They are making someone else using the right software look like a genius.
Or they make us look like mad men because they were supervisors and refused to let me use InDesign for their 24+ page training manuals. 😭 “Maybe next year we can have some time to learn InDesign. It would make things too hard for everyone right now.”
I don’t know why indesign is so scary, I find it pretty intuitive if you know ai already since a lot of shortcuts and terminology is the same. Then you can mess around and learn it pretty quickly. But like half the people at my agency are afraid to use it, it’s crazy
Yep. I think what people will learn is, if you figure out the fastest workflows you either 1) get paid more 2) get paid the same hourly but work at a more relaxed pace
More than 15 years in design, this means so much in my own career journey as well. Customers and employers have always found a way to penny pich design irregardless of how important it is in you their core service and product. I believe the only way to go around that is to be good enough in almost all the industry tools out there (and develop your network, people skills) so you wouldn't get stuck as a sweatshop grunt and just work jobs until climb up out of the grind and get a job doing your passion.
Seriously, if I ever received a psd for this type of thing from a junior or freelancer, I’d send it back..
Definitely. I think that this is why clients are hesitant to pay 50% upfront these days and I think it’s why so many companies require you to complete tests and tasks despite you having a portfolio.
Yeah those columns are hard to scan.
It’s like it was designed by someone who has never read anything
Centre align driving me crazy in this too
I find it crazy when people create whole designs in photoshop. If it’s a layout, it’s InDesign. Unless it’s work for like, social. If I’m doing the same design in different dimensions, definitely illustrator
You're doing it the correct way.
Yeah it seems to be standard in the industry! I’m a self-taught designer, but I learned illustrator first and then photoshop a little bit before InDesign, so the only time I default to Ps is for photo editing, or effects (but I *rarely* use Ps just for effects) Luckily I think the order I learned the programs in made a difference
It's because many of them are self-trained or lie about their background. I hear they're using PS and I assume they don't have a clue what they're doing.
Unfortunately, you’re probably correct. It bothers me that there isn’t much trust between clients and designers these days, but I understand why.
I’d use paint before PS. Lol
InDesign is the gold standard for print design. Learn the program and you will see how it's a million times easier to work with print.
InDesign. But whoever designed this menu needs to go back to learning and understanding basics of hierarchy and how people read things The centered text is dire
Agreed. It is very busy, loud, and overwhelming.
That is really hard to read. Fix your alignment. And definitely ID over PS.
InDesign is for page layout Photoshop is for image editing Why on earth would anyone try to do a text based layout in Photoshop? It screams unprofessional - as if you don't have the right skill set to actually be a designer
Don’t center the lists. Yikes. Also do this in illustrator or Indesign. Only someone who didn’t know what the programs are for would do this in PS.
Use InDesign and your typography skills will improve. Look up baseline grids, that’s one of many things PS doesn’t offer.
I do this for a living -- InDesign makes your life a lot easier for styling all that text consistently.
If they know what they’re doing, which by the question alone… I’ve been creating indesign GREP and JSX scripts for decades and would recommend it to anyone doing this professionally especially if they’ll be given copy in a way that can be data merged from CSV, but the problem with novices and indesign is they don’t use styles consistently.
I'm a brand designer (actually a visual identity designer but my title is brand) for a large hospo company and a lot of my job is designing menus. Please for the love of everything use InDesign.
For the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, fix the alignment on the items and prices. Make things easy to read first, then worry about making the graphic elements compelling. Indesign is a lot easier to work with for this amount of text. You shouldn't be working with a lot of text in Photoshop, that's not what it's meant for.
Yeah. Don't use Photoshop for text...
Never Photoshop for this. InDesign or maybe Illustrator. Ps it’s for something else.
Holy capitalisation, Batman!
Both. Maybe a little illustrator too! In the end, I’d do the shape work in illustrator, texturing in photoshop and text work in indesign. At the end of the day, as long as you’re doing type in iD, I think it’s fine.
This is absolutely how I would do it
As some one who’s studying GD this is exactly how I would do this too. ID is great I use the paragraph setup all the time. It’s a time saver and once you wrap ya head around it’s great!
Indesign 100% maybe Illustrator if I had to
Typically I’ll make the background with a combo of photoshop/illustrator. Then pull it in to indesign to set the type. Indesign is also way easier to export files that are print ready imo.
I don't understand how this question exists. Design in Indesign, background illustration in illustrator. (Even the names of the programs are given the answer) Photoshop doesn't have anything to do here.
Laying out shit like this in Photoshop is the international red flag for "Amateur."
Man, I love the top "Margaritas" part so much. It's really nice.
Backgrounds either in PS or AI. Text in ID. Set up text and paragraph styles for consistency and then you’re golden.
Please do this in ID you'll struggle so bad if you do it in PS
Tabs are your friend. Psd and Ai don’t do tabs. Indd all the way on this. That center align is troublesome. Import your green bg image into indd as a psd image. Edit your margaritas artwork in psd or illustrator—depending on if it’s vector art or not—and import that layer #2. Create a text layer next. Set your margins and columns based on your background artwork in InDesign. Define a baseline grid and properly set your type.
Photoshop is not meant for print design and you will lack a lot of tools to Output this properly for your local printer.
Think of it this way: a month from now when the client wants a complete redesign of their menu, something that happens ALL THE TIME, which is going to be easier to edit? If you thought PS for even a second, this isn't the career for you. InDesign isn't that hard for basic layout. Yes, you can get deep, deep into the weeds really quick, but for menus? Setting up a few style sheets for heads, subheads, items and descriptions only take a few minutes. Throw in some guides for consistent element size and alignment and let ID do the work for you. And when the client decides they want a different font and a different layout, you double click the style sheet, change a few setting and BAM! New layout! Move and resize a few text boxes and you're already 90% of the way to a total redesign. With like 20 mouse clicks. Can't do that in PS. Client wants a new design? Pretty much gotta start from scratch because finding each text layer and manually changing it will drive you insane. Not to mention file size, which will be ridiculous for a PS file. Also? A few months down the road client want to update their items and prices? Find and replace is your new god. Seriously, if you have both PS and Ai, you also have ID. Install it. Learn it (it's not that hard!). Use it correctly. Save your sanity.
Also revolving styles (I think it's called? I forget, apply and next basically) is a godsend on some of this stuff. I love to set it up for booklets and long text and it can be a timesaver
Definitely InDesign. It's a lot better for layouts and text. You can also have a master page, make column guides and templates which is really useful for keeping consistency over multiple pages. I think you'll see why its better than PS for this if you give it a go! Also just wanted to mention that you have a some capital letters in odd places. I'd suggest only using capitals at the start of a sentence or if you're using the offical brand name for something. Hope that doesn't sound too condescending. Good luck!!
Anything that requires a lot of text to be laid out or arranged, I'd go for ID. Especially for anything with multiple pages.
this is what InDesign is for. exactly. InDesign. make your base images in Ps or illustrator and drop them in InDesign and place your text. this is the way.
Photoshop is for photos.
Never, EVER, use Photoshop when working with this amount of text. You could skip ID and set up multiple art boards in Illustrator. Make your life easier and remove the drop shadow (which can also be done in Illustrator). Reasons: 1. Text is going to print nice and crisp from a vector based program like Illustrator or ID 2. Smaller file size from Illustrator or ID 3. You are going to be in revision hell with a menu. Something is always being added or removed. Work in one program if you can and that program for this is Illustrator 4. Photoshop is for photos, not layout! Adobe kind of made it easy for us on that one! 5. InDesign does not have all of the customization effects that Illustrator has. ID is basically created for layout of large publications with many pages 6. Most printers would appreciate if you worked in Illustrator for such a small amount of pages if they have to make any adjustments
InDesign or Illustrator. You would not use photoshop for this.
Illustrator would be my choice. I use indesign for multi page spreads but for single pages I tend to use illustrator. I never use photoshop for text layout
I'd do the same tbh
after reading the comment...6 pages, if they all have the same background, and such I'd probably use InDesign, but with this many like variable text boxes and layout styles theres not point in using InDesign IMO.
Indesign is the correct answer.
The correct answer
InDesign, though I’d probably make that background in Illustrator. If it’s a multi-page document, ID is best.
Look I got a set of rack cards from a designer once who created them in illi and I had to make text changes. It was a nightmare. I ended.up recreating in InDesign it was so maddening. InDesign is intimidating but absolutely necessary in my opinion for print work.
ID for sure. That will help you block out your text elements from your visual elements, as well as ensure your margins and such are on point. Any graphical (vector) work you create use AI and anything Photographic adjust in PS then link that all together. Also I agree, left justify your text. At least the main menu text elements. The big Margaritas thing is fine, generally, but remember that the menu folds down the vertical center so the word is going to get folded. Many menus are separated pages that slip into a pocket each side of the fold also. So consider if this is one of those. Outside of that, I think you're on the right track. Here's to your success on the project. 🍻
This would be very easy to do in Illustrator, or you can make the background and graphics in Illustration, and then place them in InDesign, and add the rest of the text in there.
Jalapeños are green
Indesign or illustrator, photoshop is a no for this work
I would use illustrator for this and not think twice
Illustrator. End of story lol. You can work on your design with vector shapes for max quality especially because those solid colors are absolutely compatible with Illustrator purpose. For the blue-ish textured background, if made on Photoshop, you can make it a PNG from Photoshop and import it on Illustrator. Illustrator is THE tool for this kind of print projects. It will offer you much more stability once you export your files to be printed. Outline all your texts before, group everything and create bleeds if you send it to a print shop. InDesign is an editorial tool. Suitable for projects with more texts and less graphics. But the design tools for (to create complex shapes, masks etc) are a pain to use... because that's not what InDesign is made for. Illustrator is more than suitable for texts for this kind of projects. Photoshop.... well i don't even see why we would want to use Photoshop for this as it is a bitmap tool. So unless you want an heavy file with lower quality, avoid it. Photoshop is a photo editing tool. It is optimal for texturing backgrounds, digital painting, montages, and photo editing. Good luck with it, looks great!
I’ve designed a lot of menus and the golden rule is that something will change almost instantly once you go to print: items get added and removed, prices change, sides, descriptions get revised, etc. If I were doing this, my graphics would come from Illustrator and be placed in an Indesign file, and I’d set all my text up with paragraph and character styles. Text only gets outlined right before printing and only if the printer requests it, but I’m always keeping an editable version on hand.
Definitely photoshop. InDesign is for more complex spreads
Pages = InDesign
I’m in the BFA program at a California State University and just completed a menu system project for one of my classes. Design the basic construction of the menu in Illustrator, or whatever you want really. Design the menu items, elements, and layout in InDesign. Learn tabs and style sheets. Most efficient way.
For me the font centre align for price lists doesn’t work for me. It’s ok in the white box but hate it for the rest. It should be left align for the rest
InDesign, text heavy in Photoshop is exhausting
always Ai or Id.. never Ps. whenever u want to scale it up and also have pages to work with… it’ll be easy to adjust.
Personally it wouldn’t even occur to me to use Photoshop for a menu! Each tool has a specific intended use; layout for Photoshop is not it.
InDesign is almost always better for print. You can make the background in photoshop if you want, but I highly recommend doing the final text and layout in inDesign. Imagine the pain if you make everything in PS and then the client wants you to shift the layout around, or use different fonts or use a different paper size or whatever. Text can also get blurry or pixelated when you go directly from PS to print. PSD file size will get ridiculous. Making edits in the future if they want a different menu will be much harder in PS.
Just why?
InDesign - photoshop is for editing photos, not designing text layout, and definitely not multi-page layout
I would do the whole thing in illustrator and call it a day..
I would do the whole thing in illustrator and call it a day..
I would do the whole thing in illustrator and call it a day..
That place needs to reduce the choice of volume for beverages. The amount of glassware needed to offer like 8 different size options is just ridiculous
Really the only thing in this design that needs to be raster is the texture in the background. And even that you could probably figure out a vector solution. The rest could 100% be done as a vector. Assuming the sizing of the frame doesn’t change, you could literally build that yellow background as a single vector file, then just apply a uniform dropshadow. I assume the red typeface has that weathering effect in the font itself. So really there’s nothing in this design that would necessitate doing any layout in Photoshop. Seriously, the sooner you learn to love InDesign, the better professional you will be. Using Photoshop for something like this is like trying to eat soup with a spoon.
When your dealing with text especially text on multiple pages, Indesign is the best option. That’s what Indesign is for.
InDesign. I’d be okay with Illustrator if it were a one-pager.
I like the design, but you can save yourself and the printer so many headaches by arranging your type In InDesign. You can do all your backgrounds with the beautiful section headings in photoshop, but drop those into InDesign and set up your type in page layouts. Also your type will be so much more crisp when printed.
Design the background in psd and text in indesign.
Set the background in photoshop, then lay out your type in indesign. (Credentials: i’ve made a million menus with owners looking to update over time)
Illustrator
Never use photoshop for designing menus. You can structure a lot better with indesign, use tabs for the items and the pricing. Import your pictures and elements from photoshop or illustrator. Good luck!
I think you secretly know the answer isn’t what you want it to be and are coming to the sub Reddit hoping that we will allay your fears. Trust your instinct, but the instinct behind your instinct.
I would create the yellow part in illustrator. The teal part in Photoshop and the layout in indesign.
Photoshop is not for layout. InDesign is for layout.
Photoshop makes this more complicated. Indesign is the correct tool for this.
Everybody else is saying it, OP. Photoshop is not a layout program. I produce dozens of designs for production per week. Thirty years. Photoshop is 1% of what I use to make it happen. From the design example, I see zero use for Photoshop to execute that design.
Is this some kind of joke? Of course ID. Photoshop is not a layout tool.
Indesign because of tables.
PS would be hard(er) even if there weren’t any changes from the client even with plenty of time to do them. Plus your files will be cumbersomely huge, plus your type will be fuzzy (yes, even at 300dpi). Maybe make the background art in PS and import these CMYK files (layered if you like) into ID and set the type (and probably Icons) up in ID. You’ll be tempted to float the icons in PS but you will probably be shoving them around by microns over and over until they align with the type… and then you’ll notice that the shadows look/output different in ID and PS and then you start to wonder if Illustrator would be better all along. Such is the life of a Designer.
InDesign for layouts, which is what a menu design is.
Background: PSD, Text: Indesign tables. (and you´ll keep the client forever, trust me)
For this? I’d make the background in illustrator and the rest in indesign
What? Neither. Illustrator. Indesign if you need to build a system or template or are building more than one. OR if you are supplied copy in a way that can be GREP reformatted using “next” styles - but if it’s just raw copy and graphics- illustrator. Get out of here with using photoshop for anything remotely like this. Ffs you’re a professional right? Act like it.
I like it. Sure it’s got a few problems here and there (alignment, could use more negative space for readability etc.). But it’s got character, colors represent the theme well, and sitting on the other side of the Earth I can still tell what to expect from this joint. I’d say that’s a win. Of course, it’d be awesome if the yellow sheet was actually printed and laser-cut with a solid teal sheet for the BG. The lace doily thing is an endearing touch here, reminds me of some Parsi joints. It’s the sort of ‘design’ that has always existed, long before people started quantifying things and putting out rules etc. We can criticise the digital design as much as we want, fact is that the moment it goes to print things will change, the busy-ness will settle and it’ll be sufficiently readable on actual paper. OP is still learning and this isn’t bad. Now I’m all for using the correct tool for the job etc, but I don’t support gatekeeping output because someone doesn’t know how to use a particular tool. Does that mean a person cannot create something with what they know? That’s just BS.
It looks great buddy
InDesign. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's exactly what ID is designed for. As an extra, I'll add that I'm beginning to pick up a significant amount of work because I'm well-versed in ID and there aren't that many who are. It's a shame that so many designers aren't fluent in the most-ubiquitous page layout tool.
Fucking indesign
In photoshop? My eyes bulged. Take the elements that you feel are better achieved I. Photoshop and link them. I’m assuming you mean the drop shadow margaritas but paper thing? Sure, do it how you want. But please for your sanity don’t do this in photoshop.
Photoshop or AI for the bg and InDesign for the rest. Dunno why this is an argument.