Xara Designer Pro as a Professional app for Pro work?

[WilliamHere]

cgntoonartist, if you're going to ask if Xara software is suitable for "Pro" work, you'd better decide what a "Pro" actually is, and that's no easy task.

There community of Xara users is wide - even amongst professional users. Many people on TG and elsewhere are using Xara products for making money professionally. I suspect the person making the most of Xara software in a professional manner is sketch, who is managing to produce websites and supporting graphics galore for his paying customers. Others here are using Xara for things such as Vehicle wraps and signage, illustration, even books and all kinds of bespoke graphics and imagery.

You name it and Xara has been used for it, servicing paying customers with quality artwork, so it is indeed a professional product.

When you compare Xara to the Adobe CC suite (a totally unfair comparison), it's a poor cousin. The Adobe toybox is stuffed with programs and features.

If you work professionally and Xara software fulfills your requirements, then it's perfect.

If you work collaboratively with others who may be working with Adobe products it can be a problem.

Xara software is no substitute for the Adobe CC suite, but that may not matter.

Think of it like this. If I run a delivery business, I can perhaps get by with a van or small truck for the goods that I deliver. It's only if someone wants me to move shipping containers or outsize loads that I run into trouble. I can operate my delivery business with small trucks, professionally.

Xara is my small truck and it does what's needed. The Adobe suite has all manner of haulage gear, but if I'm not shipping wide loads, it's overkill.

So, is Xara professional software? It is, but it's not the ultimate solution that Adobe is providing.

Well said Paul. Thanks for the comments.

[WilliamHere]

I find that a pretty good comparison and it helps to place the 'Xara vs. Adobe' discussion in a clearer context.

I agree.

[WilliamHere]

Cons
Being left behind in strokes/brushes development
No CMYK artboard
Too many RGB effect tools for print purposes

This worries me.
Would most people here agree that Xara Designer Pro is more fitted for Web work?

[pauland]

You can't have absolutes here. Plenty of people are using Xara professionally for illustration.
Plenty of people are using it for web design.

If you use it for illustration, you're hardly going to say it's better suited for web work.

Quite honestly, if it does the job you require of it and you like working with it, it's perfect.

It all depends on what job you need to be done.

If you want the most versatility go with Adobe.

The bottom line is that Xara software is versatile and at a comparatively cheap price point. You can use it professionally for a lot of things, but the more particular and demanding you get, then you'll find features missing that exist in it's larger, more expensive, competitor.

[mwenz]

@William, I think Xara is trying to accomodate both web and print, with the emphasis tilted towards the web. I think that for XDP, it should be the other way around. I also think instead of actual web-work, they should be building in fixed-layout ePub into XDP.

In general to the question...

I think Xara should remain a mix bag of color space. At least if I am understanding Albacore's point about a "CMYK artboard." This makes it more like ID than AI in that ID doesn't have a document color space like AI or PS. It should have a working color space, though. Ability to be color managed by the working space profile.

However, as with some here, I begain working in print design using amber monitors and later paper white monitors. There was no ability to see color in a design. One had to know, and trust, that the color would be correct. In that sense, I know the color values of what I am using and know they will translate to PDFX-1a as designed. And for the most part, I have had zero surprises when checking in Acrobat. That doesn't mean the print side of Xara doesn't need work, it does, aside from print-centric additions.

Mike

[WilliamHere]

You can't have absolutes here. Plenty of people are using Xara professionally for illustration.
Plenty of people are using it for web design.

If you use it for illustration, you're hardly going to say it's better suited for web work.

Quite honestly, if it does the job you require of it and you like working with it, it's perfect.

It all depends on what job you need to be done.

If you want the most versatility go with Adobe.

The bottom line is that Xara software is versatile and at a comparatively cheap price point. You can use it professionally for a lot of things, but the more particular and demanding you get, then you'll find features missing that exist in it's larger, more expensive, competitor.

Most of the work I do involve illustration and photo manipulation. I do like the Xara Designer Pro vector tools much better than Adobe illustrator. I also do some web work. I do happen to like Xara Designer Pro a lot. I think it's faster and more intuitive than Adobe products. It just makes sense to me.

I don't see the Adobe versatility as a major problem. My main concern has to do more with the type and quality of files exported from the Xara software when it comes to grayscale and CMYK work for print jobs, like some people have pointed out, and the RGB effect tools for print purposes.

[WilliamHere]

@William, I think Xara is trying to accomodate both web and print, with the emphasis tilted towards the web. I think that for XDP, it should be the other way around. I also think instead of actual web-work, they should be building in fixed-layout ePub into XDP.

In general to the question...

I think Xara should remain a mix bag of color space. At least if I am understanding Albacore's point about a "CMYK artboard." This makes it more like ID than AI in that ID doesn't have a document color space like AI or PS. It should have a working color space, though. Ability to be color managed by the working space profile.

However, as with some here, I begain working in print design using amber monitors and later paper white monitors. There was no ability to see color in a design. One had to know, and trust, that the color would be correct. In that sense, I know the color values of what I am using and know they will translate to PDFX-1a as designed. And for the most part, I have had zero surprises when checking in Acrobat. That doesn't mean the print side of Xara doesn't need work, it does, aside from print-centric additions.

Mike

Thanks for the input Mike. Your comments do help.

When chatting with Zeb from Zebtoonz, he told me that he does all of his illustrations in XDP, but still has to open the files in Adobe illustrator to make sure they are correct when a client or a printshop need an AI file for their use. It would be nice we we did not have to worry about things like that, and have confidence that the exported file from Xara is good to go.

I am sure the folks at Xara will keep making improvements in the future to handle these concerns. I am crossing my fingers. I do like the software better than Adobe.

[mwenz]

Certain effects Zeb uses do need taken into an the way they are made. I have had no need to take stuff into air with two exceptions. 1 is when a client expects an air file in return or 2 when there are air specific functions/effects I desire to use an for.

[Jimi King]

I've been using Xara software for around 15 years and I use it for just about every piece of design work that I do. Including web design too, where I used to write the HTML raw previously, I have found that in most instances the web additions allow me more freedom and get me to the finished product faster than I was previously able to do.

I don't really do illustration and I've never used illustrator so I can't comment about that.

Where Xara is lacking is in print preparation. It doesn't do CMYK terribly well, and though I am able to get most stuff ready for a printshop it usually involves exporting a 300dpi bitmap of the finished artwork then opening it in Photoshop (CS2) and converting it to CMYK then saving as a PDF. It's a small workaround for me and the results are fine but I know that most agencies want the bare bones and that can't happen.

On the other hand there are things that I do in Xara that I wouldn't have the first idea of how to achieve in Photoshop/CS/CC.

I also have a friend who's a big Adobe user. He wouldn't switch (he's Mac anyway). He thought the Designer feathering ability was pretty amazing though.

[WilliamHere]

@Jimi King
Thanks for the post Jimi.

Yes, exporting a 300dpi bitmap of the artwork, opening it in Photoshop, and then converting it to CMYK to save as a PDF, is a good workaround for bitmap work. Unfortunately, when an agency or printer ask for a vector .ai or .eps file, that's when things get challenging if the vector file from XDP is not good.

I did some testing today and exported some vector art from XDP as a .AI file, but when I opened it in Adobe Illustrator CS6, there were some problems with the gradients. They were not smooth the way they were in XSP. There must be a workaround for this.

Can anyone tell me what is the best way to prepare vector artwork in XSP so that when it gets exported as a .AI file, all the gradients look good in Adobe Illustrator?

Cheers!