You could do it with a range of tools - the most often used apps (pro) for this job are Quark and InDesign(adobe) - MS publisher is another. They're all page layout tools that allow you to combine text and images for print.

The initial learning curve is steep but once the commands and GUI are learned the process of creating pages is very quick - neither are very cheap and both will need to be used in conjunction with a image editor/vector apps like Photoshop/Illustrator.

I've got Phototshop CS, so okay there. Maybe I can get some sort of deal on InDesign tied into some kind of Adobe package upgrade. InDesign is a big enough bite that I'd have to prepare myself to swallow it:)) Would prefer to avoid MS though.

D_Blackwell, I used to do desktop publishing for printing and there are a whole host of issues that you may not be accustomed to. Limbo is correct - you need to use a professional desktop publishing program to do this or the printing firm is going to have to basically reconstruct your entire document in one (costing you prepress $$$.) I believe InDesign has replaced Pagemaker on the Abobe front, and QuarkXpress is still the program of choice in high end DTP.

In any case do not use an MS program such as Publisher or Word. Every time you open such a document in a different environment, it changes. I was responsible for making these docs look like the original - in some cases I literally had to go to the customer's location to see what the heck it was supposed to look like (mostly because they couldn't get it to print like what they had on-screen!) They are NOT portable by any means. This is seldom the case with high end page layout programs, they maintain layout structure pretty well (usually. :-) )

The reasons for using a high end program are mostly centered around trapping - the need to have a slight overlap of one color into the next so that when printed you don't get "white lines" showing in any misregisters, or a color "peeking" out from under another. Quark and Pagemaker/InDesign can compensate for any shop's trapping requirements by altering a few documents settings.

The second big deal is RGB to CMYK color conversion - if you aren't aware of the difference, suffice it to say that some colors in RGB simply cannot be reproduced in CMYK and vice-versa. This is due to the impurities in reflective pigments as opposed to using colored light to mix colors. High-end page layout programs inherently maintain CMYK color gamuts to help keep you from choosing impossible-to-print colors.

Another important item that many designers unfamiliar with printing simply cannot seem to grasp is the effect of dot gain. When a color is printed in halftone dot with ink on paper, the dot will "squash" on the press and increase in density. Even with the best controls throughout prepress and printing a certain amount of dot gain will occur. The effect is that an assigned color of say, 5%, may darken to as much as 7-8%, and this is not a result of sloppy work, it's a limitation of the printed medium.

This will cause the most pain when a designer attempts to do a gradient from a light color to pure background. DO NOT DO THIS. This is called deisgning problems into your project. What will happen is where you expect the color to gently fade off, the dot gain will cause the last printable dot to darken and form a visible line. If you must do gradients, be sure that they don't fade to less than 2 or 3%.

Any artwork and images are going to have to have at least a 300 DPI resolution at the size you expect them to print and be converted into CMYK before you send them. This resolution is required for the imagesetters to correctly resolve a halftone dot. If you try to up-scale web images, you will not be pleased with the result. :-)

Lastly, on your specific project, a trifold is often misinterpreted as three equal panels. This is only true is you intend to do a "Z" fold. In a normal brochure layout, you must design so that the panel meant to fold inside is at LEAST 1/16" shorter than the other two. If you don't, and expect the printer to adjust your design on final trimming/folding, they are going to have to a) short-trim the last panel or b) offset the folds so the last panel fits inside. In either case, you may have some unsettling uneven margins in your final product. This is ESPECIALLY true if you do full "bleeds" (color runs off the trimmed piece) with one block of color ending exactly on the fold. This is a very very common problem with trifolds, lay out your document with a short panel. And I know this sounds stupid . . . make sure it's on the right side for the inside and outside. Easy mistake to make.

If you do any of the above and expect the printer to adjust it for you it is going to cost for adjustments in prepress. Too often I've heard "I'm a designer, don't expect me to do your job for you" and IMO this is a totally irresponsible position (and snobby too. :-) ) Learn a few technical things going in and your printers will love you, so will your customers, because you both get what you expect in the end result.

rocknbil - Thanks for the detail in your answer. I'm not a 'print' person, and try to be careful not to pretend to be, though I'm willing (sometimes to my detriment:)) to expand into some print related skills when reasonable. I've handled a number of advertising projects, so am generally familiar with CMYK and printers' requirements. Your more technical cautions are mostly new to me, and especially glad to see those comments.

Too often I've heard "I'm a designer, don't expect me to do your job for you" and IMO this is a totally irresponsible position (and snobby too. :-) ) Learn a few technical things going in and your printers will love you, so will your customers, because you both get what you expect in the end result.

If I'm going to get involved in this, I definately need to fast track at least a reasonable general knowledge. If it goes badly, it will reflect on me - so need to control as much as possible:))

Was sort of hoping something less than a big Adobe upgrade would be required, but it's not like it won't pay for itself.

As an aside: I've found on too many occasions that 'print' people should be kept away from websites - so figure it probably works the other way too, and I try to be careful about accidentally jumping on too deeply on print work.

I've found on too many occasions that 'print' people should be kept away from websites ...

This is only true for print designers and other industry techs who refuse to let go of "what they know" about design and positioning objects on a rectangular canvas. This is also why you see soooo many graphically heavy sites with type rendered as graphics. (IMO, of course, as one who has walked this path. :-) ) They just can't let go of their relationship with their beloved fonts.

It does work in reverse - print people can bring a LOT to web applications if they are willing to escape from their box.

"I just don't understand. With QuarkXpress I just put it where I want it and that's where it stays. Why can't you do that with HTML and make it work on all browsers? Explain to me why you can't do that with a web page."

One of the questions I dread hearing the most . . .