Forum Moderators: not2easy
All IMHO, it seems business owners and decision makers who are not in the industry tend to make demands without a true basis.. not knowing whats available on the market or examining what potential employees are skilled at, yet insisting they bring PS to the table.
[snip] and would suggest that if anyone intended to compete at this level they would certainly need photoshop in their arsenal. To suggest otherwise would be to limit their potential client base and earning capability. (taken from the thread [webmasterworld.com...]Again IMHO, I believe its what you do with what you have and not simply that you have something (and possibly don't even know it that well). My earnings have been rather nice. I would think an employer or client would be more concerned with a quality product rather than the path taken to that goal.
BTW, I have experience with PS and continue to prefer my beloved PhotoImpact and all its capabilities. I also love the line 'Wow! You did that with PhotoImpact?!' :)
So continue to use it. It's great that you are happy with it. That doesn't change the fact that Photoshop IS the industry standard, it was made that standard by the artists who use it.
That doesn't mean that other programs are inferior. But if you are looking for a job in a design shop, you need skills using the industry standard. And that is Photoshop. :)
...it was made that standard by the artists who use it.
Adobe PS is a good product - usually completely over-powered for the way "designers" use it - but it became the standard due to aggressive marketing and bundling campaigns which continue to this day.
If someone is only doing web-based graphics, I think a $85 Paint Shop Pro makes more sense than a $600+ Photoshop. However, for higher end graphics - like printed magazine layouts - Photoshop is best.
I think Photoshop has become the "standard" because people don't want to learn multiple tools. And if there's ONE graphics program to handle everything you'll ever need to do, then Photoshop is the way to go.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Photoshop users are just working with web-based graphics, and using this giant, bloated product that is total overkill. But at least they have the comfort of knowing that once they know Photoshop, they can handle higher end graphics if needed.
The problems with your particular industry is that so many people believe that particular maxim that the industry is inundated with Photoshop software.
You'll find this same odd behavior everywhere, not just in the graphics arts industry. I like to shoot sporting clays. (clay pigeons). If you travel to any sporting clay competition you'll see quite a large number of Benelli shotguns. Nearly every amateur is saving up to buy one. Some well-heeled amateurs already own one because they've been told that "serious" shooters simply must own one. I really enjoy shooting a perfect round with my $200 dollar 870 Express and beating those Benelli owners. This weekend I'm going to take a a shotgun I paid $50 for to a shoot. I bought it at a pawn shop and restored it. It was pitted so bad and had so much water damage that the pawn shop owner couldn't tell who made the gun. After restoring it the name became quite clear. Parker. It's worth about 5k and I'm finally a "serious" shooter. :)
You keep turning out great looking graphics with your software of choice and forget about the software snobs. In the end you have to enjoy what you're doing and from the sound of it, you don't like working with Photoshop.
You keep turning out great looking graphics with your software of choice and forget about the software snobs.
Unfortunately, for jobs like graphic designers/artists, people are expected to work in teams, help others, share ideas/tips, etc.
And so employers will often want everyone working with one program (Photoshop), so it's easier to share information, share machines, and work in teams.
If you're an independent artist that works alone, then it doesn't matter. Companies will just see you as a "black box", and just look at your output. But once you start working in groups/teams on projects, you're no longer a "black box". Interchangeable parts become important.
I think Photoshop has become the "standard" because people don't want to learn multiple tools. And if there's ONE graphics program to handle everything you'll ever need to do, then Photoshop is the way to go.
I noticed in the thread I referenced that other Adobe products were mentioned for doing this and that. So are many PS users switching back and forth from one Adobe prog to another to get one complete job done?
I use PI for all purposes but one (animated gifs, even tho PI comes standard with its own animator). Its not that PI is the absolute or end-all, but its convenient to stay in one program.
But if you are looking for a job in a design shop, you need skills using the industry standard.
Maybe its that I don't know those who are looking for those particular positions. Most people I know want to design for web and some for print, but not necessarily in a 'shop' environment (seems limiting). When asked, I will suggest PS to people but not necessarily as a first choice and never without also suggesting PI and even PSP and the reasons why (and why not).
normaldude: good points. And I would never enter a work environment and attempt to shake up the stable by expecting everyone to conform to my personal standards. Point well taken.
1. Drop shadows.
2. Inner Bevels.
3. Water Drops.
4. Smoke/fire
5. Glow
6. HSB Noise
7. Chrome
After reading some of the product info on Ulead's site, I'm becoming very tempted to interrupt my neverending quest to gather enough money for PS and go for PI instead.
Also, Can I work with vector-based graphics in PI for easy resizing? Does it support png save/export?
Thanks!
I've had people ask what software I used to create some of the images I produce. When I say PS, they say "oh yeah, I've heard of that. That makes it easy.". It's kinda frustrating because the software is just a tool. Unless you're just stacking up filters, there is a quite a bit of skill, talent, and creativity involved in creating digital artwork. It's like saying the Van Gogh's "Starry Night" was easy to paint because he had some nice expensive brushes.
Just give me PS and my Wacom and I'm a happy camper. :)
I never even knew PhotoImpact looked this good. Please tell me if the following PS-effects are easy to do with PI (i.e. via some "alien skin"-kind of plugin or some similar tool):
1. Drop shadows.
2. Inner Bevels.
3. Water Drops.
4. Smoke/fire
5. Glow
6. HSB Noise
7. Chrome
Also, Can I work with vector-based graphics in PI for easy resizing? Does it support png save/export?
Absolutely! You can import all the same plugins into PI that you can PS. You can also use PSP tubes. But there are lots of effects that come standard in PI. I've found that many plugin effects I can do with standard effects and combinations. And yes, you can import and export all file types, including png and PSD's from PS. Compression and optimizing is also standard.
The one thing you cannot do is import actions (AFAIK) but you can save PI actions (tasks) and import/export them to share with others or save for yourself to save steps later. I use them alot when I have to edit 100 similar images or simply use batch actions, for example.
Try the trial for 30 days to see if its something you are willing to pay for :)
Unless you're just stacking up filters, there is a quite a bit of skill, talent, and creativity involved in creating digital artwork. It's like saying the Van Gogh's "Starry Night" was easy to paint because he had some nice expensive brushes.
Very true. I'm sure some turn out super-duper graphics in Paint from years of experience. Also, I agree about the tablet. I love my wacom!
I have used Photoshop for several years now and would never go back but for someone who needed the basics at cost I would reccommend this as an option. (infact I am amazed at what you can do with it for the value!)
Also Fireworks is coming up through the ranks at pace. It's cheaper and IMO has a more intuitive GUI than PS. I use FW4 but have tried MX and MX2004 and will be looking to upgrade when I can afford it.
Never the less, I would still challenge you, anything you can do in photoshop I can do in photopaint. :)
edit - Corel 8 is the "sweet spot" and Corel 11 is almost better.
It's [fireworks] cheaper and IMO has a more intuitive GUI than PS
agreed.
I run into this all the time because Illustrator is considered the vector based industry standard. I use Freehand because it does have better features and is usually one step ahead of illustrator for upgrades. People always want me to use Illustrator, but every where I work I make them get me freehand. They are paying for my creative ability and how I create is an important factor for me.
Almost every graphics package can create any image. It is just the question of time. I can create images in MS Paint that Photoshop produces (I did it one time in a contest of a PS image that was filtered to death). PS is quick for me at everything I produce. If the same is true for you in your program then just make sure it can save and open image formats that are industry standard.
continue to prefer my beloved PhotoImpact
Yep. At 1/10th the price. PhotoShop = OVERKILL.
