Forum Moderators: not2easy
I use it because I use it for print, web, and video. If I only needed web I would look into a cheaper software license. So why the need for such an expensive product?
I use PS because it's the "industry standard" in gfx editing: PSD format, filters, the whole handling. Adobe put years of expierence in that editor resulting in brilliant usability. Photoshop is easy to use for everybody and the more you deal with it the more you can accomplish.
Also the medias you mentioned work very close together - good to have one tool that does them all.
Actually what kind of video editing are you doing with photoshop?
- It's what we had on hand when I took over the job (legacy software).
- It's what I learned on.
- It's what everyone else uses so it must be the right thing to use. ;)
Given that - I'm self-taught so I know I'm missing out on some great features. I use it in a pretty basic fashion most of the time.
I've never not been able to do something I needed to do with it, though.
I use it in tandem with after effects. It is for frame by frame imaging.
>>Of course the budget comes first place and there are many alternatives out there (not to mention paint shop pro).
Completely agree.
Fireworks can go to print and is a lot cheaper. PSD really isn't a standard format like tiff, jpg, eps, or gif. I really never give a printer a PSD file. So if you were just starting out agian would you suggest PhotoShop. Is it really that much superiour in web graphics that it is worth the price tag?
Some of the reasons:
The PSD format is so widespread.
The image optimisation is fantastic.
Imageready.
Versatility (as you said - web, design, print, video and everything in between).
Layers
I need something which I know will allow me to carry out every task given to me in terms of web graphics - and PS is the application that can. I'm sure there are others but the benefit in price would be offset by learning the new software.
I may be biased by the years I've spent with it but I also know that Adobe won't stop developing it next year and leave me with outdated software or having to learn something else. Also - since PS3, with each release, they've come up with new improvements/features which make my life much easier - and that is pretty impressive.
For my simple gifs and pngs on my site (a business site), I use the inexpensive Xara X and I am very happy with the results.
Good luck, WFN :)
So if you were just starting out agian would you suggest PhotoShop. Is it really that much superiour in web graphics that it is worth the price tag?
That totally depends on the nature of your website.
If you're involved in design heavy custom graphics work, the really slick stuff, then nothing even comes close to PhotoShop.
If you just want to make buttons and basic objects then PS is a waste of money.
TJ
So if you were just starting out agian would you suggest PhotoShop. Is it really that much superiour in web graphics that it is worth the price tag?
In a professional design environment, for sure.
I recently had to do some in house training for colleagues who use PS Elements every day - I didn't think they would benefit from it.
But I was astounded when I realised that they hadn't even looked at features like (for example) the magic wand tool - which would help them with day to day stuff. So, yeah, perhaps it is a bit of an overkill (because there is such depth to the application) but not if you're serious about web design IMO.
I constantly help my father with Photoshop. It is all he has access to. He wants to do just basic image editing for his tech writing. He hates it and finds it frustrating because he only wants to do very simple stuff.
I am not sure I can agree that photoshop is useable. Most of us who use it were trained in it and we are biased. People like my father with no training find it frustrating, like I find his tools like framemaker frustrating.
So, yeah, perhaps it is a bit of an overkill (because there is such depth to the application) but not if you're serious about web design IMO.
Right. If Joe Marketer needs to do a little graphics tweaking, having to learn PhotoShop is definitely overkill (good word).
But I think for many people who enjoy playing around with web design - they're going to appreciate it precisely because of its features and capabilities.
Personally, when I was starting out, I know I wished I had an easier graphics program to learn. But now that I know it pretty well, I'm glad I took the time to learn the program. I'd rather have too much program and never fully know its capabilities than find I have reached the limits and been left wanting.
Imageready does animated gifs, "split image tables" with animation, mouseovers and other webmaster related stuff. The best part is that its totally integrated with Photoshop and you can just press a button on the toolbar to swap your work over to Photoshop for that extra tweak or two.
Without Imageready I could see how Photoshop would be overkill-- but Imageready really makes the package a killer.
I can understand being in a graphic design shop, but what about webmasters?
That depends on the nature of your website.
I would hazard a guess that the only people who really benefit using PS for web design are designers/graphic artists. If you can't do graphics, PS won't save you.
I got into web design through graphics. I learned html second. I use Photoshop.
I see people doing basic image editing using Photoshop.
That's overkill. And hard work in PS if you don't know the application.
But I was astounded when I realised that they hadn't even looked at features like (for example) the magic wand tool
That one always surprises me too - but it's very common. And I'm still amazed by the amount of logo designers that can't use paths.
TJ
I constantly help my father with Photoshop. It is all he has access to. He wants to do just basic image editing for his tech writing. He hates it and finds it frustrating because he only wants to do very simple stuff.
:-) Same story - other way around: My mother is by no means what you would call a 'computer geek' and all she needed in the first place was some app to scan photos, enhance them a little and print them out. Nevertheless I recommended photoshop because of it's great flexibility. Now she's even doing layers and spends nights experimenting with all of PS' functions (which is funny since 15 years ago she complained at me spending nights at the computer).
Clearly it doesn't make any sense to buy PS when you're just doing some 3d-buttons - (again) from the budget point of view and because there is better tools out there for that purpose.
As for Webmasters, they should have at least basic knowledge of image processing. PS is the perfect playground and working environment for that.
I find it interesting that FW very much modelled itself on PS when it started out in a bid to attract PS users, but FW went a step further by supporting vector drawing. Since circa PS 5.5 Adobe suddenly started to introduce vector drawing and other FW-esque features.
FW allows the import of PS plug-ins and so these days I find most of my time spent using FW as it tightly integrates with Dreamweaver and Flash - It's also capable of doing enough high-end photo-image manipulation to satisfy anyone but the hard-core pro.
So I'd say the difference between them is where the web ends and the print/photographer professional needs to carry on.
So I'd say the difference between them is where the web ends and the print/photographer professional needs to carry on.
Couldn't have put it better myself
But a lot depends on what you are used to and it's one of the web's classic "religious wars"...
As an all-round graphics editing programme, Photoshop has far superior capabilities and most designers coming from a graphics background would be used to working with it.
(I wouldn't have thought of Fireworks as a print-capable programme and, indeed, Macromedia are hanging (just) in that market with Freehand MX.)
If you are trying to learn a more powerful environment but find Photoshop overwhelming, try PhotoImpact from Ulead instead. It's got a slightly more modern interface and slightly more intuitive features. You'll find yourself learning the same concepts in it that will help you get better with Photoshop. (it also loads and saves into photoshop format fairly well)
As a very part time graphics type i use paint shop pro, and even that has a learning curve. We chose that over Phostoshop because of price and the fact that it is only used a small percentage of time, making Photoshop overkill. I think we can still produce very profeesional looking graphics with PSP, especially if you use filters and ad ons, and many Phostoshop filters/add ones are also compatible with PSP.
I guess i would recommend to someone who is say a webmaster for whom graphics creation/editing is only a small part of their job to use paintshop pro.
I've worked with both, and PSP sure loaded faster as well 5 years back when i compared.
Onya
Woz
Actually, maybe that's a bad example. I edit my résumé in Quark :), because it's available to me and because I have more control over manipulating the text than I do in Word, or in Wordpad. I similarly use Photoshop because it's available to me, and because I am so familiar with it that I feel I have more control over the output, even if that output is relatively simple.
I would not claim to be an expert, but PS does offer a wide range of options when it comes to using what you have created.
There may be easier ways of getting colour separations, but I was having some china mugs done as a promotional item last week, printer asked for colour separations, and the PSD file kept him happy ;)
I knew I could get the colour separations out of PS easily, and never had to look up an alternative (OK doubtlessly lots of you know "n" different ways of getting colour separations - but for me it filled the bil)
Even when doing web sites I must be able to work with files from these companies 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.
Concerning overkill: While I do use Fireworks sometimes for web graphics, most often the advanced features of Photoshop are needed to do mind blowingly good graphic design with no difference in composition complexity for the web just a lower resolution output. IMHO
-Jon
That said, I'm one of the first people to recommend PSP to folks who ask about a good image editor on a budget, or for limited web work, or etc... It's cheaper than Fireworks or PhotoShop, and I've seen some really nice work done with it.
I have seen many places in this thread where people say photoshop is the only program that can do certian cutting edge techniques. I have to respectfully disagree. Fireworks in the hands of someone who knows how to use it can be just as powerful.
To me it is like Illustrator and Freehand. I use Freehand. I can do anything anyone else can do in Illustrator with Freehand. I have been using it for years and don't ever want to touch Illustrator again.
I have been recently using Fireworks MX and have really been impressed. I also have been playing with PaintShop Pro. Both products (and I am sure PhotoImpact is the same way) have a lot of value to people who are graphic artists let alone a webmaster.
I have been using Fireworks for years and find it to be equal or better to Photoshop in most aspects. More importantly, it's much easier to learn.
Photoshop stands head and shoulders above the crowd for intense graphical requirements, but if we're talking about creating and optimizing images/graphics for web use, I'll take Fireworks any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).
- Chad
I will agree on Freehand. For many years (middle 90's) I would not budge from it. It was and probably still is better than Illustrator. I actually couldn't believe the following Illustrator had... just plain dumb by my way of thinking BUT, I just could not deal with the incompatibilities and the resistance from printers.
From a pure business perspective Freehand while better was not so much better that it warranted the kind of extra headaches my staff and I were getting.
In the interest of compatibility with printers and each in-house artist we had to draw the line and Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark were it... no others allowed for final art. Use what you want to make the file but give me Adobe or Quark. Period.
We are now faced with a variety of web development software now. And Macromedia is on top at the moment and we do allow Fireworks files in the end files to customers...EVEN though it does cause production headaches. Everyone is expected to know Photoshop and not all of us are up to snuff on Fireworks creating the obvious production no-no of only a few that can work on these file types.
Either everyone is going to have to be proficient at both or we have to choose one. We shall see.
Is there a compelling reason for a self-taught PhotoShopper like me to take the plunge and learn a new package - specifically, Fireworks? Or is it really an either-or deal at this stage of the game for me?
If you own Photoshop, and you like it, and you know how to use it, I can't think of a single compelling reason to drop it... and the best reason I could think of to learn something else is curiosity, or because your new employer wants you to diversify.
