or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007 - Page 2

post #41 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
PS is a one page solution. Many designers I have worked with over the years have used PS for one page layouts. After Adobe enhanced typesetting, as well as other features, that became far more common.

I would rather see one page layouts done in PS than in Quark.

If you are determined to torture yourself, why not do the job correctly and use MS Publisher?

Sure, PS has a type engine, but what about things like style sheets, irregularly shaped text blocks, runarounds for inset photos, etc.? You could spend all day doing the above with workarounds, or you could just use Illustrator if you are determined to avoid Quark at all costs (of course the printer is likely to take your EPS, TIFF, DCS, or whatever and stick it in a Quark file for imposition and outputting anyway).
post #42 of 98
How about this as a Photoshop replacement to tie us over until next year:

GIMPshop
http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294

It has a Photoshop-like interface and plenty of power. However, I'm kind of worried since it runs under X11 not Aqua.
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
post #43 of 98
I am using InDesign and PS on a Intel Machine now and they do fine. My file sizes in PS are less than 100 mb and InDesign is handling my newly developed catalog fine. Let me get 100 pages and I will check back. I heard InDesign shuts down then. <-- That was a joke btw.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by jms698
How about this as a Photoshop replacement to tie us over until next year:

GIMPshop
http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294

It has a Photoshop-like interface and plenty of power. However, I'm kind of worried since it runs under X11 not Aqua.

Yeah, I'm surprised The Gimp hasn't been brought up yet. They're Beta-testing UB's already, but it appears that it won't be free much longer:

http://www.macgimp.org/

FWIW...

EDIT: (and Inkscape to replace - temporarily - Illustrator?)
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
Thats just it, I haven't switched to InDesign yet, I was only considering it. We have some clients who need files in Indesign format, so I am currently using InDesign CS2 along with Quark 6.5 (and occasionally Beta 7). Given the UB situation, I won't seriously consider switching for good until CS3 now. There are still things in Quark I prefer over InDesign, so for me it is not worth trying to fiddle with in Rosetta. There are still a lot of Quark users, so I am sure I am not alone in this.

right, the people who it will affect most are people who have not yet switched away from quark. in that case, then i'm glad quark is ub for those users. it still doesn't help the case that photoshop will have to run in rosetta for you to use ub quark. i don't think there will that many users who are willing to take the performance hit on photoshop to get a speed gain on quark rather than stick with ppc and have native performance for both photoshop and ID/quark.
post #46 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
why in the world would you want that? why create gigantic photoshop files when most of the layers are things that can be defined by vectors in indesign or quark? with transparency support in indesign it just doesn't make sense anymore. years ago before we have indesign or general transparency support in quark or indesign i guess i could see it.

what if a client calls back in three months and needs that same layout done for a tabloid pub instead of a letter-size pub? are you just going to uprez the picture and have it be blurry (because you've obviously downrezzed it to a specific dimension and dpi)? or do you just rebuild the whole thing again using different parameters and hope you don't need to do any more resizes?

just because some things can be done in photoshop doesn't mean that's the best tool for the job. and this is coming from a huge photoshop fan and user. yes, i've also seen it done, sometimes by friends of mine. usually it's because they just didn't know how to accomplish what they wanted in indesign. to me it's intellectual laziness. and yes they're all professionals too. there are varying degrees of knowledge on software programs obviously. i always shake my head when people show me a layout done in photoshop.

Because PS's layers are just as efficient as those in Quark or InDesign.

If you have to resize an image, you should NEVER do it anywhere other than in PS.

Type layers, as well as other vector layers in PS are just as resizable as those anywhere else.

You'd be surprised at just how many designers use layout programs incorrectly. We've gotten single (and of course multi) page layouts that were several hundred MB's (or even GB's) in size, because the designers are too lazy to crop (or resize) images in PS before importing. It's fun trying to print files that have as many as a dozen (or even more) images that are larger than the layout itself (even on one page!) in the file, and masked out. These problems occur in Quark and Indesign on a constant basis.

I've found that when these layouts are done in PS, the designers seem to be more understanding of what should be done.

You would also be surprised to find out how many images on a single page have been resized from the original, ending up with different resolutions, rendering the layout unprintable.

The horror stories are almost endless.

If you can assume that all, or even most designers, are aware of all the issues involved in a successful project, then what you are saying would be true. But, as a practical matter, I have found the opposite to be true.

Even for large Ad agencies, I've found that they forget to even bother collecting all the images and type needed. Endless phone calls ensue.

For one page projects, at least, PS forces a discipline upon the user that tends to eliminate most of these problems by the very nature of the way the program works.

Over the years, PS has added more features from illustration and layout programs. Remember when we HAD to go to Illustrator for type?

Ideal? No. Helpful? Yes.
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
If you are determined to torture yourself, why not do the job correctly and use MS Publisher?

Sure, PS has a type engine, but what about things like style sheets, irregularly shaped text blocks, runarounds for inset photos, etc.? You could spend all day doing the above with workarounds, or you could just use Illustrator if you are determined to avoid Quark at all costs (of course the printer is likely to take your EPS, TIFF, DCS, or whatever and stick it in a Quark file for imposition and outputting anyway).

For many layouts, it's actually easier, and faster, to do the work entirely in PS.

It depends on the type of work that is being done. Not everything requires style sheets, or irregular run arounds.

It's easier to most of these things in PS than you realise.

I find that few people who criticise this have ever done much of it themselves.
post #48 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by jms698
How about this as a Photoshop replacement to tie us over until next year:

GIMPshop
http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294

It has a Photoshop-like interface and plenty of power. However, I'm kind of worried since it runs under X11 not Aqua.

If you have ever used GIMP, you would know why it isn't used much.
post #49 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If you have ever used GIMP, you would know why it isn't used much.

I second that.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #50 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
I second that.

Could you elaborate? Is it the functionality, or the interface, or the speed, or all three?
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
-- Candidas
(Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare)
Reply
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by jms698
Could you elaborate? Is it the functionality, or the interface, or the speed, or all three?

Yes. All three.
post #52 of 98
yeah, but you guys are setting up examples of bad layout app users versus knowledgeable photoshop users. the potential for problems is much greater with a bad photoshop user than a bad quark/id user. for every person who forgets to collect their images and fonts, i bet there's a photoshop user who saves over their original image after resizing it smaller or accidentally merges layers so that you'd have to start over again.

there are perfect examples of incompetence everywhere. plus, you can't deny that it causes bigger files. if i need an image for a 8.5 x 11 page that only takes up 1/5 of the page, i can make the photoshop file that size. if i do the layout in photoshop, i need to make the whole 8.5 x 11 page at 300 dpi. that file will be bigger and each added layer or channel makes the file that much larger.
post #53 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
yeah, but you guys are setting up examples of bad layout app users versus knowledgeable photoshop users. the potential for problems is much greater with a bad photoshop user than a bad quark/id user. for every person who forgets to collect their images and fonts, i bet there's a photoshop user who saves over their original image after resizing it smaller or accidentally merges layers so that you'd have to start over again.

there are perfect examples of incompetence everywhere. plus, you can't deny that it causes bigger files. if i need an image for a 8.5 x 11 page that only takes up 1/5 of the page, i can make the photoshop file that size. if i do the layout in photoshop, i need to make the whole 8.5 x 11 page at 300 dpi. that file will be bigger and each added layer or channel makes the file that much larger.

Bad users are bad users. But, I've found that there are more bad users of Quark and InDesign than there are PS users using it for the same purpose. Maybe that's true only here in New York, but I doubt it.

If you add additional small images to the file, and leave them on their respective layers, the file size expands by the same amount it would anywhere else. There is no need, of course, to flatten this file. Though, you could flatten all of the image layers together without doing the same to the text or graphics layers. That would make the file SMALLER than the same Quark, or InDesign file, if there were several images. So, yes, I can deny that it makes for larger file sizes.

You are incorrect to think that you need to make each image the full page size.

And, any user who saves over the original image in PS, will do so in PS before importing that file to a layout program. So there is no gain moving out of PS because of that.

And, I can't count the number of times that a designer will make a change to a PS image in PS, but then forget to have the links turned on in their layout program to update it there.
post #54 of 98
so rather than having people learn how to use their design tools properly it makes more sense to make them use a tool in a way that it wasn't designed to be used? i think it might be smarter to teach people to use their layout apps properly than tell them to use photoshop just to save someone in the workstream some hassle. what happens when that user needs to do something that is easily accomplished in id or quark but instead has to hack it together in photoshop?

the argument originated as competent designers sometimes use photoshop instead of quark or id. the it changed to people who can't use layout tools correctly should use photoshop to do layouts. my argument is that it's better for people to learn to use the tools correctly than to save me trouble down the line. i've had to deal with people's files that are screwed up all the time and i'm not even in a service bureau. i just take over people's projects sometimes. i understand it must be frustrating, but asking them to do things that are 1) not what the tools are designed for and 2) non-industry standard, just to make things easier isn't a good solution. it's not hard to teach someone to use the "collect for output" or "package" commands. i'd rather more people learn to use all the tools rather than sorta hacking things together on one of them because it "sorta works".
post #55 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx


Ok, If I read one more person claiming that Aperature can replace Photoshop, Im going to snap.

Does Aperature have the capability to do compositing?
Does Aperature have layers?
Does Aperature have layer masks?
Does Aperature have curves?
Does Aperature have the ability to place and edit text?
Does Aperature have the tools necessary to do advanced retouching?
Does Aperature have an advanced brush engine? (yes, I know Painter is much better than Photoshop as far as this is concerned)
Can you create a work of art from a blank slate in Aperature?

The list goes on and on and on. Im not trying to bag on Aperature, its an important step in the evolution of digital photo workflow. I hope to see more from it and Lightroom in future versions. But they dont even come close to competing in any way at all.

Please people, be real...


Apple doesn't make any move into a market without a clear cut long term strategy.

Aperture will be a photoshop killer if and when Steve says so.

This isn't bluster it is leverage. Apple has huge amounts of money available for R&D. My guess is that somewhere locked in a vault at 1 infinite loop is a fully functional aperture with layers, etc. and which answers yes to all of your questions.

If Adobe is slow, you will see aperture's feature set improve to turn up the heat on Adobe.

Aperture was a shot across the bow of Adobe.

Remember, Real Artists Ship!


ps:

I am in no way an Aperture apologist. I think the v.1.0 stinks. It crashed my powerbook, and it is buggy as hell. It was more of a public beta than a real product. 1.1 I hope will be a much better version with better .raw support and support for my bloody kodak d slr/n.
post #56 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
so rather than having people learn how to use their design tools properly it makes more sense to make them use a tool in a way that it wasn't designed to be used? i think it might be smarter to teach people to use their layout apps properly than tell them to use photoshop just to save someone in the workstream some hassle. what happens when that user needs to do something that is easily accomplished in id or quark but instead has to hack it together in photoshop?

the argument originated as competent designers sometimes use photoshop instead of quark or id. the it changed to people who can't use layout tools correctly should use photoshop to do layouts. my argument is that it's better for people to learn to use the tools correctly than to save me trouble down the line. i've had to deal with people's files that are screwed up all the time and i'm not even in a service bureau. i just take over people's projects sometimes. i understand it must be frustrating, but asking them to do things that are 1) not what the tools are designed for and 2) non-industry standard, just to make things easier isn't a good solution. it's not hard to teach someone to use the "collect for output" or "package" commands. i'd rather more people learn to use all the tools rather than sorta hacking things together on one of them because it "sorta works".

The argument turned out that way because it was brought up to me that way. You continued it in that vein. I responded to your statements.

I see that you have changed your argument, though. At least, you have given up on the PS can't have small enough file sizes point.

Look, I can see that you are not a long time heavy PS user. If you were, you wouldn't talk about hacking, and sorta works. If you also read my other post more carefully, you would see that I am not reccommending PS for complex layouts. But, there are times when it is better, and easier, to use PS than to have to go to two, or even three programs to do something that PS can do perfectly well. As I also mentioned, Adobe has been adding, over the years, features from illustration and layout programs.

Why is that? It's because many users have asked for it. Adobe understands that there times when it is simply easier to stay within PS than to have to go outside. Even though they chance losing some sales.

Even though Adobe hasn't sent me my first beta for PS CS3 yet, I'm willing to bet that there will be even more abilities within PS that will make doing layout easier and better.
post #57 of 98
i didn't give up on the argument about file sizes. channels add to file size. channels on full page images with a lot of wastes space is an inefficient use of resources. in any case, i still think doing layouts in photoshop is just not a good idea. you see a lot of people doing it and they end up with computer apostrophes and quotes. i mean, if people want to do it, then so be it, but i think they should probably learn how to use indesign properly rather than using photoshop.

i might be getting too worked up on this topic than it warrants. sorry, i'm watching my team in mach m adness at the same time. haha.
post #58 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple doesn't make any move into a market without a clear cut long term strategy.

Aperture will be a photoshop killer if and when Steve says so.

This isn't bluster it is leverage. Apple has huge amounts of money available for R&D. My guess is that somewhere locked in a vault at 1 infinite loop is a fully functional aperture with layers, etc. and which answers yes to all of your questions.

If Adobe is slow, you will see aperture's feature set improve to turn up the heat on Adobe.

Aperture was a shot across the bow of Adobe.

Remember, Real Artists Ship!


ps:

I am in no way an Aperture apologist. I think the v.1.0 stinks. It crashed my powerbook, and it is buggy as hell. It was more of a public beta than a real product. 1.1 I hope will be a much better version with better .raw support and support for my bloody kodak d slr/n.

You're willing to make a bet on this, are you? How many years are you willing to wait?

We're all sure that Apple will add features to Aperture. That's the way software works. There is no such thing as a completed program.

But, Aperture is a very simple program when compared to PS. And, despite what you may think, Adobe is not standing still. Right now, they are adding features from their Macromedia collection in addition to "Universalizing" the app. This takes time.

Right now, Apple has to concentrate on fixing problems with "Sharpen" and other controls When they do that, then Aperture will actually be able to be used to do basic correction. The next step is far more difficult. I don't agree that Apple has the resources to turn this into that PS killer, nor do I believe they would want to.
post #59 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
i didn't give up on the argument about file sizes. channels add to file size. channels on full page images with a lot of wastes space is an inefficient use of resources. in any case, i still think doing layouts in photoshop is just not a good idea. you see a lot of people doing it and they end up with computer apostrophes and quotes. i mean, if people want to do it, then so be it, but i think they should probably learn how to use indesign properly rather than using photoshop.

i might be getting too worked up on this topic than it warrants. sorry, i'm watching my team in mach m adness at the same time. haha.

you only have a full page of memory for a full page image, just like Quark. As I've already said, that isn't true for smaller images. You can repeat what you are saying, but that doesn't make it correct.

If you have PS, try it for yourself.

I encourage all people to learn their programs to the fullest extent. When doing that, however, sometimes you find that the way you've been doing things isn't always the best way.

But, you are not really getting my points. No matter how well you know Quark and InDesign, there are times when it is better to do it in PS.
post #60 of 98
okay. i just opened and saved a blank file. every additional alpha channel i create (blank) is making the file larger. i understand what you're saying about it only adding size based on how complicated each channel is. we're just going to have to disagree. i don't think there are any times when doing a layout in photoshop has significant benefits over doing it in a layout app. at best it might be a wash.

when i do a layout i end up readjusting the size of a number of the elements many times. if i do that in photoshop with a raster it will eventually get worse and worse from degradation. in an layout app i can resize it indefinitely and then deal with the correct rez for the size later rather than having to constantly go back to my source to avoid more than one resize.
post #61 of 98
Oh man. I see Mac users running WinXP on their MacBook Pros so they can run Photoshop...the horra...

Apple (or hell, anyone else) ought to have a long-term strategy for providing alternatives to key titles. This isn't a one-time problem. The Photoshop 'standard' has been a thorn in our sides for ages, and will continue to do so. We will have to put up with paid updates, upgrades which add nothing, 'seamless integration' (read: use our entire suite if you want to get anything done), corporate senesence, and groupthink.

Who can step up? Deneba? Corel? OMNI?

It doesn't have to do everything Photoshop does, just some of the key things only Photoshop can do.
post #62 of 98
I will also add that Apple had been adding Photoshop-like features to the public OS X API like CG/CI/QT7. It takes a lot of effort to make an app comparable to Photoshop 4 in terms of features and speed, but Apple has made it easier to do so (especially concerning speed!)
post #63 of 98
I'll agree if you are doing a photo or illustration based poster with virtually no type, you might as well do it all in Photoshop. I use Photoshop constantly, and I use many if not all of its high end features, but I doubt I have ever done anything as a finished product using only Photoshop: I don't see the point when you have dedicated programs for dealing with vectors and type. How long does it take to save a photoshop file and place it in illustrator, indesign or Quark? 10 seconds? And I wouldn't call myself or anyone else a professional if I thought they weren't capable of delivering something other than a TIFF file without error to a printer.

Quote:
And, I can't count the number of times that a designer will make a change to a PS image in PS, but then forget to have the links turned on in their layout program to update it there.

Uhh ... what page layout software are you talking about? There is no way I know of to turn OFF linking of images in Quark and Indesign, unless you have idiots sending you PICTs embedded in their layout files. Do you mean they forget to update the preview, which has no effect on what is actually printed?

Quote:
Even for large Ad agencies, I've found that they forget to even bother collecting all the images and type needed. Endless phone calls ensue.

Given ftp, how much of a problem is this really? Sending a font file probably takes five minutes end to end, maybe half an hour for larger images (setting aside the fact that automatic collection of images and fonts is included with both Quark and Indesign)

Quote:
Bad users are bad users. But, I've found that there are more bad users of Quark and InDesign than there are PS users using it for the same purpose. Maybe that's true only here in New York, but I doubt it.

Who are these people? Photographers? Illustrators? I find it hard to believe there is a population of designers out there that can use Photoshop, but can't use Quark or Indesign. If you can't use Quark or InDesign, you really can't be a designer. You can be "desktop publisher", or maybe one of those guys that produces club flyers, but you can't call yourself a professional designer.
post #64 of 98
The small silver lining in Abode's recent announcement and it's admittedly trifling is that those of us (like educators and small scale free lance designers) who cannot afford to upgrade our hardware and software with frequency will get significant additional mileage out of our current configurations.

Sure, it would be great to work on a quad Woodcrest machine with Creative Suite CS3 and all the trimmings (including a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD burner), but those pieces of the puzzle aren't here yet anyway. So sit tight and let Adobe get it right.

That said, I do worry about all the design goodies being in the paws of one company. "Delays" like the current one if we can call it that could become more routine.

Finally, it's a sad day when the stiffest widely distributed competition that Adobe will face in the immediate term is an upcoming Windows image editing offering.
post #65 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Aperture will be a photoshop killer if and when Steve says so.

This isn't bluster it is leverage. Apple has huge amounts of money available for R&D. My guess is that somewhere locked in a vault at 1 infinite loop is a fully functional aperture with layers, etc. and which answers yes to all of your questions.

First off, I would say that features that may or may not be included in future versions of Aperature in the nebulous future are irrelevant to the current needs of users.

Second, I would strongly dissagree with you that Aperature will head in that direction. I think Apple will improve Aperature to the point where photographers will be able to use it for the majority of their photo organization, developing and retouching.

I would speculate that Aperature will never utilize layers, and therefore can not be used as a compositing program. Instead I think Apple will greatly improve the retouching and color correction features in a way that wont need layers. Perhaps even a layer mask-like functionality (without actually using layers, if you can imagine that) that will allow for selective color/tone correction.

Look at the way Aperature works at the moment. Its designed for simplicity, speed, efficiency and ease of use. Great for photographers, but this model does not translate well into compositing features. If Apple tries to take on Photoshop, Aperature will forgo its greatest potential: a powerful, easy to use, and efficient tool for photo sorting, retouching and color correction. This is where Photoshop is lacking, and why there is room for both programs.

If I could sum up the differences between the two programs I would say that Photoshop is about flexibility and power, Aperature all about workflow. Though there is overlap between the two they are not direct competitors. Dont believe me? JUST LOOK AT APPLE WEBSITE!


Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Aperture was a shot across the bow of Adobe.

Hopefully it was more like a wakeup call that there is much more that can be done to make photographer's lives easier.
post #66 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
okay. i just opened and saved a blank file. every additional alpha channel i create (blank) is making the file larger. i understand what you're saying about it only adding size based on how complicated each channel is. we're just going to have to disagree. i don't think there are any times when doing a layout in photoshop has significant benefits over doing it in a layout app. at best it might be a wash.

when i do a layout i end up readjusting the size of a number of the elements many times. if i do that in photoshop with a raster it will eventually get worse and worse from degradation. in an layout app i can resize it indefinitely and then deal with the correct rez for the size later rather than having to constantly go back to my source to avoid more than one resize.

Of course adding images will make the file larger, just as it does in a layout program. Adding a 6MB image enlarges all programs.

Many elements in PS can be done as a vector. It doesn't have to be done as a raster. There are plug-ins for these elements as well, though I don't currently use any.
post #67 of 98
i still haven't really heard a compelling reason why photoshop is better than a layout app. i've heard a lot of ways that you can work around things to make it work in a similar way.
post #68 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
[B]I'll agree if you are doing a photo or illustration based poster with virtually no type, you might as well do it all in Photoshop. I use Photoshop constantly, and I use many if not all of its high end features, but I doubt I have ever done anything as a finished product using only Photoshop: I don't see the point when you have dedicated programs for dealing with vectors and type. How long does it take to save a photoshop file and place it in illustrator, indesign or Quark? 10 seconds? And I wouldn't call myself or anyone else a professional if I thought they weren't capable of delivering something other than a TIFF file without error to a printer.

I generally agree with that. I said pretty much the same thing. Again, I'm not talking about complex projects. We recieved thousands of files over the years from Pagemaker, Quark, and began to receive them from InDesign (just a few until ver 3, but more after) as well.

But, over the past few years we also began to receive files from PS. More as time went on. As Adobe added these features, and improved those for text, borders, masking, and others, with plug-ins helping out, it became more popular.

I don't know what to tell you except that it's a fact.Files from large companies, not just individuals doing layout as a sometimes paying hobby.


Quote:
Uhh ... what page layout software are you talking about? There is no way I know of to turn OFF linking of images in Quark and Indesign, unless you have idiots sending you PICTs embedded in their layout files. Do you mean they forget to update the preview, which has no effect on what is actually printed?

No. I mean that there are times when you have to re-link in InDesign after having made a change to an image in PS, and saved back under the same name. Similar problems exist in Quark.

And, what's with the Uhh. Do you have to collect your thoughts on the keyboard before you can reply?


Quote:
Given ftp, how much of a problem is this really? Sending a font file probably takes five minutes end to end, maybe half an hour for larger images (setting aside the fact that automatic collection of images and fonts is included with both Quark and Indesign)

Given the size of the files and the speed of the service, that isn't the problem. It's finding the person who worked on the file. Oftentimes, one isn't dealing with the company that did the work, but the client. You have to explain the problem to them (though you try not to), as they don't always want to put you into contact with the company, or individual responsible for the actual work.


Quote:
Who are these people? Photographers? Illustrators? I find it hard to believe there is a population of designers out there that can use Photoshop, but can't use Quark or Indesign. If you can't use Quark or InDesign, you really can't be a designer. You can be "desktop publisher", or maybe one of those guys that produces club flyers, but you can't call yourself a professional designer.

It may be hard for you to believe, but when you have hundreds of clients, you will find that it happens more often than you would like. Some of our clients included (we sold the company in late 2004) Time Warner, and Grey Advertising, to name two of the biggest. When work is rushed, as it often is, mistakes will happen.

You are wrong to say that they don't know how to use the programs, but there is a certain amount of mental laziness that I've encountered even at the highest levels of the profession.

While you may never make errors, I can assure you that others do.
post #69 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
i still haven't really heard a compelling reason why photoshop is better than a layout app. i've heard a lot of ways that you can work around things to make it work in a similar way.

I'm not saying that it's better than a layout app.

I'm saying that for some one page, less complex work, it might serve the purpose better.

I'm also noting that Adobe has been adding those very features that illustration and layout apps have on the basic level. Text editing. Text on a path. Check out the text features in PS CS2.
post #70 of 98
i don't know if i'd call grey advertising the "highest level of the profession." but i will grant you that they are very large.
post #71 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by admactanium
i don't know if i'd call grey advertising the "highest level of the profession." but i will grant you that they are very large.

Have you dealt with them?
post #72 of 98
i work in advertising as an art director/creative director. i used to work at bbdo in new york and a number of other big agencies, blah blah blah. grey is generally not considered well when it comes to creative work. they do the kind of work that other creatives in the business hope they never have to do. lots of packaged goods stuff for big companies. their creative department has never been respected. i have freelanced for grey in los angeles and i'll say, their reputation isn't unwarranted. very nice folks, but the work is not anything to write home about.
post #73 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Adobe is working as quickly as they can. This is a very big undertaking. People who belittle its difficulty are not really aware of how much work is involved. I'm hoping that they will send me my first beta no later than May.

Not many people deny that it's a huge project. Not many people aren't aware how much work is needed.

What people want to know is what the fuck Adobe was doing when Apple was telling them to move their code to Xcode? They had 5 years!!! They had 5 years to slowly move the codebase...even if Xcode had some problems with large codebases, they had 5 years to work these problems out with Apple.

Fer fuck's sake, Adobe is charging an arm and a leg for its software and it can't spend a bit of time and money on parallel development?

I want you and everyone to forget what Scott and anyone else at Adobe has said because they're just trying to pretend like they're not squeezing more money out of their customers. I'm insulted if they think I'm gonna swallow their tripe.
post #74 of 98
Originally posted by kim kap sol
What people want to know is what the fuck Adobe was doing when Apple was telling them to move their code to Xcode? They had 5 years!!! They had 5 years to slowly move the codebase...even if Xcode had some problems with large codebases, they had 5 years to work these problems out with Apple. ........... I want you and everyone to forget what Scott and anyone else at Adobe has said because they're just trying to pretend like they're not squeezing more money out of their customers. I'm insulted if they think I'm gonna swallow their tripe.



Well clearly the chickens are coming home to roost, in a sense. The relationship between Stevie J and Brucie C is obviously not what we had imagined. Trotting Bruce out to say "what took you so long" now really appears to be a slap in the face of Apple because here Bruce is saying, you should have done this (move to intel) years ago, but fuck you, we ain't re-coding in any sort of sensible timeline despite telling you you should have done this years ago... Steve is pissed. Steve Jobs is definitely pissed.

It is going to be very hard and painful for Apple to put out any other pro portable products (eg. Macbook pro 12", 17") without AdobeMedia UniversalBinaries.
post #75 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No. I mean that there are times when you have to re-link in InDesign after having made a change to an image in PS, and saved back under the same name. Similar problems exist in Quark.

If you save the image back with the same name, in the same location, I have never had a problem with Quark or Indesign relinking the image in any version. Would you care to detail how this error happens? This is an honest question.
Quote:
And, what's with the Uhh. Do you have to collect your thoughts on the keyboard before you can reply?

Yes, we are much slower in DC than you guys in NY. Could you tell me about Photoshops "new" features again?

I use PS type and vector features all the time to do rough designs, comps, websites, etc. I just don't think in the majority of cases it is a benefit to do an entire layout in the program. And that IS what you said at the very beginning of this mostly off topic discussion:
Quote:
PS is a one page solution. Many designers I have worked with over the years have used PS for one page layouts. After Adobe enhanced typesetting, as well as other features, that became far more common.

I would rather see one page layouts done in PS than in Quark.

(emphasis added)
I'm not in advertising so I guess things work differently in the printer/client relationship. We value our relationships with our printers and when there are problems on either end, I talk directly to my print rep and we get it straightened out.

In any event, I will get by with a MacBook/Desktop combo until Adobe gets around to releasing CS3, but it still sucks. Even notoriously slow companies with complex apps like MOTU and Digidesign are releasing UBs in the near future (May).
post #76 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You're willing to make a bet on this, are you? How many years are you willing to wait?

We're all sure that Apple will add features to Aperture. That's the way software works. There is no such thing as a completed program.

But, Aperture is a very simple program when compared to PS. And, despite what you may think, Adobe is not standing still. Right now, they are adding features from their Macromedia collection in addition to "Universalizing" the app. This takes time.

Right now, Apple has to concentrate on fixing problems with "Sharpen" and other controls When they do that, then Aperture will actually be able to be used to do basic correction. The next step is far more difficult. I don't agree that Apple has the resources to turn this into that PS killer, nor do I believe they would want to.

No, frankly I'm not. I stand by my post however. I do think that aperture will evolve into a more workable photo editing tool. I also believe that steve will use aperture to pressure Adobe into doing the right thing and working very hard at cs3.

In some time, after the bugs are ironed out, Aperture will be enough for many users and photoshop will be superfluous.
post #77 of 98
Conspiracy theory alert :

IBM and Freescale are paying Adobe to withhold the CS3 release.
post #78 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[B
It is going to be very hard and painful for Apple to put out any other pro portable products (eg. Macbook pro 12", 17") without AdobeMedia UniversalBinaries. [/B]

I've raised this point in another thread, but, what about the the pro desktops expected in August? They might be a tough sell running CS2 in rosetta.
post #79 of 98
My 2 cents:

1. After working in a print shop for over 2 years I can tell you that whenever I got a file from a customer that was designed entirely in Photoshop I would roll my eyes. From a printing point of view it is a pain. One of the most annoying parts is that black text is not actually black, it is CMYK, so when you do your separations you get that "black" text on all 4 plates. This makes it harder for the pressmen to deal with and in turn they would get on my case, but of course there's usually nothing I can do. (A lot of this can also be said about getting Publisher files or PDF files not made correctly).

2. I've taken over from another "designer" at my new-ish job and a number of ads were done in photoshop only. This is fine as long as you don't have to make major changes. I almost always have to make major changes. Therefore I am slowly moving ads back over to an InDesign/Photoshop workflow.

The main point is text quality. Since text in a photoshop file is only a bitmap, it will only be printed at the resolution of the photoshop file (usually 300 dpi). However, if you did the text in InDesign, the text would be rasterized in the RIP at something like 1200 or 2400 dpi which yields far sharper text.

And really, you don't output to a RIP from Photoshop anyway, you do that from InDesign, so you might as well put it together in InDesign anyway. Granted, some stuff you can't do in InDesign but there's so much that you couldn't do in Quark that InDesign lets you do now so you don't have to do it in Photoshop (drop shadows, for instance), making some changes quicker because you don't have to edit your photoshop file.
post #80 of 98
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Not many people deny that it's a huge project. Not many people aren't aware how much work is needed.

What people want to know is what the fuck Adobe was doing when Apple was telling them to move their code to Xcode? They had 5 years!!! They had 5 years to slowly move the codebase...even if Xcode had some problems with large codebases, they had 5 years to work these problems out with Apple.

Fer fuck's sake, Adobe is charging an arm and a leg for its software and it can't spend a bit of time and money on parallel development?

I want you and everyone to forget what Scott and anyone else at Adobe has said because they're just trying to pretend like they're not squeezing more money out of their customers. I'm insulted if they think I'm gonna swallow their tripe.

This argument is not considered to be valid, and it isn't. Whenever they would have moved over, it would have taken then a long time. so, the unhappiness would have been five years ago instead. That would be fine now, but back then, the same people would have been screaming.

The truth is that it's well known that XCode and GCC aren't as well developed as Metroworks is. GCC also produces poored code.

There is an interesting article about this transition. Actually two. I posted the first one already. Please, read them carefully before getting hot.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html

http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007