Hey, when did that happen?! Oops! Must be the iPod 'cause I could have sworn that Adobe was almost twice as big a company in terms of revenue than Apple at one point.
Hmm, unless it has been going downhill for Adobe, you'll have to go a very long way back to find an Adobe with twice the revenue of Apple.
The year before the iPod Apple had a revenue of $5.74B.
Wasnt Adobe halfway there already? all they really need to do is beef up their raw tool and integrate/improve functionality of the bridge app, bridge+stacks+their raw tools = aperture, right?
Remember, this will be part of the suit, so you will have indesign+acrobat to do the layouts and golive/dreamweaver for web so this could easily smoke Aperture as a complete solution
Ha, ha. This is the problem with the Adobe suite. There are all these very powerful but relatively un-integrated applications. That's fine if your entire life is dedicated to creating graphics and documents from scratch (in which case Create Suite is heaven), but if you're a photographer...
Well, if you're a photographer, are you going to want to use Bridge to manage your photos, ACR to convert them, InDesign to print layouts, Acrobat to create PDFs, Photoshop to edit them, etc., etc.
In a word: No.
Waaaaaay too complicated. Powerful, yes, but way too complicated for someone who takes photographs for a living (or an advanced amateur).
That's the appeal of Aperture. It's easy. It's powerful. And, well, it has a few issues. Competition from Adobe is a great thing for Aperture.
Ha, ha. This is the problem with the Adobe suite. There are all these very powerful but relatively un-integrated applications. That's fine if your entire life is dedicated to creating graphics and documents from scratch (in which case Create Suite is heaven), but if you're a photographer...
Well, if you're a photographer, are you going to want to use Bridge to manage your photos, ACR to convert them, InDesign to print layouts, Acrobat to create PDFs, Photoshop to edit them, etc., etc.
In a word: No.
Waaaaaay too complicated. Powerful, yes, but way too complicated for someone who takes photographs for a living (or an advanced amateur).
That's the appeal of Aperture. It's easy. It's powerful. And, well, it has a few issues. Competition from Adobe is a great thing for Aperture.
If you're an amateur, maybe not.
But as that's exactly what the professional photographic, publishing, and graphics businesses ARE doing.
You like to wrap everything around the poor little semi professional who does this part-time.
We all know these guys. I have a bunch in my MUG. But, even most of them use PS and Illustrator. They also use Quark or inDesign if they need it.
I don't know why you pretend this isn't true.
Maybe this stuff is too complicated or expensive for you. But don't project yourself over to everyone else.
There is a difference in what you do and what you really want to do (which I think was his point).
Yes they tend to use the whole suite, but is that really the best way to do it? Use 3-4 different apps to manage and print photos?
I guess they use the apps because there hasn't been a better alternative.
His point, if you've followed this from a couple of months ago, is to knock a non Apple product, and to pretend that Aperture, even if it worked as it should, can replace Adobe's suite for most people who now use it, or are about to use it.
Though this knocking the entire suite is a step up for him. He was just knocking PS before.
The concept of using 3-4 apps to manage and print photos isn't the real question, though he likes to put it that way.
If all you want to do is take your photo's and do some quick and dirty correction, and then print them out to an Apple book. Fine. Then Aperture is for you.
If all you want to do is sort and select, then send the results to an editor to select the finals to print in a paper or weekly news mag, then that's also fine.
If you shoot a dinner, and take candids, and need to print 4 x 6 through the occasional 8 x 10 where quality isn't the end point, but just getting the photos are, then fine, Aperture is for you also.
I have no problems with any of this. I never have.
But if you need to do a commercial job. A print production job. A job that goes into a *real* book or magazine. Or catalog work. Or advertising. In other words, anything that requires a high level of quality and complexity, then you can't use Aperture.
So, no, you can't do an editorial for Vogue. And, no, you can't do a glossy coffee table book. And, no, you can't do a textbook, or a web page.
No, you can't fix serious problems with your photos, just simple basic ones.
I try to point out where Aperture's usage begins and ends, but he thinks that it can do everything. Sometimes he will post a response that admits that it can't, but later, he's back to the same rant.
There is a difference in what you do and what you really want to do (which I think was his point).
Yes they tend to use the whole suite, but is that really the best way to do it? Use 3-4 different apps to manage and print photos?
I guess they use the apps because there hasn't been a better alternative.
Exactly, JLL.
Photographers take, adjust, and output photographs. They don't output page layouts in InDesign or Acrobat. (Or, if they do, that's above and beyond photography. They're into another business there.)
But if you need to do a commercial job. A print production job. A job that goes into a *real* book or magazine. Or catalog work. Or advertising. In other words, anything that requires a high level of quality and complexity, then you can't use Aperture.
So, no, you can't do an editorial for Vogue. And, no, you can't do a glossy coffee table book. And, no, you can't do a textbook, or a web page.
No, you can't fix serious problems with your photos, just simple basic ones.
I try to point out where Aperture's usage begins and ends, but he thinks that it can do everything. Sometimes he will post a response that admits that it can't, but later, he's back to the same rant.
Who's talking about commercial publishing? Not Apple. Not me. Just you.
Aperture has nothing to do with commercial publishing. Wasn't meant to. And Adobe's product won't either. That's what Photoshop and InDesign and Acrobat are for.
Take the 3 photographers from Apple's Aperture web site. Heck, just take the sports photographer. His photos have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Does he design the cover of Sports Illustrated? No.
Does he need InDesign or Acrobat or Illustrator for his work? No.
He uses Aperture for the workflow for his thousands of photos, and probably uses Photoshop to do some touch-ups that he can't do in Aperture.
That's exactly the way Aperture (and presumably Adobe's new product) are designed to be used.
His works ends up in commercial publications, but he doesn't do that himself. He's a photographer. A professional photographer.
Who's talking about commercial publishing? Not Apple. Not me. Just you.
Aperture has nothing to do with commercial publishing. Wasn't meant to. And Adobe's product won't either. That's what Photoshop and InDesign and Acrobat are for.
Take the 3 photographers from Apple's Aperture web site. Heck, just take the sports photographer. His photos have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Does he design the cover of Sports Illustrated? No.
Does he need InDesign or Acrobat or Illustrator for his work? No.
He uses Aperture for the workflow for his thousands of photos, and probably uses Photoshop to do some touch-ups that he can't do in Aperture.
That's exactly the way Aperture (and presumably Adobe's new product) are designed to be used.
His works ends up in commercial publications, but he doesn't do that himself. He's a photographer. A professional photographer.
Actually, those three photographers were paid by Apple to do those ads for Apple. I doubt if they actually have used it for much other than the work they were doing while making the ads.
We were just talking about PS. You were the one who brought up the suite.
But, if you just want to talk about the photographer, that's fine.
Very few photojournalists do their own photo selection. That's almost always left to the editor. They used to send the film directly to be processed, and then it would be sent directly to editorial by us. Now, they send their work either through satellite phone, or over WiFi, or over "the wire".
We already discussed this .
If a photographer were to do a book, and many of the finest ones have done several, they would have an editor, and an art director. I've worked on a number of these books.
Two kinds of photographers here. One kind leaves the photo work to someone like me. While I haven't done advertising or fashion photo work for years, I have done, at my own lab, a great deal of work for my clients.
So, they come in, we select the photos (yes, we, clients get to know you, and do respect your opinion over time), and the client tells me what they need done, with some of my input if they aren't familliar with the process, which many are still not.
I do the work, either by myself, for some clients, or with them, for others who like to work interactively with me.
Afterwards, the photos go to the editor and art director.
The other type of photographer wants to do all of the work themselves. They come to me for scans, for film, but the rest they do.
These people do work for art. They aren't limited by what the camera has left in the file. They are creative. They manipulate. It's all very proper.
Ansel Adams manipulated all of his photos, so did most of the other great photographers of the last century. So will most of the great ones this century.
Aperture won't work for them.
So, let's go to the wedding, Bar Mitzvah, and confirmation photographers. Sorting the many photo's is an Aperture natural! But what about working with the selects afterwards? Well, table shots, if well exposed, would be fine. But the "special Effects" shots, where the photographer makes most of his print income from, can't be done in Aperture. They have to be done in PS.
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
Sorry, but I would disagree. I think that the better something looks, the more professional it is (for some purposes at least), not the other way around.
For example, Powerpoint has gone pretty much nowhere over the past few years because Microsoft has essentially stopped inovating with the product. The same has happened with Excel, there have been few significant changes over the past few years (talking about the PC side of the fence by the way).
The company that I work for either paid a graphic design company to do a Powerpoint template for us or had someone do it in-house (I'm not sure which), and it looks about a million times better than throwing together a presentation with a standard Powerpoint template.
I would also argue that having a "sexy" chart and a "simple" chart are not mutually exclusive.
Sorry, but I would disagree. I think that the better something looks, the more professional it is (for some purposes at least), not the other way around.
For example, Powerpoint has gone pretty much nowhere over the past few years because Microsoft has essentially stopped inovating with the product. The same has happened with Excel, there have been few significant changes over the past few years (talking about the PC side of the fence by the way).
The company that I work for either paid a graphic design company to do a Powerpoint template for us or had someone do it in-house (I'm not sure which), and it looks about a million times better than throwing together a presentation with a standard Powerpoint template.
I would also argue that having a "sexy" chart and a "simple" chart are not mutually exclusive.
Well, I can say to read the many books on the subject. Better looking doesn't mean "sexy". It can mean, clean, straightfoward, easy to interpret, uncluttered, etc.
One of the biggest propbems it that many people think that by getting more information on one "slide" they can have a more efficient presentation. In order to do that they need some complex - i.e. "sexy" chart.
That's wrong. Presenting LESS information per chart, and doing it well, with more charts presented as you explain the numbers, leads to more understanding.
I'm not saying that the standard templates are the nicest. But most are fairly simple, and the colors are designed not to distract from the information being presented.
The worst presentations have animated things zooming in and out so that they distract from the presentation itself.
Once might be good for a laugh, but after that, simple and straightfoward always wins.
You don't want your presentation to look more important than the information it is designed to impart.
Since the topic of integration has been brought up, I for my life would not like to have an app that integrated the functions of Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.
Photoshop is for handling bitmap files. Its files are defined by pixels.
Illustrator is for handling vector graphic files. Its files are defined by size-independent content.
InDesign is for handling layouts. Its files are defined by size-dependent content.
Very few photojournalists do their own photo selection....We already discussed this .
Yes, and I don't understand why you'd recommend to a photojournalist that they buy LightRoom or Aperture, since those are workflow applications. And if you wouldn't recommend to a photojournalist that they buy these apps, is there any point in bringing photojournalists into the discussion anymore?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If a photographer were to do a book...Two kinds of photographers here. One kind leaves the photo work to someone like me...
I feel like former President Reagan. "There you go again!". If LightRoom is a true Aperture competitor, then it is not aimed at people like this. Do you understand that?
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The other type of photographer wants to do all of the work themselves. ...Aperture won't work for them.
Again, who said it would? Not me. Not anyone else here. LightRoom and Aperture are the workflow app, and PS is the editing app. No one is saying LightRoom or Aperture is the pixel-level editing app.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
So, let's go to the wedding, Bar Mitzvah, and confirmation photographers. Sorting the many photo's is an Aperture natural! But what about working with the selects afterwards? Well, table shots, if well exposed, would be fine. But the "special Effects" shots, where the photographer makes most of his print income from, can't be done in Aperture. They have to be done in PS.
"There you go again." No one is saying these won't be done in PS.
Since the topic of integration has been brought up, I for my life would not like to have an app that integrated the functions of Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.
Photoshop is for handling bitmap files. Its files are defined by pixels.
Illustrator is for handling vector graphic files. Its files are defined by size-independent content.
InDesign is for handling layouts. Its files are defined by size-dependent content.
If you're a professional graphic artist, then you're absolutely right. You'll also want a separate app (e.g., DreamWeaver) for web design.
But people (including photographers) who aren't full-time, professional graphic artists don't have the time or inclination to learn all these best-of-breed programs. And those apps have far more functionality than they'll ever touch.
That's why even Photoshop (and surely LightRoom) can print multiple images per page (the domain of InDesign) and export web pages (the domain of DreamWeaver).
And even then, the delineation between graphics editing applications blurred long ago. PS can do dynamic text and shape/line editing, which theoretically is the domain of Illustrator, and flexible paragraph formatting which is the domain of InDesign.
The issue isn't so much one of purity (i.e., separate silos of graphics editing) as it is *who* the application is aimed at. Photoshop is aimed at pixel pushers who do light text formatting and line editing. Illustrator is aimed at vector design folks who might want to incorporate the occasional bitmap in their work. InDesign is mainly text formatting, but it's got some vector tools and can apply various PS layers to embedded images. LightRoom is mainly workflow (if it's anything like Aperture), but it does do some light editing, book printing, and web page generation itself.
So, if you're too pure about what an app is supposed to do, it actually makes it harder to use for its intended audience.
And if this thread has shown anything (other than Adobe and Apple financials ), it's shown that some people don't understand where certain apps are directed. Before buying or recommending an application, you need to understand who--and what workflow--it's aimed at.
Don't recommend InDesign to someone who creates memos all day, and don't recommend Photoshop as a workflow app for photographers. Even Adobe realizes that; that's why they're coming out with LightRoom, after all.
Apple should buy Adobe. This is by no means my original idea but a bit of rehash of others ideas.
1. As insurance agains MS and the Office hegemony. If MS drops OS X development apple would have PS to hold over the head of MS.
2. As a subtle means of getting people to switch. Make new and great features Mac only at first.
3. Get the Creative Talent and Markets of Adobe and Macromedia.
4. Integrate features of PS into iphoto or Aperture
5. grow Apple.
1. MS is already creating the foundation of competing apps for Adobe. So holding PS over the head of MS isn't likely to get Apple anywhere.
2. Does Apple want to get in the business of developing Windows apps (other than QuickTime and iTunes)?
3. Apple has some pretty good people themselves. And they can just steal whoever they feel they need. Kinda like Sony just stole a semi-bigwig from Apple recently.
4. I'd rather have iPhoto or Aperture integrate with a more powerful editing app.
5. Apple can grow plenty by stealing Adobe's customers.
Yes, and I don't understand why you'd recommend to a photojournalist that they buy LightRoom or Aperture, since those are workflow applications. And if you wouldn't recommend to a photojournalist that they buy these apps, is there any point in bringing photojournalists into the discussion anymore?
I feel like former President Reagan. "There you go again!". If LightRoom is a true Aperture competitor, then it is not aimed at people like this. Do you understand that?
Again, who said it would? Not me. Not anyone else here. LightRoom and Aperture are the workflow app, and PS is the editing app. No one is saying LightRoom or Aperture is the pixel-level editing app.
"There you go again." No one is saying these won't be done in PS.
You do twist things around. I never mentioned LightRoom, did I?
But, you've pretty much made my case for me. You agree that it has a VERY small audience, because it does so little.
Comments
Originally posted by strobe
uuh, melgross, maybe you should read my third paragraph.
I'll tell you what, I'll read your third paragraph again, if you read my first sentence again.
Deal?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Hey, when did that happen?! Oops! Must be the iPod 'cause I could have sworn that Adobe was almost twice as big a company in terms of revenue than Apple at one point.
Hmm, unless it has been going downhill for Adobe, you'll have to go a very long way back to find an Adobe with twice the revenue of Apple.
The year before the iPod Apple had a revenue of $5.74B.
Originally posted by a_greer
Wasnt Adobe halfway there already? all they really need to do is beef up their raw tool and integrate/improve functionality of the bridge app, bridge+stacks+their raw tools = aperture, right?
Remember, this will be part of the suit, so you will have indesign+acrobat to do the layouts and golive/dreamweaver for web so this could easily smoke Aperture as a complete solution
Ha, ha. This is the problem with the Adobe suite. There are all these very powerful but relatively un-integrated applications. That's fine if your entire life is dedicated to creating graphics and documents from scratch (in which case Create Suite is heaven), but if you're a photographer...
Well, if you're a photographer, are you going to want to use Bridge to manage your photos, ACR to convert them, InDesign to print layouts, Acrobat to create PDFs, Photoshop to edit them, etc., etc.
In a word: No.
Waaaaaay too complicated. Powerful, yes, but way too complicated for someone who takes photographs for a living (or an advanced amateur).
That's the appeal of Aperture. It's easy. It's powerful. And, well, it has a few issues. Competition from Adobe is a great thing for Aperture.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Ha, ha. This is the problem with the Adobe suite. There are all these very powerful but relatively un-integrated applications. That's fine if your entire life is dedicated to creating graphics and documents from scratch (in which case Create Suite is heaven), but if you're a photographer...
Well, if you're a photographer, are you going to want to use Bridge to manage your photos, ACR to convert them, InDesign to print layouts, Acrobat to create PDFs, Photoshop to edit them, etc., etc.
In a word: No.
Waaaaaay too complicated. Powerful, yes, but way too complicated for someone who takes photographs for a living (or an advanced amateur).
That's the appeal of Aperture. It's easy. It's powerful. And, well, it has a few issues. Competition from Adobe is a great thing for Aperture.
If you're an amateur, maybe not.
But as that's exactly what the professional photographic, publishing, and graphics businesses ARE doing.
You like to wrap everything around the poor little semi professional who does this part-time.
We all know these guys. I have a bunch in my MUG. But, even most of them use PS and Illustrator. They also use Quark or inDesign if they need it.
I don't know why you pretend this isn't true.
Maybe this stuff is too complicated or expensive for you. But don't project yourself over to everyone else.
Originally posted by melgross
If you're an amateur, maybe not.
But as that's exactly what the professional photographic, publishing, and graphics businesses ARE doing.
You like to wrap everything around the poor little semi professional who does this part-time.
We all know these guys. I have a bunch in my MUG. But, even most of them use PS and Illustrator. They also use Quark or inDesign if they need it.
I don't know why you pretend this isn't true.
Maybe this stuff is too complicated or expensive for you. But don't project yourself over to everyone else.
There is a difference in what you do and what you really want to do (which I think was his point).
Yes they tend to use the whole suite, but is that really the best way to do it? Use 3-4 different apps to manage and print photos?
I guess they use the apps because there hasn't been a better alternative.
Originally posted by JLL
There is a difference in what you do and what you really want to do (which I think was his point).
Yes they tend to use the whole suite, but is that really the best way to do it? Use 3-4 different apps to manage and print photos?
I guess they use the apps because there hasn't been a better alternative.
His point, if you've followed this from a couple of months ago, is to knock a non Apple product, and to pretend that Aperture, even if it worked as it should, can replace Adobe's suite for most people who now use it, or are about to use it.
Though this knocking the entire suite is a step up for him. He was just knocking PS before.
The concept of using 3-4 apps to manage and print photos isn't the real question, though he likes to put it that way.
If all you want to do is take your photo's and do some quick and dirty correction, and then print them out to an Apple book. Fine. Then Aperture is for you.
If all you want to do is sort and select, then send the results to an editor to select the finals to print in a paper or weekly news mag, then that's also fine.
If you shoot a dinner, and take candids, and need to print 4 x 6 through the occasional 8 x 10 where quality isn't the end point, but just getting the photos are, then fine, Aperture is for you also.
I have no problems with any of this. I never have.
But if you need to do a commercial job. A print production job. A job that goes into a *real* book or magazine. Or catalog work. Or advertising. In other words, anything that requires a high level of quality and complexity, then you can't use Aperture.
So, no, you can't do an editorial for Vogue. And, no, you can't do a glossy coffee table book. And, no, you can't do a textbook, or a web page.
No, you can't fix serious problems with your photos, just simple basic ones.
I try to point out where Aperture's usage begins and ends, but he thinks that it can do everything. Sometimes he will post a response that admits that it can't, but later, he's back to the same rant.
Originally posted by JLL
There is a difference in what you do and what you really want to do (which I think was his point).
Yes they tend to use the whole suite, but is that really the best way to do it? Use 3-4 different apps to manage and print photos?
I guess they use the apps because there hasn't been a better alternative.
Exactly, JLL.
Photographers take, adjust, and output photographs. They don't output page layouts in InDesign or Acrobat. (Or, if they do, that's above and beyond photography. They're into another business there.)
Originally posted by melgross
But if you need to do a commercial job. A print production job. A job that goes into a *real* book or magazine. Or catalog work. Or advertising. In other words, anything that requires a high level of quality and complexity, then you can't use Aperture.
So, no, you can't do an editorial for Vogue. And, no, you can't do a glossy coffee table book. And, no, you can't do a textbook, or a web page.
No, you can't fix serious problems with your photos, just simple basic ones.
I try to point out where Aperture's usage begins and ends, but he thinks that it can do everything. Sometimes he will post a response that admits that it can't, but later, he's back to the same rant.
Who's talking about commercial publishing? Not Apple. Not me. Just you.
Aperture has nothing to do with commercial publishing. Wasn't meant to. And Adobe's product won't either. That's what Photoshop and InDesign and Acrobat are for.
Take the 3 photographers from Apple's Aperture web site. Heck, just take the sports photographer. His photos have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Does he design the cover of Sports Illustrated? No.
Does he need InDesign or Acrobat or Illustrator for his work? No.
He uses Aperture for the workflow for his thousands of photos, and probably uses Photoshop to do some touch-ups that he can't do in Aperture.
That's exactly the way Aperture (and presumably Adobe's new product) are designed to be used.
His works ends up in commercial publications, but he doesn't do that himself. He's a photographer. A professional photographer.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Who's talking about commercial publishing? Not Apple. Not me. Just you.
Aperture has nothing to do with commercial publishing. Wasn't meant to. And Adobe's product won't either. That's what Photoshop and InDesign and Acrobat are for.
Take the 3 photographers from Apple's Aperture web site. Heck, just take the sports photographer. His photos have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Does he design the cover of Sports Illustrated? No.
Does he need InDesign or Acrobat or Illustrator for his work? No.
He uses Aperture for the workflow for his thousands of photos, and probably uses Photoshop to do some touch-ups that he can't do in Aperture.
That's exactly the way Aperture (and presumably Adobe's new product) are designed to be used.
His works ends up in commercial publications, but he doesn't do that himself. He's a photographer. A professional photographer.
Actually, those three photographers were paid by Apple to do those ads for Apple. I doubt if they actually have used it for much other than the work they were doing while making the ads.
We were just talking about PS. You were the one who brought up the suite.
But, if you just want to talk about the photographer, that's fine.
Very few photojournalists do their own photo selection. That's almost always left to the editor. They used to send the film directly to be processed, and then it would be sent directly to editorial by us. Now, they send their work either through satellite phone, or over WiFi, or over "the wire".
We already discussed this .
If a photographer were to do a book, and many of the finest ones have done several, they would have an editor, and an art director. I've worked on a number of these books.
Two kinds of photographers here. One kind leaves the photo work to someone like me. While I haven't done advertising or fashion photo work for years, I have done, at my own lab, a great deal of work for my clients.
So, they come in, we select the photos (yes, we, clients get to know you, and do respect your opinion over time), and the client tells me what they need done, with some of my input if they aren't familliar with the process, which many are still not.
I do the work, either by myself, for some clients, or with them, for others who like to work interactively with me.
Afterwards, the photos go to the editor and art director.
The other type of photographer wants to do all of the work themselves. They come to me for scans, for film, but the rest they do.
These people do work for art. They aren't limited by what the camera has left in the file. They are creative. They manipulate. It's all very proper.
Ansel Adams manipulated all of his photos, so did most of the other great photographers of the last century. So will most of the great ones this century.
Aperture won't work for them.
So, let's go to the wedding, Bar Mitzvah, and confirmation photographers. Sorting the many photo's is an Aperture natural! But what about working with the selects afterwards? Well, table shots, if well exposed, would be fine. But the "special Effects" shots, where the photographer makes most of his print income from, can't be done in Aperture. They have to be done in PS.
1. As insurance agains MS and the Office hegemony. If MS drops OS X development apple would have PS to hold over the head of MS.
2. As a subtle means of getting people to switch. Make new and great features Mac only at first.
3. Get the Creative Talent and Markets of Adobe and Macromedia.
4. Integrate features of PS into iphoto or Aperture
5. grow Apple.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
Sorry, but I would disagree. I think that the better something looks, the more professional it is (for some purposes at least), not the other way around.
For example, Powerpoint has gone pretty much nowhere over the past few years because Microsoft has essentially stopped inovating with the product. The same has happened with Excel, there have been few significant changes over the past few years (talking about the PC side of the fence by the way).
The company that I work for either paid a graphic design company to do a Powerpoint template for us or had someone do it in-house (I'm not sure which), and it looks about a million times better than throwing together a presentation with a standard Powerpoint template.
I would also argue that having a "sexy" chart and a "simple" chart are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Chagi
Sorry, but I would disagree. I think that the better something looks, the more professional it is (for some purposes at least), not the other way around.
For example, Powerpoint has gone pretty much nowhere over the past few years because Microsoft has essentially stopped inovating with the product. The same has happened with Excel, there have been few significant changes over the past few years (talking about the PC side of the fence by the way).
The company that I work for either paid a graphic design company to do a Powerpoint template for us or had someone do it in-house (I'm not sure which), and it looks about a million times better than throwing together a presentation with a standard Powerpoint template.
I would also argue that having a "sexy" chart and a "simple" chart are not mutually exclusive.
Well, I can say to read the many books on the subject. Better looking doesn't mean "sexy". It can mean, clean, straightfoward, easy to interpret, uncluttered, etc.
One of the biggest propbems it that many people think that by getting more information on one "slide" they can have a more efficient presentation. In order to do that they need some complex - i.e. "sexy" chart.
That's wrong. Presenting LESS information per chart, and doing it well, with more charts presented as you explain the numbers, leads to more understanding.
I'm not saying that the standard templates are the nicest. But most are fairly simple, and the colors are designed not to distract from the information being presented.
The worst presentations have animated things zooming in and out so that they distract from the presentation itself.
Once might be good for a laugh, but after that, simple and straightfoward always wins.
You don't want your presentation to look more important than the information it is designed to impart.
Photoshop is for handling bitmap files. Its files are defined by pixels.
Illustrator is for handling vector graphic files. Its files are defined by size-independent content.
InDesign is for handling layouts. Its files are defined by size-dependent content.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Might Apple or Microsoft attempt a hostile takeover of Adobe at some point? What would have to happen for this to occur?
???
Shareholders would have to sell their shares to Apple or MS?
Originally posted by melgross
Very few photojournalists do their own photo selection....We already discussed this .
Yes, and I don't understand why you'd recommend to a photojournalist that they buy LightRoom or Aperture, since those are workflow applications. And if you wouldn't recommend to a photojournalist that they buy these apps, is there any point in bringing photojournalists into the discussion anymore?
Originally posted by melgross
If a photographer were to do a book...Two kinds of photographers here. One kind leaves the photo work to someone like me...
I feel like former President Reagan. "There you go again!".
Originally posted by melgross
The other type of photographer wants to do all of the work themselves. ...Aperture won't work for them.
Again, who said it would? Not me. Not anyone else here. LightRoom and Aperture are the workflow app, and PS is the editing app. No one is saying LightRoom or Aperture is the pixel-level editing app.
Originally posted by melgross
So, let's go to the wedding, Bar Mitzvah, and confirmation photographers. Sorting the many photo's is an Aperture natural! But what about working with the selects afterwards? Well, table shots, if well exposed, would be fine. But the "special Effects" shots, where the photographer makes most of his print income from, can't be done in Aperture. They have to be done in PS.
"There you go again."
Originally posted by noirdesir
Since the topic of integration has been brought up, I for my life would not like to have an app that integrated the functions of Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.
Photoshop is for handling bitmap files. Its files are defined by pixels.
Illustrator is for handling vector graphic files. Its files are defined by size-independent content.
InDesign is for handling layouts. Its files are defined by size-dependent content.
If you're a professional graphic artist, then you're absolutely right. You'll also want a separate app (e.g., DreamWeaver) for web design.
But people (including photographers) who aren't full-time, professional graphic artists don't have the time or inclination to learn all these best-of-breed programs. And those apps have far more functionality than they'll ever touch.
That's why even Photoshop (and surely LightRoom) can print multiple images per page (the domain of InDesign) and export web pages (the domain of DreamWeaver).
And even then, the delineation between graphics editing applications blurred long ago. PS can do dynamic text and shape/line editing, which theoretically is the domain of Illustrator, and flexible paragraph formatting which is the domain of InDesign.
The issue isn't so much one of purity (i.e., separate silos of graphics editing) as it is *who* the application is aimed at. Photoshop is aimed at pixel pushers who do light text formatting and line editing. Illustrator is aimed at vector design folks who might want to incorporate the occasional bitmap in their work. InDesign is mainly text formatting, but it's got some vector tools and can apply various PS layers to embedded images. LightRoom is mainly workflow (if it's anything like Aperture), but it does do some light editing, book printing, and web page generation itself.
So, if you're too pure about what an app is supposed to do, it actually makes it harder to use for its intended audience.
And if this thread has shown anything (other than Adobe and Apple financials
Don't recommend InDesign to someone who creates memos all day, and don't recommend Photoshop as a workflow app for photographers. Even Adobe realizes that; that's why they're coming out with LightRoom, after all.
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple should buy Adobe. This is by no means my original idea but a bit of rehash of others ideas.
1. As insurance agains MS and the Office hegemony. If MS drops OS X development apple would have PS to hold over the head of MS.
2. As a subtle means of getting people to switch. Make new and great features Mac only at first.
3. Get the Creative Talent and Markets of Adobe and Macromedia.
4. Integrate features of PS into iphoto or Aperture
5. grow Apple.
1. MS is already creating the foundation of competing apps for Adobe. So holding PS over the head of MS isn't likely to get Apple anywhere.
2. Does Apple want to get in the business of developing Windows apps (other than QuickTime and iTunes)?
3. Apple has some pretty good people themselves. And they can just steal whoever they feel they need.
4. I'd rather have iPhoto or Aperture integrate with a more powerful editing app.
5. Apple can grow plenty by stealing Adobe's customers.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
???
Shareholders would have to sell their shares to Apple or MS?
Yes, though it's very unlikely. There might also be issues with the Feds if MS attempted it.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yes, and I don't understand why you'd recommend to a photojournalist that they buy LightRoom or Aperture, since those are workflow applications. And if you wouldn't recommend to a photojournalist that they buy these apps, is there any point in bringing photojournalists into the discussion anymore?
I feel like former President Reagan. "There you go again!".
Again, who said it would? Not me. Not anyone else here. LightRoom and Aperture are the workflow app, and PS is the editing app. No one is saying LightRoom or Aperture is the pixel-level editing app.
"There you go again."
You do twist things around. I never mentioned LightRoom, did I?
But, you've pretty much made my case for me. You agree that it has a VERY small audience, because it does so little.