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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by melgross
If you have ever used GIMP, you would know why it isn't used much.
I second that.
Originally posted by aplnub
I second that.
Could you elaborate? Is it the functionality, or the interface, or the speed, or all three?
Originally posted by jms698
Could you elaborate? Is it the functionality, or the interface, or the speed, or all three?
Yes. All three.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.