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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
[B]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.
I can't tell you HOW the error occurs. If I could, then I would have reported it to both companies, and it would have been fixed some time ago. I assume that there are bugs in the programs that interact with some files. if the info on the files is either corrupt, or otherwise missing, it will trigger the bug. Many programs will crash if files are not what the program expects. We have all experienced that. fortunately, the only problem we seem to experience from whatever is occasionally happening is for the links to break.
[QUOTE]
Yes, we are much slower in DC than you guys in NY. Could you tell me about Photoshops "new" features again? [/QUOTE}
Quote:
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
I never said most of the time. Just for one page comps, and not complex ones. Otherwise, yes. From what you say, it sounds like you know most of the tools. I'm not going to give a list.
Quote:
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.
We did a lot of different things. We were a commercial photo lab, that did a great deal of digital work, the only company to process Professional Kodachrome film, and high end printing services. So I would see work from both ends. We also did comping and layout work, though that wasn't a primary focus.
Quote:
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).
I use Pro Tools myself. But PS is a bigger program than that. And, when will the plug-ins for Pro tools come out? We don't know.
Comments
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?
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by admactanium
Have you dealt with them?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
IBM and Freescale are paying Adobe to withhold the CS3 release.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by james808
[B]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.
I can't tell you HOW the error occurs. If I could, then I would have reported it to both companies, and it would have been fixed some time ago. I assume that there are bugs in the programs that interact with some files. if the info on the files is either corrupt, or otherwise missing, it will trigger the bug. Many programs will crash if files are not what the program expects. We have all experienced that. fortunately, the only problem we seem to experience from whatever is occasionally happening is for the links to break.
[QUOTE]
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
I never said most of the time. Just for one page comps, and not complex ones. Otherwise, yes. From what you say, it sounds like you know most of the tools. I'm not going to give a list.
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.
We did a lot of different things. We were a commercial photo lab, that did a great deal of digital work, the only company to process Professional Kodachrome film, and high end printing services. So I would see work from both ends. We also did comping and layout work, though that wasn't a primary focus.
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).
I use Pro Tools myself. But PS is a bigger program than that. And, when will the plug-ins for Pro tools come out? We don't know.