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.
I certainly agree that Aperture will fix the tools they now have, and come out with new ones.
What is being missed by those who are assuming that Aperture is intended to substitute for PS, is that those of us who have used PS extensively over the years use a fairly large subset of the tools on a regular basis.
While the organizational nature of Aperture is very good, and some of the worst problems seem to have been fixed, it's unlikely that Apple will be interested in adding as much complexity to it as would be needed.
The problem is that if Aperture has 75% of the tools I need most of the time, I'm not going to want to enter another program for the other 25%. I'm going to want to do it in one program.
If, on the other hand, Elements 4 has more tools than I need, I might want to use Aperture instead, because of the organizational features.
I'm not denigrating Aperture. I bought it. But I can't see it taking over more than a small percentage of PS's customers. Though we might use the organization features, and then go to PS.
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).
You can always change the values to whatever your pressman prefers. But, when printing a four color layout, black text is almost NEVER printed as black only. That would be a strange choice. Look in any magazine and you will see that. Body text is printed either way, but most any other text is printed as "rich black".
If your company didn't do that, then they were about the only ones.
Quote:
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.
If you don't know that text in PS is NOT a bitmap, you shouldn't be doing any work with it at all. Only those who don't understand how PS handles text would say that. Text layers do NOT rasterize text. And, there is NO need for you to do so.
Quote:
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.
I certainly agree that Aperture will fix the tools they now have, and come out with new ones.
What is being missed by those who are assuming that Aperture is intended to substitute for PS, is that those of us who have used PS extensively over the years use a fairly large subset of the tools on a regular basis.
While the organizational nature of Aperture is very good, and some of the worst problems seem to have been fixed, it's unlikely that Apple will be interested in adding as much complexity to it as would be needed.
The problem is that if Aperture has 75% of the tools I need most of the time, I'm not going to want to enter another program for the other 25%. I'm going to want to do it in one program.
If, on the other hand, Elements 4 has more tools than I need, I might want to use Aperture instead, because of the organizational features.
I'm not denigrating Aperture. I bought it. But I can't see it taking over more than a small percentage of PS's customers. Though we might use the organization features, and then go to PS.
I agree. I do think that the foray by Apple into the PS marketspace was intended to snap up Adobe's business and as a secondary benefit to put pressure on them to develop for the mac.
If also, Adobe decides to pull the plug on development for osX for whatever reason, then Apple has an app that can be ramped up to fill the gap.
You can always change the values to whatever your pressman prefers. But, when printing a four color layout, black text is almost NEVER printed as black only. That would be a strange choice. Look in any magazine and you will see that. Body text is printed either way, but most any other text is printed as "rich black".
If your company didn't do that, then they were about the only ones.
If you don't know that text in PS is NOT a bitmap, you shouldn't be doing any work with it at all. Only those who don't understand how PS handles text would say that. Text layers do NOT rasterize text. And, there is NO need for you to do so.
We RIP from PS all of the time. No big deal.
To clarify, I'm talking about a flattened file, no layers. That makes changing any values of select elements extremely tricky.
And yes I know about Photoshop's text. But seriously I'd never heard of anyone using Photoshop to send to a RIP before and I'd be curios to know how easy it is to control things such as crop marks, bleeds and separations. Not having a RIP in my possession I don't know if all those features are there or not.
In the past when I used to do some design work I was surprised when asked to deliver an A4 (that's Letter to you USAians) layout in PSD instead of an Illustrator file. At 300dpi it can be a pain in the ass to render out that big ass PSD. And 300dpi is actually quite low res! I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to deliver big ass layouts in PSD as 600dpi or 720dpi, etc.
ah, "when i used to do some design work". me, i am just *not* cut out to be a designer. overall it has been an exciting but extremely mentally unhealthy undertaking for me. sigh.
To clarify, I'm talking about a flattened file, no layers. That makes changing any values of select elements extremely tricky.
And yes I know about Photoshop's text. But seriously I'd never heard of anyone using Photoshop to send to a RIP before and I'd be curios to know how easy it is to control things such as crop marks, bleeds and separations. Not having a RIP in my possession I don't know if all those features are there or not.
Why in the world would you want to flatten a file like that? It isn't required to do that in order to print. You could always quickly convert it to a PDF if you thought it necessary.
In the past when I used to do some design work I was surprised when asked to deliver an A4 (that's Letter to you USAians) layout in PSD instead of an Illustrator file. At 300dpi it can be a pain in the ass to render out that big ass PSD. And 300dpi is actually quite low res! I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to deliver big ass layouts in PSD as 600dpi or 720dpi, etc.
ah, "when i used to do some design work". me, i am just *not* cut out to be a designer. overall it has been an exciting but extremely mentally unhealthy undertaking for me. sigh.
It took 1 mimute to render out a 24MB A4 psd file. Is that too time consuming?
Why in the world would you want to flatten a file like that? It isn't required to do that in order to print. You could always quickly convert it to a PDF if you thought it necessary.
I wouldn't flatten the file either. I was talking about files from a customer where they designed it in photoshop and gave me a flattened file.
In my new job, we have to send our magazine pages as PDF's made from Quark (unfortunately). Any ads done in PS must be flattened so the text is not as good quality.
If you can go straight from PhotoShop, then by all means use it as your main layout app, but I know it wasn't made to do that and in most cases it's too limiting, in my opinion.
A sort of slightly-off-topic question: if I were to place a layered PSD file in InDesign, where the PSD had editable text layers, would that text be send to the printer as a raster or bitmap?
I wouldn't flatten the file either. I was talking about files from a customer where they designed it in photoshop and gave me a flattened file.
In my new job, we have to send our magazine pages as PDF's made from Quark (unfortunately). Any ads done in PS must be flattened so the text is not as good quality.
If you can go straight from PhotoShop, then by all means use it as your main layout app, but I know it wasn't made to do that and in most cases it's too limiting, in my opinion.
A sort of slightly-off-topic question: if I were to place a layered PSD file in InDesign, where the PSD had editable text layers, would that text be send to the printer as a raster or bitmap?
Depends on what kind of machine you are talking about. You can make a choice with several RIP's. But generally, it will go as a bitmap.
[B]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.
But Xcode and GCC could have become well developed had Adobe and MS worked with Apple right from the start. The screams would have been silent screams since developers don't talk about these issues when things are still alright for them (ie they'd still be releasing their apps compiled with Metrowerks.)
But these guys decided to wait it out until they had no choice to switch. Is it their fault? Yes mostly...who else's fault is it? It ain't Apple's.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge GCC either. For some types of apps, it can get messy and problematic...but for other types of apps, the code is quite good and even offers a small speed boost over Metrowerks-compiled Mach-O apps.
But Xcode and GCC could have become well developed had Adobe and MS worked with Apple right from the start. The screams would have been silent screams since developers don't talk about these issues when things are still alright for them (ie they'd still be releasing their apps compiled with Metrowerks.)
But these guys decided to wait it out until they had no choice to switch. Is it their fault? Yes mostly...who else's fault is it? It ain't Apple's.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge GCC either. For some types of apps, it can get messy and problematic...but for other types of apps, the code is quite good and even offers a small speed boost over Metrowerks-compiled Mach-O apps.
Adobe hasn't got the knowledge to work on GCC. It's totally out of their area. Even Apple relies on open source coders to improve it.
MS no doubt has the people, but why should the spend the millions required to help something that will have marginal use for themselves? Besides, only Apple knows enough about where they are going with it to make the changes they need. Office seems to run pretty well, so it is less important that MS rush it.
You can blame Apple for that. If they weren't so tight-lipped about what they were doing, developers could get a jump on their own work.
Take Tiger, for example. Developers didn't get the final code much before we did. Neither Adobe or MS had Tiger in what was even close to its final form until release was almost near. The Intel version wasn't in sync until just before it was released. You have read about the progress on this very site! Until 10.4.3 was out, the two products weren't even feature compatible. Not until 10.4.4 were they in total sync. That was just about the time the new machines came out.
What do you expect Adobe to do? This is a company with major programs that have hooks throughout the OS. Do you expect them to rewrite their code every time Apple came closer?
They made the correct decision to go the way they are going. They really had no choice.
Lightroom shows that they can, and will, move quickly, if the code will allow them to. Lightroom is still in beta, with all new code. A much simpler program than PS, Illustrator, or InDesign.
One would think that Apple's own pro programs would have been ready in January, but they weren't. And, it's likely that Apple had been working on basic Intel code for them for quite a while.
If you want to look at a big program that hasn't even had an announcement about going Universal, that you can criticize a company for, it would be SHAKE. Where is Apple's statement for when IT will be going Universal? There hasn't even been one.
Let's see what comes out first. Shake or the CS3 Suite, with all of the programs it is comprised of.
Then throw stones.
And, after that, wonder why we haven't even heard about what features will be in Leopard. With the dev conf moved to August, how much time will that give developers to integrate important new features into their software? If we expect the OS by Macworld in January, that gives developers a big 4 months to rewrite their software in time for the release. When companies lag by 6 months to a year, don't blame them.
I suspect that if Intel Power Macs arrive in the fall, we'll see Adobe ramp up the UB code-writing factory line. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I like to believe that it will be hard for the folks at Adobe to ignore masses of hungry designers with cash in hand.
I suspect that if Intel Power Macs arrive in the fall, we'll see Adobe ramp up the UB code-writing factory line. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I like to believe that it will be hard for the folks at Adobe to ignore masses of hungry designers with cash in hand.
I'm sure they're working as fast as they can. Believe me, they are losing sales at this point while people wait.
Comments
Originally posted by TednDi
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.
I certainly agree that Aperture will fix the tools they now have, and come out with new ones.
What is being missed by those who are assuming that Aperture is intended to substitute for PS, is that those of us who have used PS extensively over the years use a fairly large subset of the tools on a regular basis.
While the organizational nature of Aperture is very good, and some of the worst problems seem to have been fixed, it's unlikely that Apple will be interested in adding as much complexity to it as would be needed.
The problem is that if Aperture has 75% of the tools I need most of the time, I'm not going to want to enter another program for the other 25%. I'm going to want to do it in one program.
If, on the other hand, Elements 4 has more tools than I need, I might want to use Aperture instead, because of the organizational features.
I'm not denigrating Aperture. I bought it. But I can't see it taking over more than a small percentage of PS's customers. Though we might use the organization features, and then go to PS.
Originally posted by jabohn
[B]My 2 cents:
1. After working in a print shop for over 2 years I can tell you that whenever I got a file from a customer that was designed entirely in Photoshop I would roll my eyes. From a printing point of view it is a pain. One of the most annoying parts is that black text is not actually black, it is CMYK, so when you do your separations you get that "black" text on all 4 plates. This makes it harder for the pressmen to deal with and in turn they would get on my case, but of course there's usually nothing I can do. (A lot of this can also be said about getting Publisher files or PDF files not made correctly).
You can always change the values to whatever your pressman prefers. But, when printing a four color layout, black text is almost NEVER printed as black only. That would be a strange choice. Look in any magazine and you will see that. Body text is printed either way, but most any other text is printed as "rich black".
If your company didn't do that, then they were about the only ones.
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.
If you don't know that text in PS is NOT a bitmap, you shouldn't be doing any work with it at all. Only those who don't understand how PS handles text would say that. Text layers do NOT rasterize text. And, there is NO need for you to do so.
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.
We RIP from PS all of the time. No big deal.
Originally posted by melgross
I certainly agree that Aperture will fix the tools they now have, and come out with new ones.
What is being missed by those who are assuming that Aperture is intended to substitute for PS, is that those of us who have used PS extensively over the years use a fairly large subset of the tools on a regular basis.
While the organizational nature of Aperture is very good, and some of the worst problems seem to have been fixed, it's unlikely that Apple will be interested in adding as much complexity to it as would be needed.
The problem is that if Aperture has 75% of the tools I need most of the time, I'm not going to want to enter another program for the other 25%. I'm going to want to do it in one program.
If, on the other hand, Elements 4 has more tools than I need, I might want to use Aperture instead, because of the organizational features.
I'm not denigrating Aperture. I bought it. But I can't see it taking over more than a small percentage of PS's customers. Though we might use the organization features, and then go to PS.
I agree. I do think that the foray by Apple into the PS marketspace was intended to snap up Adobe's business and as a secondary benefit to put pressure on them to develop for the mac.
If also, Adobe decides to pull the plug on development for osX for whatever reason, then Apple has an app that can be ramped up to fill the gap.
Hard, yes. Impossible? no.
Originally posted by melgross
You can always change the values to whatever your pressman prefers. But, when printing a four color layout, black text is almost NEVER printed as black only. That would be a strange choice. Look in any magazine and you will see that. Body text is printed either way, but most any other text is printed as "rich black".
If your company didn't do that, then they were about the only ones.
If you don't know that text in PS is NOT a bitmap, you shouldn't be doing any work with it at all. Only those who don't understand how PS handles text would say that. Text layers do NOT rasterize text. And, there is NO need for you to do so.
We RIP from PS all of the time. No big deal.
To clarify, I'm talking about a flattened file, no layers. That makes changing any values of select elements extremely tricky.
And yes I know about Photoshop's text. But seriously I'd never heard of anyone using Photoshop to send to a RIP before and I'd be curios to know how easy it is to control things such as crop marks, bleeds and separations. Not having a RIP in my possession I don't know if all those features are there or not.
ah, "when i used to do some design work". me, i am just *not* cut out to be a designer. overall it has been an exciting but extremely mentally unhealthy undertaking for me. sigh.
Originally posted by jabohn
To clarify, I'm talking about a flattened file, no layers. That makes changing any values of select elements extremely tricky.
And yes I know about Photoshop's text. But seriously I'd never heard of anyone using Photoshop to send to a RIP before and I'd be curios to know how easy it is to control things such as crop marks, bleeds and separations. Not having a RIP in my possession I don't know if all those features are there or not.
Why in the world would you want to flatten a file like that? It isn't required to do that in order to print. You could always quickly convert it to a PDF if you thought it necessary.
Originally posted by sunilraman
In the past when I used to do some design work I was surprised when asked to deliver an A4 (that's Letter to you USAians) layout in PSD instead of an Illustrator file. At 300dpi it can be a pain in the ass to render out that big ass PSD. And 300dpi is actually quite low res! I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to deliver big ass layouts in PSD as 600dpi or 720dpi, etc.
ah, "when i used to do some design work". me, i am just *not* cut out to be a designer. overall it has been an exciting but extremely mentally unhealthy undertaking for me. sigh.
It took 1 mimute to render out a 24MB A4 psd file. Is that too time consuming?
Originally posted by melgross
Why in the world would you want to flatten a file like that? It isn't required to do that in order to print. You could always quickly convert it to a PDF if you thought it necessary.
I wouldn't flatten the file either. I was talking about files from a customer where they designed it in photoshop and gave me a flattened file.
In my new job, we have to send our magazine pages as PDF's made from Quark (unfortunately). Any ads done in PS must be flattened so the text is not as good quality.
If you can go straight from PhotoShop, then by all means use it as your main layout app, but I know it wasn't made to do that and in most cases it's too limiting, in my opinion.
A sort of slightly-off-topic question: if I were to place a layered PSD file in InDesign, where the PSD had editable text layers, would that text be send to the printer as a raster or bitmap?
Originally posted by jabohn
I wouldn't flatten the file either. I was talking about files from a customer where they designed it in photoshop and gave me a flattened file.
In my new job, we have to send our magazine pages as PDF's made from Quark (unfortunately). Any ads done in PS must be flattened so the text is not as good quality.
If you can go straight from PhotoShop, then by all means use it as your main layout app, but I know it wasn't made to do that and in most cases it's too limiting, in my opinion.
A sort of slightly-off-topic question: if I were to place a layered PSD file in InDesign, where the PSD had editable text layers, would that text be send to the printer as a raster or bitmap?
Depends on what kind of machine you are talking about. You can make a choice with several RIP's. But generally, it will go as a bitmap.
To push adoption in pro markets, Apple has two options for the kinds of purchasing promos they've done in the past.
One of them is "half off the price of the Final Cut Pro suite" with purchase of a new MacTower Pro.
The other is "half off the price of Quark Xpress" with purchase of a new MacTower.
Both of those will make Adobe very, very uncomfortable.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]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.
But Xcode and GCC could have become well developed had Adobe and MS worked with Apple right from the start. The screams would have been silent screams since developers don't talk about these issues when things are still alright for them (ie they'd still be releasing their apps compiled with Metrowerks.)
But these guys decided to wait it out until they had no choice to switch. Is it their fault? Yes mostly...who else's fault is it? It ain't Apple's.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge GCC either. For some types of apps, it can get messy and problematic...but for other types of apps, the code is quite good and even offers a small speed boost over Metrowerks-compiled Mach-O apps.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But Xcode and GCC could have become well developed had Adobe and MS worked with Apple right from the start. The screams would have been silent screams since developers don't talk about these issues when things are still alright for them (ie they'd still be releasing their apps compiled with Metrowerks.)
But these guys decided to wait it out until they had no choice to switch. Is it their fault? Yes mostly...who else's fault is it? It ain't Apple's.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge GCC either. For some types of apps, it can get messy and problematic...but for other types of apps, the code is quite good and even offers a small speed boost over Metrowerks-compiled Mach-O apps.
Adobe hasn't got the knowledge to work on GCC. It's totally out of their area. Even Apple relies on open source coders to improve it.
MS no doubt has the people, but why should the spend the millions required to help something that will have marginal use for themselves? Besides, only Apple knows enough about where they are going with it to make the changes they need. Office seems to run pretty well, so it is less important that MS rush it.
You can blame Apple for that. If they weren't so tight-lipped about what they were doing, developers could get a jump on their own work.
Take Tiger, for example. Developers didn't get the final code much before we did. Neither Adobe or MS had Tiger in what was even close to its final form until release was almost near. The Intel version wasn't in sync until just before it was released. You have read about the progress on this very site! Until 10.4.3 was out, the two products weren't even feature compatible. Not until 10.4.4 were they in total sync. That was just about the time the new machines came out.
What do you expect Adobe to do? This is a company with major programs that have hooks throughout the OS. Do you expect them to rewrite their code every time Apple came closer?
They made the correct decision to go the way they are going. They really had no choice.
Lightroom shows that they can, and will, move quickly, if the code will allow them to. Lightroom is still in beta, with all new code. A much simpler program than PS, Illustrator, or InDesign.
One would think that Apple's own pro programs would have been ready in January, but they weren't. And, it's likely that Apple had been working on basic Intel code for them for quite a while.
If you want to look at a big program that hasn't even had an announcement about going Universal, that you can criticize a company for, it would be SHAKE. Where is Apple's statement for when IT will be going Universal? There hasn't even been one.
Let's see what comes out first. Shake or the CS3 Suite, with all of the programs it is comprised of.
Then throw stones.
And, after that, wonder why we haven't even heard about what features will be in Leopard. With the dev conf moved to August, how much time will that give developers to integrate important new features into their software? If we expect the OS by Macworld in January, that gives developers a big 4 months to rewrite their software in time for the release. When companies lag by 6 months to a year, don't blame them.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
I suspect that if Intel Power Macs arrive in the fall, we'll see Adobe ramp up the UB code-writing factory line. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I like to believe that it will be hard for the folks at Adobe to ignore masses of hungry designers with cash in hand.
I'm sure they're working as fast as they can. Believe me, they are losing sales at this point while people wait.
Originally posted by melgross:
Believe me, they are losing sales at this point while people wait.
Good point. In fact, I know a couple of people with new Core Duo machines who are very eager to purchase CS3 ? and ASAP.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
Good point. In fact, I know a couple of people with new Core Duo machines who are very eager to purchase CS3 ? and ASAP.
Well, they won't be buying it anytime this year
originally posted by sunilraman:
Well, they won't be buying it anytime this year.
All too true.