SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Only so much you can do with fireworks?

    Hello, I currently use fireworks for all my graphics design and web page design, but I've come to the point where I think Fireworks can only take you so far and the next step is photoshop. Is this true? Can photoshop do a lot more than fireworks can do in terms of general webpage design, ie logos, effects etc...?

    I find fireworks easier to use and that's why I started off with that rather than photoshop, so all you experienced graphic designers, is it worth for someone in my position to learn photoshop?

    Also a side note, is it possible to make 3d cubes/cuboids in fireworks?

    Thanks for any comments in advance.

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that Fireworks is a very capable program. However, there's a reason why NO professional designers use Fireworks.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  3. #3
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    although i'm not a fireworks user, i would say that if you plan on doing both print and screenbased (web, cdrom, whatever) design, photoshop is definitely the way to go. for print, it has lots of features which i suspect fireworks lacks (please peops correct me if i'm wrong) like CMYK mode, lab mode (excellent for dodging/burning images without getting funky colours, as you can work on the brightness values of pixels, without touching the colour information), support for spot colour channels.
    also, the fact that it's pretty much THE industry standard tool for anything related to digital image processing means that it's always a good thing to have in your CV
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  4. #4
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks guys, I think I'll start mucking around with it and see where it takes me

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard bbolte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Central Plains
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i use fireworks for nearly all my web/multimedia graphic work. but i wouldn't do any serious photo manipulating/editing with it. i use photoshop for that. and i wouldn't use fireworks for anything to do with print, as has been said, it just doesn't have some features. but for screen work - it is tops! no reason why both can't be part of your arsenal.

  6. #6
    Blissed off
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello?

    Fireworks isn't designed for print work at all.

    Photoshop is the absolute best for print.

    But for webwork, check out the new Fireworks MX.

    Its new "modeless" switching between vector and bitmap art really makes it a lot simpler to do a lot of web stuff that would be a possible *but more awkward* to do with photoshop...

    I loooooove photoshop, but it's damn annoying to always have to switch between it and imageready to do simple stuff that I can do all at once in Fireworks...

  7. #7
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    partly on topic...is there anything that fireworks (not MX) does that imageready can't do ? i had a play with both programs ages ago (about a year), and my first impressions were that (almost down to the look/organisation of the toolbars) everything was pretty much the same.
    did i miss something crucial ?
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  8. #8
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm currently working in an "Adobe shop" and find that I'm using Image Ready about 90% of the time ... however, it sure is nice to just click into Photoshop when I need to ... especially when a client gives you a totally crap photo that needs some major work.

    I haven't tried it, but why don't you look into Photoshop Elements as it may give you a little more power than Fireworks while still not breaking the bank like a full version of Photoshop. I do know that Photoshop Elements even has some "extras" that the full version doesn't have, such as an auto red-eye reduction filter, so it may be what you're looking for.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hmmm... To be honest I don't need many features outside just webpage design, ie buttons and mostly working with vector objects. But I thought to make all the cool effects that I see in some websites, you needed photoshop for. For instance like I mentioned above, would It be possible to make a 3D cube in fireworks?

    What about the new fireworks mx? Would it let me make these cubes?(Here I just use cubes as an example, as it just shows what the programmes can or cannot do, plus I want to make cubes too) I've also heard somewhere that fireworks mx supports photoshop filters? Would this make it just about powerful as photoshop?

    Thanks.

  10. #10
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    photoshop can't do "proper" 3D. if you're talented, you can recreate the effect by drawing lines, filling parts etc.
    i would not recommend elements, but rather photoshop limited edition if you're on a budget (usually comes bundled with most scanners etc)
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  11. #11
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by redux
    photoshop can't do "proper" 3D.
    Filters >> render >> 3d shape You can make as many 3d cubes as you want -- that's in photoshop though, not fireworks

  12. #12
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i've used PS 6 for a year now, and never came across that...
    glenplake, before you say anything, yes i have a legit copy AND the manual...just too lazy to read it...i'm old-school and do it by hand

    Edit:

    totally off topic, but...has the clock in the server gone bananas, or is it just me ? i posted this at 1:27AM GMT, and if i remember it correctly the server shows time in GMT as well ? so why does it think it's 12:02 ?
    Last edited by redux; Jun 26, 2002 at 15:04.
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  13. #13
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    erm, yes, I think it's on the to-do list

  14. #14
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    date -s 'Thu Jun 27 01:48:00 BST 2002'
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  15. #15
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by redux
    i would not recommend elements, but rather photoshop limited edition if you're on a budget (usually comes bundled with most scanners etc)
    They don't make Photosohop LE any longer. It's Elements now. They combined Photoshop LE with Photodeluxe.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  16. #16
    SitePoint Addict goma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    smelly armpit of Asia
    Posts
    305
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use both fireworks and photoshop. PS is the best for image manipulation but I suspect that FW is better at optimizing images.
    http://www.soapbox101.com

  17. #17
    Blissed off
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by redux
    partly on topic...is there anything that fireworks (not MX) does that imageready can't do ?
    I don't believe imageready has "modeless editing" or the same flexibility in creating popup menus and so such...

  18. #18
    SitePoint Addict jbradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by goma
    I use both fireworks and photoshop. PS is the best for image manipulation but I suspect that FW is better at optimizing images.
    I'm not a Fireworks user, so I don't have a clue. Is this true?

    Jason
    Jason Bradley
    Post your project and receive FREE bids from professionals!
    naSnap Freelance Marketplace

  19. #19
    Net Senior Citizen tommatthews's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    869
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by creole
    I think that Fireworks is a very capable program. However, there's a reason why NO professional designers use Fireworks.
    Fireworks = WEB!

    I still think it's BS that NO professional designers use Fireworks. With the integration of Flash and Dreamweaver it is perfect tools for the web.

    That's like saying no professional basketball player would wear Nike sneakers.
    Last edited by tommatthews; Jul 4, 2002 at 03:12.


    affordable website design

    :: sydney australia ::

  20. #20
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by creole
    I think that Fireworks is a very capable program. However, there's a reason why NO professional designers use Fireworks.
    That depends on what kind of designers you are looking at I think. If you are talking about designers in general, print-, web-, the whole package basically I would have to agree.

    But when we are talking about webdesigners, I think there are a number of professionals out there who use Fireworks.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Mark T.


    That depends on what kind of designers you are looking at I think. If you are talking about designers in general, print-, web-, the whole package basically I would have to agree.

    But when we are talking about webdesigners, I think there are a number of professionals out there who use Fireworks.
    For the record...

    I am in a community of web designers here in Nashville (www.the615.com). There's about 30 members and none of them use Fireworks. Ask any one of the people who post regularly on k10k what application they use. Ask anyone who's a member of Design is Kinky, or Pixelsurgeon, or any of those other design communities. No professional web designers that I know, or have talked to use Fireworks.

    The reason? Photsohop can do everything that Fireworks can do and more. Why buy a tool that won't do everything you need?

    Originally posted by tommatthews
    Fireworks = WEB!
    Fireworks = amatuer designer
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  22. #22
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, I agree (sort of anyway )

    Fireworks seems to be perfectly fine for web work (I know a few people here use it pretty well) but why not buy one tool to do everything




    (p.s. 3 to go, eh? ... )

  23. #23
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by creole
    For the record...

    I am in a community of web designers here in Nashville (www.the615.com). There's about 30 members and none of them use Fireworks. Ask any one of the people who post regularly on k10k what application they use. Ask anyone who's a member of Design is Kinky, or Pixelsurgeon, or any of those other design communities. No professional web designers that I know, or have talked to use Fireworks.

    The reason? Photsohop can do everything that Fireworks can do and more. Why buy a tool that won't do everything you need?

    Fireworks = amatuer designer
    Hmm... I guess you have a point there. I know Fireworks can't be compared to Photoshop, but I thought that Fireworks, now with the release of MX, had matured a bit. I have read some reviews on it, and it appears to be a nice package, certainly when it is incorporated in Macromedia Studio. To me at least, it seems a package worthy of a professional .

  24. #24
    Blissed off
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Creole,

    I have to ask you this.

    Do you use fireworks MX *latest release* every day side by side with Photoshop?

    If not, perhaps you shouldn't be tough on it.

    It was *never* designed to compete with photoshop much in the same way that photoshop was *never* designed to be a web solution.

    Adobe's hasn't really made photoshop a web powerhouse. They've simply purchashed a third party program *Imageready* and have provided links between it and photoshop. Now this works, but if you want full web design capability you're always truly using two programs that you have to constantly switch between to get results. It's possible to get good results with it, but for my money it's a simple Kludge until adobe decides whether they want their main program *PS* to actually handle the web stuff on its own in an integrated fashion. Whilst I have to admit that photoshop is my fave proggy ever, I find myself using MX more and more for web stuff when I'm under the gun at work. It's bitmap and vector stuff is *totally* integrated which is something you can't say with the photoshop/imageready combo. Check ou the new "modeless editing" in MX and you'll see how cool it is.

    Now when I first started using fireworks around revision three, it seemed *horribly* feature deficient compared to photoshop. But fireworks is kind of like photoshop in a way. A lot of it's power is kind of hidden and you really only find it through everyday use.

    Now if someone happens to be a Dreamweaver user, they can utilize the "round trip graphics" functions of the macromedia product to acheive a pretty seamless workflow. And for the record. FW MX has really improved it's ability to properly read .psd files which I really like. Text functionality in FW MX now let's you type text directly on the page *just like PS does* and even adds cool features like "running text along a user defined curve" that adobe still forces you to buy Illustrator for...

    Creole,
    Also, it's a bit of a specious argument when you say, "Well no one professional I know uses fireworks". It's a false analogy to believe that no one out there is desiging with it. And what's the focus on "professionals"? I've seen some pro sites that really stank and some amateur designed sites that frankly blew to away. To just *assume* that every good or "professional" page out there was designed solely with PS is faulty logic. Macromedia sells a lot of their Fireworks and Dreamweaver products. Are you actually telling us that no "serious" or "professional" people would deign to ever use them?


    Please don't take this as any way bashing Photoshop. I use rev 7 every day and if someone asked what my fave program is, photoshop would win hands down. I don't really need to go into the finer points of what makes PS 7 so wonderful because I think most of us here already know!

    It just bugs me when people make sweeping comments about programs they don't use on a daily basis in a work environment....



    Sorry guys, rant over.

    Last edited by wert; Jul 4, 2002 at 08:09.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did I say that Fireworks wasn't a good program? Yes, I have used Fireworks before. In fact, I used it for a year. However, after using Image Ready along with Photoshop, I decided that the Adobe combo was better and made my work easier.

    I'm sure there are people out there that use Fireworks but as far as I'm concerned they aren't professionals. Fireworks to me is an amateur program.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •