Only so much you can do with fireworks?

[tommatthews]

I guess REAL designers have yo use a Mac as well?

[wert]

Originally posted by creole
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.

Ok, define "professional Program" and tell us what is is that keeps Fireworks MX from allowing someone to create "professional" web work.

So you used fireworks for a year eh? So everything you produced with it that year wasn't "professional"?

And which version did you use exactly? You can't possibly have used MX for very long since it just came out! I use PS 7 and FW MX both *often in tandem with each other* and have tried countless times to just use the photoshop/imageready Kludge *I mean combo* and it's just a royal pain. I do really like some aspects of imageready, but flopping continually between two very resource hungry programs is less preferable to me than using one program for the bulk of the web graphic design. And, if I absolutely find something impossible to do in FW MX, then I'll simply do it in PS and import it.


I respect that it's your opinion and all, but I'd like to see some facts here pertaining to what is "professional" and what is not.

[wert]

Originally posted by tommatthews
I guess REAL designers have yo use a Mac as well?

And use notepad of course!

[creole]

I used Fireworks version 3.

As for using both side by side, what can't Photoshop do that you would need Fireworks open for? Image Ready does everything that I need it to do, plus it can open Photoshop files and read everything in them. Finally it can WRITE to a PSD file and hav ethe PSD remember it's settings such as animations, frame settings and such.

I respect the fact that much in the application might have changed but facts don't lie. You name ONE well-known designer that uses Fireworks and I'll recant of my opinion.

[tommatthews]

Originally posted by wert
And use notepad of course!

Nah, REAL designers don't code.

[wert]

Originally posted by creole
I used Fireworks version 3.

Ok, we're up to Fireworks MX now. For all intents and purposes, it is Fireworks 5.

So you're basing your argument on your use of a program two full revisions and multiple years old?

As for using both side by side, what can't Photoshop do that you would need Fireworks open for?

For starters, it can't seamlessly integrate with the leading WYSIWYG HMTML editor on the Market. Dreamweaver that is. Now of course, you'll tell me that using Dreamweaver MX isn't "Professional" either eh? Perhaps we should all be hand coding using notepad or the like to satisfy all the purists out there?

And you haven't answered my question.

What constitutes a "professional program" and what is it about fireworks MX that makes it unlikely for anyone to produce "professional" work from it?

Image Ready does everything that I need it to do,

Good for you! But that's just an anectdote, not proof that *every* professional would feel the same way as you do. I'll turn it around on you. Prove to me that *no* "professionals" out there use fireworks. And giving me anecdotes like "well, no noted designer I know does" doesn't cut it. Facts please.

plus it can open Photoshop files and read everything in them. Finally it can WRITE to a PSD file and hav ethe PSD remember it's settings such as animations, frame settings and such.

FW MX does a bang up job reading and writing .psd files. As far as writing animations, frame settings, etc, I simply don't have to even think about that since those things are integrated into a single app. Fireworks in this case. I never have to flip back and forth between two completely separate programs just to do something simple like an animation, etc...

I respect the fact that much in the application might have changed but facts don't lie.

You aren't offering facts here Creole. Sorry. What we're getting is your personal opinion. Which I respect, but disagree with.

You name ONE well-known designer that uses Fireworks and I'll recant of my opinion.

Ok, asking me to "give you one noted designer who uses fireworks" is specious at best.

You're using a common logical fallacy here.

"Appeal to authority" You're insinuating that we need to depend on some "authority" to tell us what is professional or not. Instead of answering my question with a question, why not just give us a concise definition explaining why FW MX cannot be considered a "professional program"

[Impulse]

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 = amatuer designer

Creole - just because you don't use fireworks doesn't mean NOONE does - it all depends on the person behind the program. I am a professional designer and I personally prefer fireworks, although from time to time I am forced to use Photoshop (ie. for a competition) These biased comments are not helpful to the community and all they do is create a seperation between designers. I see the strengths in both programs, but I prefer fireworks (MX) because it has the capability to use all of Photoshops filters and effects, better use of layers, a much easier interface (depending on time spent with both programs) and with MX Macromedia has pushed the limits by creating a great photo editing program, and an even better web/multimedia program. As I do not do much print work I am not really capable of saying which is better, but of the limited stuff I have done I can say that fireworks is very capable in the field. Like I said, it all depends on the user behind the program, their preference, and what they do. Your comments don't strike me as the type of thing that an 'Advisor' should be saying as they will alienate certain members of the community who do prefer fireworks over photoshop from the rest. I agree with wert's comments a lot; your statements have been everything except helpful and you have offered no hardproof on the topic. You have given a personal opinion, but you can not offer what you have said as facts. That would be like me saying "I used 'Beta Photoshop 0.5' 8 years ago and I can truthfully say that Photoshop will never amount to anything!" I assume you would disagree with that and tell me that my lack of experience with later versions causes a large rift in the credency of my comments. Well I say the same to you; don't try to offer facts unless you have on-hand and up to date experience with both programs please.

[TheOriginalH]

Originally posted by creole
I think that Fireworks is a very capable program. However, there's a reason why NO professional designers use Fireworks.

I'd change "no" to "most" and add a caveat. Because of the infancy of the we "most" professional designers have a print background - hence PS. While it is a fantastic tool, it was not built for the web from the ground up as Fireworks was.

I really don't think there's much (of anything) that Photoshop can achieve that Fireworks can't, and the reverse isn't true, you need to fire up Image Ready to achieve half of what Fireworks does.

I am a photoshop convert having started on FW3. But I have moved through 4 and have recently acquired MX. I'm dedicating a little time to learn the new features to keep me up to date, and my mind open. It's not a major concern to me because graphics are a play area for me - sometimes I have time and do 'em but oftentimes they're farmed out to third party designers.

I know of at least one internet design house that has used Fireworks since 3 (they put me on to it) and have some VERY high profile clients, so to suggest that no professionals use it is absolute rubbish.

[bbolte]

I'm a professional, not well known though, but i get paid to build web sites. have for several years. i use both fireworks and photoshop. i just didn't like image ready personally. for me, fireworks is much quicker for making general graphics like buttons and such. but photoshop is better at imaging editing (i came from a print background so was more comfortable with photoshop's tools there).

these kinds of arguments are really quite useless. add them to the hand coder/visual builder, php/asp, win/mac arguments. it is all a matter of opinion and personal preference. i've used macs and i've used pcs. i've hand coded and i've visually built pages (but i've never used front page -- gotta draw the line somewhere i suppose). does it really matter as long as the client is happy and the finished product is good? i doubt one could look at a web site and say, "oh, they used photoshop to build those graphics." or "i bet they used paint shop pro to make those buttons."