Comments on: Photoshop + Fireworks: Where to from here?

By: Re

Re — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:38:32 +0000

05/06/2013 It’s gone :(

By: LeoReis

LeoReis — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:03:24 +0000

I LOVE FIREWORKS!!!

By: chris harley

chris harley — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:15:53 +0000

Quick note for ‘Bob’ you are going about it the wrong way, use PPT’s insert/image/photo library feature and your process will be vastly simplified.

By: Ricky Murphy

Ricky Murphy — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:29:13 +0000

It’s all about the tools we are used to working with. I have never tried Fireworks, and I am sure it’s a fine program. For what I do, PhotoShop provides both the photographic and image control for the web while Illustrator provides my vector work. DreamWeaver has tight integration with Fireworks. My only wish is if DreamWeaver can have the option to have the same tight interface with PhotoShop.
Personally I would not like to see a single “super application.” Each of the programs listed in the comments so far do an excellent job for what they a designed so why change what already works well (aside from some added features we all would like to see).

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 27 May 2008 10:51:30 +0000

For PNGs which use Frames, provide an “Export to PowerPoint” feature whereby each frame is a single slide in a PPT deck. This makes walk-throughs much easier. Today we have to export “frames to files” and then create a PPT deck and import the images into that deck one-by-one… painful!

By: Luna

Luna — Tue, 13 May 2008 01:33:21 +0000

I remember being introduced to Fireworks 3 in 2000. With no background in design, I only took 2 hours to familiarize myself with the tool and from then created alot of websites. It’s the single best graphic application for anyone. Drawing is a breeze with Fireworks. Alot of similarity with Illustrator too. I find Illustrator easier to use and learn than Photoshop. Because it’s hybrid raster vector app, I only need 1 software to fix all my graphic needs :)

By: minik peri

minik peri — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:55:50 +0000

“Do we need to improve integration between Fireworks and Photoshop (e.g. better file format compatibility, Jump To), or does it work well enough? ” Definitely yes to this. when psd files opened with adobe Firework they must be editable. At least their color. it can be very usefull.

By: TheJist

TheJist — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:15:49 +0000

There’s a perfectly good reason why Photoshop is used by designers; because they don’t have to (and shouldn’t have to) put up with the difficulties of coding and implementing what they create. Designers tend to push graphics to the limit, while coders try and push the file-sizes back down. There definitely needs to be two different programs for these two parties, Photoshop for the designers, to use all the built in filters and brushes and minimize on their workload, and Fireworks for the simple interface and genius features that make outputting for the web so much easier. Over-complicating either of these programs would be a very bad idea.

By: franzgoria

franzgoria — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:59:05 +0000

excuse me david (david bricker) but if you are enable to use photoshop correctly does’nt means photoshop don’t work well..
I think it’s better for you start to learn to use photoshop and then talk about it.
Also think that photoshop is the software most used by the most important webdesigner in the world.. so start to think about it.. Bye :)

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:17:23 +0000

Hi John, this is just a comment to your editorial in my recent post. I agree that layers work well when painting, touching up, and otherwise working with photos or other artwork. This was the initial intention of Photoshop, but (IMO) the ever-growing mis-use of Photoshop (esp. using it for layout design) has caused Adobe to bloat and morph the software into a one-size-fits all solution. This solution is hardly such. Unfortunately, Photoshop is known as the killer graphics app. so all the wannabes get (steal) Photoshop and perpetuate the situation instead of choosing the right graphics program for the job.
Well, I certainly didn’t intend this to become a PS bash session, and nor am I so down on PS. I think the last 7 or so years for PS growth in features and capabilities has been incredible.
I hope Adobe continues to innovate and I hope that Adobe realizes that FW is a different animal and deserves a permanent place in it’s lineup. I just wish Adobe would give FW more prominence by putting it on the home page under products with the rest of its flagship software.
Adobe has to educate its users about FW’s capabilities and that it is NOT a PS replacement, but rather a very powerful addition (or extension, if you will) to PS. Adobe has an incredible marketing engine that can make FW or break it.
thanx
chad

By: Chad

Chad — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:58:42 +0000

@Joey – AMEN!
You said so many of the things that I have been thinking for years. Especially the bit about PS becoming more like FW.
Ironically, however, much of this Object based layout (rather than Photoshop’s clumsy layers) came more from Corel Photopaint and Deneba Canvas years before FW.
Those of us who “get it” realize that object based layout is superior to Photoshop’s half-baked layers concept. Strangely, even Illustrator and InDesign are object-based. Why does Adobe continue to push layers?
[If it were a simple question of one approach being better than the other, we'd have long ago adopted the better method. The challenge is that an object-based approach is great for some things and lousy for others; same goes for Photoshop-style layers.
Sometimes (e.g. painting, retouching) you'll very much want layers that work in the way that Photoshop originally implemented them--large, clear sheets on which you can paint. You almost certainly *don't* want PS to create a new layer/object every time you put down a paint stroke. (That behavior is one of the downsides to After Effects-style vector painting, which is why we implemented video painting in PS; the approaches are complementary, not redundant.)
There are obviously times when an object-based approach works better, and Photoshop has made changes that help you work in that way (e.g. optional auto-selection of clicked layers; multiple layer selection; layer grouping; etc.).
One problem is that we have to set the defaults just one way, and some people never bother to try switching things on/off to find a way of working they might prefer. That's one of the many reasons I keep emphasizing the desire to make Photoshop more easily & radically customizable, so that with one click you could change many aspects of the app's environment and behaviors. --J.]
I think we’ll see Photoshop become more and more like FW. It’s now all about everything being editable all the time (a luxury that FW users have enjoyed for years and PS users are just beginning to discover)!
I’ve been using FW for web design since beta 1 and I use it every day. I still use Photoshop for what Photoshop is good for, image editing and graphic creation. But, for web design/layout and quick slick web graphics, FW can’t be beat.

By: joey

joey — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:45:40 +0000

I use both extensively. Photoshop is waaaay better at the bitmap level.
Fireworks is superior for web work. Period.
Both programs cross-over to some degree.
I Think its funny thay PS, in all its power has been getting closer and closer to (copying) Fireworks workflow for years now. (ex: Vector drawing tools, Folders in the layers pallette, easier object selection…to name a few). PS devotees have no clue where all these new features came from. (copying Fireworks)
PS (Photo Shop) as the name indicates was orginally a non-web design tool. Fireworks was created for web design explicitly. For that reason..Fireworks is better for web work. I stress WORK here…not playing around with images and abstract design.
I wont hire web designers who only use Photoshop or only use Fireworks. I need talent who are nimble with both. NEWSFLASH : You don’t have to use one or the other!!! Most Fireworks people know this…most Photoshop people seem to be brainwashed…and frankly ignorant to what FW can do.
Most print designers dont understand the concept of an “object” as it relates to software development…or library Symbols. I love Fireworks because it more closely resembles the OOP (Object Oriented Programming) model.
You can create a Menu, that is an object(symbol) that has other properties…like Buttons(Objects), that has properties(Text, Graphics, Gradients), that themselves have properties (Filters, etc…). And you can actually move things around and shared between files with little effort.
Photoshop has been faking web designer workflow for years…but showing and hiding and locking layers is hardley the way to group logical elements. Its silly really.

By: Mart

Mart — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:20:31 +0000

I don’t like Fireworks at all. Since it is now part of CS package I tried to use it for website prototyping – both Illustrator and Photoshop lack in this area. But I found Fireworks very limited and clumsy to work with. I can work many times faster using both Illustrator and Photoshop even now than using Fireworks.
After reading the comments here, it seems obvious that there is need for program like Fireworks. But please, for those of us who already know how to use Illustrator, add few web oriented features to Illustrator too. Though learning may be little steep, Illustrator is much more powerful and easier to work with.
What I miss mostly in Illustrator is how text and graphic objetcs are aliased. There should be option for turning on/off aliasing for specific objects, layers etc.
Also stroke tool should mimic web browser css rendering in Web mode. And this is basically it! If these two things would be implemented I wouldn’t even think about using another program for web work (apart from Photoshop of course).

By: Nicolas Cohen

Nicolas Cohen — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:07:32 +0000

Let Fireworks open photoshop and illustrator files, without braking layers or text boxes, or anything. Then we could receive artwork from print-based design studios (which typically produce design for a company before any web team is hired) without having to buy photoshop/illustrator/etc..
Photoshop’s handling of undo/redo is great. The same with actions. I think we all came to understand it much better than fireworks automation system.
Add a “tiled background” tool to firworks, that allows to fill any solid shape with a tiled bg, thats editable doubliclicking (like a symbol), than when you slice it, it exports a gif or jpg that’s usable as a tilable bg for any element in the website.
Memory handling in fireworks seems to freak out at the fourth hour of work with a 1000 x 1900 document that has 20 photos.
Selection in fireworks rocks, except for selection behind objects. Some hot key like right mouse button in photoshop, could be useful.
Let Symbols group into libraries. And let Libraries be independent from files.
So if i edit a button in the library, 30 fireworks files have the button updated. That would have saved us a ton of time last web app we designed.
If we could have some way to toggle layers on/off by clicking on some part of the design, fireworks could serve better when showcasing interaction design. Check out omnigraffle.

By: T

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:49:35 +0000

Hi, maybe you are intresting in fireworks extensions, I have one: Textures package for Fireworks