November 23, 2009

Photoshop “vs.” Fireworks: Quick clarifications

Thanks for all the feedback in response to the survey I posted earlier today. I feel I should clarify a few things.

  • I’m touchy about hearing things like “As soon as Adobe bought Fireworks, the PS guys would be trying to kill it. Good job, mission accomplished.” To set the record straight, Adobe bought and revived Fireworks. To the best of my knowledge the app hadn’t gotten much love, to say the least, in its last couple of years with Macromedia. (Did they add anything in Studio 8?) And when Adobe was in the process of acquiring Macromedia, I spoke up strongly in support of Fireworks. Just thought you should know.
  • The list I posted isn’t a promise or a hint that the Photoshop team will undertake any–much less all–of this work. As I say, it’s just my aggregation of some of the suggestions I’ve heard a number of times. I thought it would be handy to collect them for your input.
  • Likewise, it isn’t a hint about the future of Fireworks or anything else. Sometimes a survey is just a survey.
  • Believe me, we’re sensitive to the subject of “bloat,” and I’m actively pitching ideas (here’s one) for how the apps can better integrate without just duplicating one another. Having said that, we can’t err too far in the other direction, saying that if one app does something, no others can do it (or do it well). It’s possible for apps to have different core missions and yet have tools & capabilities in common. (To that end, people flamed us for not moving animated GIF import from ImageReady to Photoshop, feeling it was a conspiracy to force them to buy Fireworks. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.)
  • People have always complained that Photoshop does too many things. I guarantee that whoever added text for the first time got an earful about it not being a “photographic” feature, and probably caught static from other Adobe teams. So it goes. Of course, people always say, “Stop adding anything new… except this handful of things for me, personally.” And they always push us to “simplify” and “just reduce” the application, yet they flip out if you take away their cherished anachronism. I always think of the Onion article, “98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others.”
  • We have serious ideas about how to break this logjam, but there are no silver bullets, and it’s not going to happen overnight. But it is happening.
  • Finally, a couple of practical tips: Here’s a Lorem Ipsum generator for PS, and here’s the GridMaker panel.
Posted by John Nack at 4:05 PM on November 23, 2009

Comments

  • Mike in Maine — 10:03 PM on November 23, 2009

    Good points. Hard to imagine anyone wanting to “simplify” Photoshop. I love density and solid features in software! And “density” isn’t the same thing as “bloat”.

  • Ilya Birman — 10:21 PM on November 23, 2009

    I guess the people who say Photoshop should just do the photo features are the same kind of people as those who say mobile phones should just do phone calls.
    [I find they’re often the same people who lionize Apple for “simplicity” and say things like “features don’t matter,” ignoring how feature-heavy the (obvious excellent) iPhone is, and that Apple just turned the iPod nano into a **frikkin’ video camera**. Oh, but features don’t matter, and life is simpler when your Walkman doubles as a camcorder… ;-P –J.]
    I’m not sure (since I’m 25) but there are chances that these people long ago said computers should just compute stuff. Ignoring them is the right choice :-)

  • accessoire — 11:15 PM on November 23, 2009

    So here is what I think about the whole creative suite:
    It’s to inconsistent. I recently started learning Fireworks and I really love the powerful web design features like master pages and in general the rapid prototyping stuff. But what really is bugging me: Many things don’t behave like Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop. I know Fw has been probably kinda like ported to suit the CS but still there are a lot of inconsitencies. What I really want is the following:
    Make every app for what it was meant to. Photoshop image processing, Illustrator for vector works, InDesign rich text stuff, Fireworks rapid prototyping. The first problem is integration of the file format. Native file format support is key for a efficient workflow. Unfortunately for example Fw doesn’t handle adjustment layers yet. What also would be great to have smart objects in Fireworks!
    [See, but you’re asking for each app to be slimmer and more focused, and yet you’re asking for more things to be duplicated in each. You can’t have it both ways. –J.]
    Then there are for example the path tools in Fireworks. Things like Alt-key while using the pen tool aren’t working in Fw. Or the path tools panel in Fw. Make it look like in every other Adobe app. Consistency!
    Same here for floating text. Floating text in Fw is so different and absolutely inefficient in relation to InDesign.
    The same for masking. It’s workikng different than working with masks in Photoshop. I want every app to behave the same way. Most same shortcuts as possible is also great. I know it’s really a dangerous step changing shortcuts all over the CS because many people who don’t like changes but that is the normal way to go.
    While talking about every app working like each other. Illustrator doesn’t support Photoshop live effects. Make live effects behave in every app absolutely the same and give every app the same parameters for live effects. No inconsistencies please.
    [At that point, why have separate applications at all? You could make everything consistent (at least in theory) by slamming everything into one monstrous app. –J.]
    I just want to creat my logos, vector work in Illustrator, work on my images in Photoshop, places my logos and images in Fireworks, InDesign and that’s all. I don’t want to process images inefficiently in Fw, I don’t want any web design stuff in Photoshop. I want to create my web stuff in Fw, import native PSD files in Fireworks as smart objects, so that changes update automatically and I want to make my web stuff in Fireworks. Nowhere else. Same for every app. Remove unneccessary things another app is meant to do. People have to understand that every app is meant for one special subject and Photoshop isn’t meant to do image processing, illustrations, vector work and text work. Neither is Illustrator meant to place a lot of text that’s more than a few pages. You need to communicate this to the customers so we hopefully someday see change and we finally get to work the way the CS seems to be meant. Integration between the different apps, meaning being able to import native file formats (perfectly).
    Just my two cents. Thanks a lot.
    [Thanks for the feedback. –J.]

  • accessoire — 11:21 PM on November 23, 2009

    PS:
    Where the integration is really good is Photoshop to InDesign. You can place PSDs, hide single layers, even adjustment layers. You can instantly go back to Photoshop and edit the image and InDesign changes the placed PSD instantly. This is the way I want it.
    If every app does what it does at it’s best and the integration between each app is good, then you don’t need to do unneccesary stuff in another app. You simply use the app which is best at it’s purpose and use files from other apps.

  • George — 12:03 AM on November 24, 2009

    I really want Fireworks to work for me but I often find the text rendering and web optimization just not what I expect. It still just doesn’t behave like I expect it should (being an Adobe app). I’m really familiar and comfortable with the live effects in Photoshop not to mention all the other tools. But if you were to look at all my web design comps I build in Photoshop, you’d find I would be better off doing them in Fireworks. Almost 90% of my layers in Photoshop are Shape Layers. So I’m building web design comp in almost all vectors, type, and smart objects. But of course I build this in a raster-oriented app. Great. I’ll be the first to admit that doing this in Photoshop is awkward at times (hello editing a gradient style in 4-5 popups), but it’s what I know and what I trust and depend on. I agree with accessoire in that the apps are still just too inconsistent with one another. If Fireworks felt and acted like a true Adobe-born app like InDesign and Photoshop, I’d love it to pieces, but at the current state of it, it’s been skinned to kinda resemble an Adobe app but it’s still feels like an old Macromedia app underneath it all. For example, InDesign has a great UI for managing pages and master pages. This could’ve been lifted and added to Fireworks but instead a less than ideal UI was decided on. It’s disappointing. I know these are harsh words but it’s the truth. I only say it because I want Fireworks to become all it can be and become the UX design tool I’ve always hoped for.

  • Rainer Pleyer — 12:59 AM on November 24, 2009

    Hi John,
    it’s great to hear that Adobe cares about Fireworks. It’s just that it did not look that way, recently. And we are very vocal about that because we care, too. We love Fireworks and we hate its present state.
    The thing is, even if Photoshop gets some features that make it more appropriate for doing screen design, it will not change into a (screen optimized) vector app, like FW is. In FW, what you work with are vectors, what you see is pixels. And that (apart from many other things), makes it so great.
    So when PS gets better at web design, how do you think that affects a web designer who has to chose the right tool? If PS does it all good enough, what reason can I give my manager to buy this other strange app that Adobe also makes (and then he might say: They just inherited it from Macromedia like they inherited FreeHand)?
    So we are, too, very touchy about certain issues. And we would like to see Adobe care about that.
    By the way, you are doing a great job here, and I admire very much your constant efforts to stay in touch with us, the customers.
    Cheers, Rainer

  • Mylenium — 1:27 AM on November 24, 2009

    I guess the people who say Photoshop should just do the photo features are the same kind of people as those who say mobile phones should just do phone calls.
    That is a grossly dangerous simplification. PS has “unnecessary” features, because they don’t work, period! Example: What good is DICOM handling, if it only does work with a limited set of non-encrypted DICOM files, it only opens the low-res version of the image data and it doesn’t render volumes? A whole slew of effort wasted on something that doesn’t work and thus will never used by people it was original designed for – medical analysis and visualization. If you get my meaning, just adding features so you can write fancy marketing lines about them serves no purpose.
    That aside, I think you got it all wrong. Nobody is arguing that PS should just process images. Of course it needs to expand into other directions. The problem however is, that a lot of PS’ principles are outdated and do not lend themselves to serving other needs. You know, it’s full of modal panels and dialogs to begin with, so how would it even remotely compete with the kind of interactive styling for web pages such as DW, FW and others offer it? That’s the whole point argued by those in favor of FW.
    Also, lest we forget, PS hasn’t been touched in some areas for eons. When were layer styles introduced? Have they really changed much since then? No! To this day, we cannot arbitrarily re-order layer styles or apply them to groups! Likewise, wouldn’t it be nice, if we wouldn’t be stuck with its mooshy bicubic sampling? You know, even some freeware image viewers offer better algorithms like Catmull or Mitchell-Netravali for image resizing…
    Point in case: Before moving on to doing more, PS first and foremost must do better what it claims to already be doing. It’s all about basics and how to truly enhance an app, not copying features from other apps because it seems like a good idea at the time.
    That aside, even John’s list already misses out on some simple things that could already be done to enhance the web experience. You see, someone was requesting a “Links” panel, but it’s already there – cunningly hidden in your slices tool so really nobody thinks of it for text links, which is already does. So ergo, it just needs to be un-buried from its shadowy place. Similarly, wouldn’t it be cool if we could right-click on a slice and have it “update the saved slice image”, based on othe last active settings without Mr. Ugly Save for Web occupying the whole screen? It is those little things that mean a lot more in daily work…

  • Mylenium — 1:54 AM on November 24, 2009

    It’s to inconsistent.
    Well, another Adobe PM (or was it a senior developer?) said the other day “Growth by acquisition.” Naturally, there is feature overlap between different apps, if they have been bought from another developer that was a competitor before being gobbled up. Aside from that, even apps originally developed within the same company share code and features.
    That is, however not really the point and if I may say so, feature-centric thinking is just wrong (which, I might add, is also how John got off on the wrong foot with this and the other thread – he asked about features, not workflows).
    It all comes down to what you consider essential to get a specific task done. When you do, everything that is not related to getting the work done becomes superfluous, but it would be wrong to assume that not at some point it might be used by someone else. The decisive factor is, how the ratio of people not using a feature compares to people using it. Example: Many people paint in Photoshop, but it is safe to say that very few people paint in 3D (because PS just isn’t good enough at it for “pros”, the number of said “pros” only makes a fraction of the overall PS user base to begin with and other programs stole the crown long before).
    So where does that leave us? Do we rip out 3D or do we leave it in, regardless of how little it actually may be used? Hard to tell without fully seeing all research data. It is certainly no different with web and design features – vectors in PS certainly are not glorious, yet for simple fixes and touch-ups they are sufficient and welcome. So do they go or do they stay?
    Again, it always comes down to that old gag of software development: Ask a 100 people, get a 100 different answers…

  • James — 2:16 AM on November 24, 2009

    My biggest desire for the creative suite is to see better cross-program opentype support. Why the hell can’t I copy painstakingly formatted text from Indesign and paste it straight into Photoshop or Illustrator without losing all the work I’ve put into making it look nice?
    And why doesn’t Photoshop have a nice glyphs pallet like Indesign (which is why I would be pasting formatted text from ID to PS in the first place)? Ditto for Illustrator.

  • accessoire — 2:26 AM on November 24, 2009

    [See, but you’re asking for each app to be slimmer and more focused, and yet you’re asking for more things to be duplicated in each. You can’t have it both ways. –J.]
    No I am not – I guess you misunderstand me. I don’t want to be able to adjust the adjustment layers in Fw. I only want them be viewable like they are in InDesign. What this offers is kinda like what we call in Germany working media neutral for colormanagement. You can use the same working concept if you support native file formats. You don’t need to save thousand versions of your images. If you don’t like a part about the image just turn of the Illustrator path, turn of one adjustment layer. That’s returning file bloat. You only need one psd or Illustrator file, but you can have 100000 (probably more) variations of this file. And all you need to do is turn one layer off.
    If you’re familiar with Colormanagement then ask yourself one question. What is better: Working with CMYK files and not being able to use your files for seperate print processes or work with RGB and export to the needed color space in the end? It saves you a LOT of absolutely unneeded files.
    Back to the Fireworks talk now. The same is the case if you only need one file for several variations.
    If you’re familiar with InDesign. That’s the way I want. It’s a really great workflow in my opinion.
    Besides … if we add adjustment layer support, etc. (remember, not being able to change them(!!) but only showing/hiding them) then you COULD remove some bloat for Fireworks like image sharpening tools etc.
    I mean seriously… No real professional works in a destructive way today. All the bitmap tools in Fireworks basically make changes permanently. Not good in my opinion.
    [At that point, why have separate applications at all? You could make everything consistent (at least in theory) by slamming everything into one monstrous app. –J.]
    Well because it is insane? Loading times for the app would be ridicilous, loading all the plugins – no thanks ^^. Illustrator live effects can take a lot of loading time. I wouldn’t be useable without a very high end PC/Mac.
    By the way how to arrange all the panels? What about shortcuts? I think that would be kind of impossible to do this. Well maybe it is possible (take a look at the 3D app Blender. It is very powerful. I covers veryyy many topics of 3D content creation.) but this isn’t possible in one or two years. Such a insane project like merging all apps would need a lot of planning. It could be done but it needs to be very well designed.
    I don’t see any problem why it shouldn’t be that all Photoshop effects are the same in Illustrator, InDesign, etc.. They do exactly the same (I’m talking about drop shadow, inner glow, etc.)
    If you’re trying to argument that you don’t need support for native file formats then you could stop right now with a better integration of the CS app. So we stop and we import flattened image files. Maybe even EPS files without ICC based colormanagement? Why not? Go 10 years back in time ;)?
    So we need to import each image 2000 times considering we often need some changes?
    No thanks. If that is the aim for the next years well dunno. Then I could also use GIMP or whatever open source programm suitable for the job. To be honest: The only reason why I would prefer Adobe products about other open source apps is the integration. It is the best on the market. But it’s integration still can be better.
    While we’re going back in time let’s remove Bridge? I can simply search for thousands of files via finder. Way much better. Who cares about meta data support. We don’t need CS integration.
    Take care there is a lot of cynicism at the end of the text ;). But there are also true feelings about how it is going to become. I really would be shocked if you stop now with the integration. Then the workflow cannot become faster and that would be really frustrating.
    Like I said earlier: I’m learning fireworks right now. But even from just knowing it’s basic functions for 2 days (2 lynda.com courses in 2 days) I already know that I cannot use it in the future if it doesn’t support better support for the other Adobe apps.
    It doesn’t import some Illustrator files at all. I cannot work that way. I cannot work with flattened images. This working style is to much 90’s for me. I don’t know how it is in other countries but in Germany there is a growing acceptance for non-flattened files. Almost every book author since a few years suggest non-destructive non-flattened workflows in Germany. Some of the leading ACEs in Germany suggest this workflows.
    Now it’s already 4 cents :P.
    I’m sorry for misunderstanding. I want to say so much but english isn’t my native language. I probably should take more time writing all this for a better understanding I hope you get the idea what I’m talking about.
    Kind regards
    Andreas

  • Wooster — 6:14 AM on November 24, 2009

    In response to the ‘Conspiracy to force us to buy FireWorks’ with regards to animated GIFs, It honestly does feel like it. I mean think about it, with Photoshop’s Animation pallet and complimented by the layers window, Photoshop can make some very robust Animated GIFs. The problem lies in the fact that Photoshop can create Animated GIFs, but can’t open them. Or at least, it can’t open any further then the first frame.
    Photoshop, for better or worse, is already a useful tool for working with Animated GIFs. As a consumer, I see a conflict of interests when the product can create a file, but can’t open it, and the only solution is to buy another pricy product, to which the only motivation I have to get it, is to convert Animated GIFs into PSDs so I can move them back into Photoshop.
    To me in my work style, FireWorks would simply be a $300 file converter. Yes, I know it’s capable of more, but those other abilities are not the reasons why I’d be buying it.

  • Michel — 9:04 AM on November 24, 2009

    “I mean seriously… No real professional works in a destructive way today. All the bitmap tools in Fireworks basically make changes permanently. Not good in my opinion.”
    A small correction: If you use Live Filters from the Property Inspector panel, they are *not* destructive, after you apply any filter to a bitmap — at any time you can edit and switch a filter on/off.
    If you add filters from the Filters menu, though, yes, they’re destructive.
    Things have been like this for years in Fireworks. Why? I can’t tell.
    Use filters from the PI and your Fireworks development will be much easier! :)

  • Michel — 9:23 AM on November 24, 2009

    John,
    Thank you for the update!
    Designers who work with Fireworks have a reason to worry, though:
    1. Adobe clearly invests much more resources in all apps, except Fireworks. Fireworks is also under-promoted by Adobe, and this can be seen by everyone.
    2. Adobe never added even a small Fireworks icon + link to the front page of Adobe.com — why? Isn’t it because even Adobe is not considering Fw a “serious” design tool? Ps, Ai, Dw, Id, Fl, and even Ps Elements have their icon + link, but not Fw?
    3. A message such as “We plan to add most of Fw core features to Photoshop” may be read as:
    — we want to make Ps much better for Web/screen design, and because Fw does it very well, we’ll copy the features from it!
    — but it could mean also: “We plan to copy main Fw features to Ps, then cease development of Fw, as Ps will (in theory) do both print and screen design, as one uber-app”?
    Can you say: “Yes, Fireworks is to stay! It will be developed actively, and we will improve the way Fw, Ps, Ai, Flash and other Adobe major apps “talk” to each other!”?
    Can you say: “We do not have plans to remove Fireworks from out list of actively developed applications, because it has clearly its place, it has unique features and workflows, we value its userbase of professional designers (and we plan to extend it! we plan to promote Fw better!), and we will try to make Fireworks better!”?
    If the answer is “Yes”, then please, add as many Fw features to Photoshop! — I’ll have my excellent Fw tool for screen, Web & logo design, and everyone will be happy! :)))
    [Sorry, Michel–I can’t offer any such reassurances, as I don’t speak for Adobe proper or the Fireworks team in particular. I have little if any say in what does or does not happen to FW. My intention in posting this survey wasn’t to say *anything* about FW, but rather just to gauge interest in design-related (not necessarily Web-specific) improvements in Photoshop. Therefore please don’t read anything related to FW into my questions. –J.]

  • Jeremy Chone — 5:19 PM on November 24, 2009

    I love photoshop, and while I know Fireworks might be better for some of the Web design tasks I am doing, I do not feel learning a new tool. So, on my side, the more “features” that can be added to photoshop the better.
    I compare Photoshop to Excel. You do not know about pivot table to do a simple spreadsheet, but you know that it is there if you need it.
    Photoshop is an amazing tool and Adobe should not be afraid to make it do more things. Obviously, you do not want to break the functional architecture, but outside of this, the more the better. IMO.

  • Michel — 12:40 AM on November 25, 2009

    John,
    Thanks for the reply!
    I simply see Adobe invests less resources in Fireworks lately. I also see it heavily under-promoted by Adobe — even when we speak about screen design, suddenly Ai starts to show, instead of Fireworks, even if Fw is the perfect tool for screen/Web?
    I also see quite a lot of features being copied to Ai/Ps from Fireworks, while Fireworks does not receive the attention it needs itself (what about nice Ai features, copied from Ai to Fw?).
    And now you’ve spoken about copying *most* core Fw features to Ps, maybe soon.
    A designer who relies 8+ hours a day on Fireworks, has the right to be worried a bit?…
    Anyway, thanks for being sincere (to the extent where Adobe NdA extends, of course).
    I hope Fireworks has a future @ Adobe.
    Good luck with the Ps improvements! :)

  • Branislav — 2:02 PM on November 25, 2009

    Maybe you could integrate FW and Flash Catalyst and create best prototyping application for future web(HTML5 and Flash/Flex RIA-s).

  • thinsoldier — 1:10 PM on November 27, 2009

    “It’s possible for apps to have different core missions and yet have tools & capabilities in common.”
    Going a step further, if possible, they should even re-use the same code/modules. For example, it makes no sense that Photoshop exports .png files that are inferior to the the .png files exported by Fireworks.
    “To this day, we cannot arbitrarily re-order layer styles or apply them to groups!”
    Some other image editors I’ve tried can do this. They make it look easy. Even illustrator allows you to add multple strokes and multiple other stuff and re-order them.
    “Point in case: Before moving on to doing more, PS first and foremost must do better what it claims to already be doing.”
    I strongly agree with this. I would gladly buy the next version if the change log was filled with sensible, log over due tweaks/fixes to old areas resulting in some workflows actually becoming how they always should have worked and noticeable speed improvements.
    “not copying features from other apps because it seems like a good idea at the time.”
    Some features in other apps are they best idea ever and should be blatantly coped by ALL software, not just Photoshop.
    “someone was requesting a “Links” panel, but it’s already there – cunningly hidden in your slices tool so really nobody thinks of it for text links,”
    LOL, that’s so NOT the kind of “links” we were talking about. You’re thinking a.href. We mean img.src.

  • thinsoldier — 2:02 PM on November 27, 2009

    Make every app for what it was meant to. Photoshop image processing, Illustrator for vector works, InDesign rich text stuff, Fireworks rapid prototyping. The first problem is integration of the file format. Native file format support is key for a efficient workflow. Unfortunately for example Fw doesn’t handle adjustment layers yet. What also would be great to have smart objects in Fireworks!
    [See, but you’re asking for each app to be slimmer and more focused, and yet you’re asking for more things to be duplicated in each. You can’t have it both ways. –J.]
    What would be great is to have “linked files” as an independent application/common plug-in that works in all adobe apps and then link to a file instead of smart objects.
    What would be better is if Photoshop’s “adjustments” were standardized and made inter-operable with the layer/object management systems of all adobe apps and then the “Adjustment Layers” became an independent application/common plug-in that works in all adobe apps and then you could have adjustment layers in all adobe apps working off one codebase for that feature.
    As for this
    http://www.jnack.com/adobe/photoshop/obo/1.html
    This 2-up idea is pointless and just an invasion of my working space UNLESS the photoshop side is updated live while I edit on the illustrator side. Don’t smart objects already work this way where hitting save in Illustrator updates the view in photoshop? If that’s the case this is just a weak simulation of working with 2 monitors.
    As poopie as Maya is I keep coming back to suggesting you guys look at what that program gets RIGHT when it comes to managing lots of different feature sets in a single application. It has “Menu Sets” for polygons(pixels), nurbs(vectors), dynamics, animation, etc. And a significant number of “features” associated with each “set” of functionality is it’s own somewhat stand-alone component that can actually be disabled/enabled on the fly (freeing up memory) and even omitted from the launching of the application.
    It can repeat ANY last used menu command (not just the filters menu like photoshop) with or without showing the dialog/options box again.
    It lets you “rip off” any menu/sub-menu to a temporary window for ease of use when you don’t feel a menu item is important enough to set up a keyboard shortcut for.
    It has at least 3 different ways of visualizing the attributes (layer settings) of objects (layers) (over the years as more and more people stop using the least useful one they can eventually get rid of it.)
    Yes it has 256 BaJillion-million-trillion-billion flaws and bugs but it got these few wonderfully useful ideas right. All software should copy some of these. Especially Photoshop and DEFINITELY any future Adobe “one app to rule them all”.

  • thinsoldier — 2:20 PM on November 27, 2009

    [At that point, why have separate applications at all? You could make everything consistent (at least in theory) by slamming everything into one monstrous app. –J.]
    Or have the parts that can be most benefitted by consistency across apps converted into centralized plug-ins that can be loaded by any of your apps.
    As you figure out of the years how to do this with more and more of the features you arrive at a point where you’re selling medium sized applications and a very large library of common components. Some components only come bundled with certain apps. When running within the context of 1 particular app any keyboard shortcuts relevant within the app defer to the main applications settings.
    You could even have an app-builder where a user could choose to combine just have an application frame + file opening capability + file saving capability + bitmap image resizing capability + generic scripting capability and create their own very very tiny app for automating opening, resizing and saving photos instead of having to open all of photoshop. And if they have no desire to “watch” the action run they could omit the visible application frame window part and have the script run much faster.’
    I could write my website’s image resizing script with JS and Adobe Components instead of php & imagemagick and re-use the same script in the main Photoshop app instead of having to write 2 scripts in 2 languages that do the same thing.
    People who currently write plug-ins could pay you guys for a license and start making their own tweaked replacement versions of some of the core components. They wouldn’t be limited to just stuff under the Filter menu!

  • moi meme — 9:05 PM on December 09, 2009

    Thanks for the update.
    Can you also confirm that there are no plans to merge AI into Photoshop?
    What is the current schedule for the release of CS5?

  • diseño web — 6:32 AM on February 07, 2010

    Everything depends on the type of work that we are going to carry out. If it is a project Web because I advise to use fireworks by its multiple tools and the close relation with dreamweaver. But, if it is a project for impression would be due to use photoshop

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)