Thought I'd just start a thread here regarding graphic programs, to be fair to Cyber's thread (sorry Cyber).

Some opinions (so don't shoot me) :/

<soapbox>

Was jawing about the pros of Paint Shop Pro over Photoshop, and mentioning the little know Adobe product ImageStyler, and had some more thoughts to share.

PSP, IMO, is so essential for webmasters (WM's) that it should be in every WM's toolbox. Those familar with the Windows interface would appreciate the familiar GUI (as Photoshop looks and feels like someone install MacOS on your system). It's cheap cost, PSD plug-in acceptance; and ease of use make it a quicker way to edit or create little essential graphics - it will not replace a web designer though.

A much unknown Adobe product, ImageStyler, is a sweet little program that people should at least try (Ebay still sells it, since Adobe doesn't make it anymore - and yes, it works well in W98/W2K/XP). Often considered a junior program for the novice market, it's ease of use is what makes it so nice for busy webmasters/hosts (and what it was marketed too). In a few hours many of the templates shown here can be designed graphically - it's danger is that is can replace a web designer if someone has a knack for design. It's so good at what it does, that Adobe probably killed it to make the higher priced products more appealing (like ImageReady which is packaged for Photoshop as it's web friendly add on). Unlike ImageReady, ImageStyler looks and feels like a PC product (so there's no annoying Mac menu format to learn).

These are but 2 programs that are "neat" to try and have. For those imtimidated by "artsy" stuff these programs don't require a long learning curve. They are not the best products of their genre (only Fireworks and CorelDraw can seem to compete with the "king" Photoshop), yet for the best bang for the buck for busy people on a tight budget, they do their jobs professionally.

Furthermore....

I gripe about Photoshop because I see too many people (especially novices) buying this bitmap program. Art schools require it (they also required useless Xeon based workstations after some professors felt it was superior to high end PIII workstations, accepting that an Xeon is an Xeon regardless of age), it's so well known and touted by artists themselves, that people are almost forced to buy it for the image it brings - professionalism. Now what professionalism does it bring? Just saying I work on PSD causes people to think, oooh professional class. What people get is a fancy time saver that aimed for the print/photo industry. Adobe finally, after PSP tore through it for web graphics, came to their senses and realized that the print industry isn't the only market out there. So they designed ImageReady and ImageStyler and threw it out like second class Adobe products for the net class (i.e., dumb non commercial art majors).

People complain about the problems of Windows as an OS, but techie types aren't brainwashed by art professors and the print industry. They accept that Photoshop is "king" and treat it as they treat those who MS certified engineers because of what's portrayed. The truth is Photoshop's image is as hyped as it's price tag. If I went around saying I use Photoshop/Macromedia products would you think I'm more professional than someone who says they use PSP and some Ulead products? The products do about the same things, the quality is the same. The programs that a web designer uses doesn't make a web designer a web designer. What makes a successful web designer is what they can produce. If someone can make cool animations with MS paint, it doesn't make their product any less professional as someone who throws 3k around to get an Adobe web suite.

I needed to type this so people can see there's more to a program than the image it portrays.

</soapbox>.

Chris

You have some good points there, but in the end, it's all about preference. I went from learning the basics in MSPaint straight to Photoshop, so I know Photoshop like the back of my hand. Now, PSP, that's an entirely different matter. I have version 7 and the interface makes me want to scratch my head in confusion. It looks easy to use for beginners but it has the opposite effect on me. Aside from tubes and better vector support, I scarcely play with the thing. The clunky toolbar throws me off. The same goes for the Gimp. Both are good programs in their right, but I just work more efficiently in PS. The only thing I use most frequently by Jasc is Animation Shop, which I admit, is pretty cool.

I prefer PS because it just does some things better than PSP. It has better layer support, layer blending filters, file compression...essentially, it's just more powerful than PSP. There are so many options that would make a designer drool. The cool thing is that there's always something new to learn that you didn't know before. I'm often astounded by the PS tutorial I encounter online...it's like, whoa, Photoshop can do that!

The only thing I dislike about PS is that it consumes too much resources and hard drive space.

PSP retail costs $100. Just wait a while, and maybe one day it'll cost just as much as PS.

In the end, the designer has to wind up buying all these products (Adobe, Corel, Macromedia, etc) so you might as well use the one you spent the most money on most.

I have not heard of ImageStyler before. Thank you for the heads up. It looks like another fun toy I'd like to play with :)

Actually, Adobe came out with 'Photoshop Elements' - essentially a cut down version of PS with some more user friendly menus.

I'm with Lain here - I have PSP 6 and can't make heads nor tails of it. The menu system just doesn't click. Photoshop (which I've been using since version4) makes perfect sense to me. Macromedia's products also make sense to me (yes, even Flash).

They cost a bundle, I agree with you there, but the savings I make in being able to use something I understand makes it worth it. I don't even feel it's the 'snob value' you hint at.. I just wouldn't use anything else.

Of course I also rave about 'Project Dogwaffle' as a natural medium program (think oils and charcoals), and last time I checked it was still beta and free. :)

Greg Moore

I think you may be talking about ImageReady. Well that tool ships with PS 6.0 for free now. The beauty of that tool is the way it optimizes pictures, shows you final output and size, etc... But the thing I love about that tool most is I can design my entire web page interface in it and then cut it up into multiple slices and it'll save it in html format exactly the way it should look. Saves me tons of time when I need to create graphic-intensive complex-looking web pages.

I actually tried both but after a while found to prefer PS more. Why? Because the tutorials/links of PS are so~ overwhelming on www, easier to follow. :nuts: <-- for dummies

OK, the truth is. Some said whatever you can do with PS, it can be done with PSP. Perhaps the only difference is their prices. Then why PS seems to be preferred by more graphic designers? Erm... I dunno.

But then do you know why windows preferred by many while linux is free and better os? :erm:

Originally posted by Skeptical
I think you may be talking about ImageReady. Well that tool ships with PS 6.0 for free now.

ImageStyler and ImageReady are 2 different programs.

ImageReady is a free addon because Adobe needed to make Photoshop more web friendly.

CMYK color schemes just don't work on the web!

ImageStyler is web friendly, and is RGB based. Cute little proggie, that does it's specific jobs well. Real time saver on menu bars, buttons and some other stuff. It's not like PSP, nor like PS, it has the ease of use of PSP, and the time saving of PS.

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
ImageStyler and ImageReady are 2 different programs.Another different program, as akashik mentioned, Photoshop Elements; which is sort of a subset of Photoshop.

I have to side with the developing trend here: I started using PSP years ago because even though everything I heard and read raved about PS I couldn't afford it. Now that that's not a problem (and neither is having a system with the resources and disk space to handle PS) I certainly prefer working in Photoshop to working in PSP, and I have the most recent versions of each.

As for prices, I'd guess that I first used PSP it was about $39, maybe even $29. Now it's $99. Photoshop has pretty much stayed the same.

I still think PSP is a great tool, and an ideal choice and valid option for those who don't want to pay the premium price for PS. Can it do everything PS can do, and just as well? I can only say this: all of the really spectacular work using layers that I've seen (I'm not talking about mine, I'm talking about impressive stuff that I've seen from other people) has been done in PS. So is that because it couldn't be done as well using PSP, or just because the best graphic artists are using PS?

Criticismof either of them because of their respective interfaces, as this thread shows, is irrelevant: interface preference is a matter of personal preference. I've never done any real work on a Mac in my life, but I find the PS interface to be ideal.

Originally posted by Turtle
OK, the truth is. Some said whatever you can do with PS, it can be done with PSP. Perhaps the only difference is their prices. Then why PS seems to be preferred by more graphic designers? Erm... I dunno.

It's preferred because long before the internet, as we know it now, Photoshop was the main graphics program for print shops (who are Mac/Adobe ready) and commercial artists. Most commerical artists are trained at art schools, and they're required to buy this program. They got used to it, and continued to use it. Retraining on a PC GUI would confuse them.

When others see that so-and-so uses Photoshop they think, "Well if this art major is using it, it must be *the* program to use." Then it's touted from non art majors and it snowballs.

Unlike Macromedia's Flash (which is a different speciality program), Photoshop is a graphics program like so many others. What makes it unique is all the time savers. A lot of work used to be done manually (layers/masks for example) and a project could take days to do. Photoshop streamlines a lot of this stuff so artists can concentrate on layout and design. It's a great program few ever knock it, it's just the idea that it equals professionalism is overrated and too hyped. One doesn't need Photoshop to be a professional web designer.

Personally I'd rather see a kid trying to make really nice stuff using MS Paint or some other freebie, than someone who got a $600 program and didn't do their time the hard way. Yes I'm biased in that regard, as I was doing layout and design when it was rulers and "paste up."

Chris

Originally posted by JayC
So is that because it couldn't be done as well using PSP, or just because the best graphic artists are using PS?

More likely the later. You're not seeing art majors buying and using PSP at school. Once they're used to it (like so many old command line and Mac interface lovers) it's hard to switch.

What non art majors are using isn't driving the popularity. It's what the :cough: true :cough: professional class are using.

Don't think anyone here is using those $10,000 3D or video programs that art majors are required to buy.

Get into the professional class and pay the professional prices. One of the best color programs out there (another Mac proggie) sells for $500. Not seeing too many web designers using it. The list is quite long of all those speciality professiona products too.

Criticismof either of them because of their respective interfaces, as this thread shows, is irrelevant: interface preference is a matter of personal preference. I've never done any real work on a Mac in my life, but I find the PS interface to be ideal.

As you became accustom to it. Now switch back to use PSP and see how "confusing" it is.

Kind of like switching from a MacOs to Windows. ;)

Chris

Aloha
well some thoughts
PS6 is not just pixel based it can handle vector images also
PS has bettter performance than others and has better handling
I have used imagestyler it can work well but Macromedia fireworks blows it away unless you like the template look
Fireworks has the best saving algorithym out there by far and that alone is worth it
to me fireworks is the best for web and images can be enhanced if need be in PS then brought into FW in a ready to go format.
as others ahve said PS has best layer handling etc...
not saying you can not build great websites with other programs at all but since it was not like what is the best tools for under $100 or something if that were the case things like paint shop pro and ulead would stand a chance.
also if you are sharing files etc... PS is a standard
my main tool of choice is Fireworks and PS second
true about teachers etc... but print is not going anywhere so there is always a need for that principal to be taught
plenty of good artists adn designers no nothign of designing websites though they cut up images with no idea why they are doing or teh best way or they do not understand when to use gif or jpg or png or flash etc....
designers can design things but will need soemone with webknowledge to assemble them properly on the web same as for print so may web people think this is easy I am going to get into print work now which is so much deeper than web
just some other rambling thoughts ;)

Originally posted by Honu
I have used imagestyler it can work well but Macromedia fireworks blows it away unless you like the template look
Fireworks has the best saving algorithym out there by far and that alone is worth it
to me fireworks is the best for web and images can be enhanced if need be in PS then brought into FW in a ready to go format.


Heh!

Fireworks does have a good compression scheme, but that's why I use Ulead's SmartSaver Pro (keep wanting to call it ProSaver :/). It has the lossy GIF and some other tweaks, and is a plug-in for PSP. I might get Fireworks in the future to dabble with though.

Here's a resized graphic I did one night and I just added some text to it now (can't add the whole image here or the mods will be thumping me over bandwidth). The backgrounds were done in Corel Texture and Photopaint (what can I say, I like PC GUIs :/), and pasted into the page in IS. It's a "nothing special" example, just to show what IS can do (and text it does very, very well).

Chris
Want color? I can give you chroma!

Aloha
cool image ;)
yeah IS (Image styler I assume ;)
is a good program once ya get over fireworks learning curve you will be amazed at its power
a cool thing is also how you can choose selective colors etc... in jpgs and all can pretty much guarantee ya ya will get smaller files with FW give it a try ;)
lots of cooll things that IS has FW has now built in to styles etc...

I have been using PhotoImpact 6 and will upgrade to seven. The save for web is basically smartsaver Pro and it is easy for me (as a none artist) to use.

Aloha

well some good thoughts have come up one thing is to know the program you are using and be happy with it. ;)

Originally posted by Honu
a cool thing is also how you can choose selective colors etc... in jpgs and all can pretty much guarantee ya ya will get smaller files with FW give it a try ;)

Have you every used a program called Picobello? I don't know who came first with that color image tweak, but from my experience with Picobello, it's a neat way to reduce a file size. SmartSaver Pro has a similiar feature, but PicoBello had some "fuzzy logic" in it's auto reduction wizard that made reducing colors much easier. If the programmer (also the customer service rep) wasn't so much a [fill in the blank] I'd recommend it.

Wish they'd design a modular graphic program, where if one doesn't need the features they don't need to buy it all. Not everyone does layers/masking, or work with vector images for example. Would reduce the entry price, and people can grow with the program.

Chris
Business sense doesn't always mean common sense.

Aloha
hmmm sounds cool would be curious I guess what I lie about FW is that I can see 4 comparisons and also if I want selec a file size and it will save it to that size I did some comparisons with photoshop Ulead and the other one can not remmeber who it was at this sec but FW was way better at compression and how it looked etc...
might redo this and post results ????
if ya got a link to that progy would be curious though

Originally posted by Honu
if ya got a link to that progy would be curious though

Unfortunately it's quite hard to find on the 'Net now (I tried when my HD crashed and the programmer/creator :cough: customer service rep :cough: wouldn't allow me to obtain another copy).

If you type Picobello and add Webspeed to it, you might can locate a shareware version.

What it does well on is the ability to pick *any* color and remove it, and it's neat color reduction wizard. Got some nice realistic animations (large animations over 200x150) down to just 5kbs - and they have color too. There's a clip I did that's around 200x24 with beautiful gradients and it's but 1.6kb.

Personally haven't found a compressor that can reduce images that small without them looking really crappy (but always looking for a new leader of the compressor pack). ;)

Chris

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
What it does well on is the ability to pick *any* color and remove it,Very easy to do in Fireworks as well.

My earlier posts focused on PSP vs PS because that was the comparison original posed, but I'm a big FW fan.

Back to an earlier comment:Now switch back to use PSP and see how "confusing" it is. I understand your point, but it's not an accurate characterization. As I said, I'd used PSP for years before trying PS, probably two years ago. So while I was learning Photoshop I actually used both -- when something had to get done and I didn't have time to learn in in PS, I stuck with what I knew. During that period I developed a preference for PS, and while I still have PSP installed -- well, wait, W2000's Add/Remove program utility says... last used 8/15/01. Most likely it was a month or so prior to that since I'd last used it. I used PS yesterday, and Fireworks today. Certainly it's not always daily, just happens I've been working on a project, but rarely does a week go by that I won't fire up each of those two.

Originally posted by ChrisLM2001a
A much unknown Adobe product, ImageStyler, is a sweet little program that people should at least try
...
It's so good at what it does, that Adobe probably killed it to make the higher priced products more appealing (like ImageReady which is packaged for Photoshop as it's web friendly add on). Unlike ImageReady, ImageStyler looks and feels like a PC product (so there's no annoying Mac menu format to learn).
Actually LiveMotion is the successor to ImageStyler. Adobe's focus, though, was to create a product to cut in to Flash's market share, rather than try and build on ImageStyler's strengths. In the end they really did neither. (If any product is going to cut in to Flash's market share, it's going to be something like Swish.) I liked LiveMotion a lot, but it had precision problems particularly with text, so I abandoned it with the release of Photoshop 5.5.

Originally posted by Intelligent Hosting

Actually LiveMotion is the successor to ImageStyler. Adobe's focus, though, was to create a product to cut in to Flash's market share, rather than try and build on ImageStyler's strengths. In the end they really did neither.

It's a shame too. ImageStyler's ease of use (and it's price tag, being one of Adobe's cheapest programs) is what originally attracted me to it. A novice can design a web page out of the box in a matter of hours, and all the messy HTML stuff was handled by IS. The designer could concentrate on the layout/design.

I don't know if LiveMotion was it's successor, as at the IS Adobe board the whole lot was saying it was ImageReady that was it's replacement (which is Adobe's competition for Fireworks). Either way it turned out, it really sucked to have owned IS and the next year it was history. I sure was hoping to see it have some more options (but that would've competed with GoLive! and ImageReady). :(

Chris

Aloha
I think Image styler was replaced ny Image ready as you said ChrisM2001a.
Live Motion was created to go after flash adn as Chris (intelligent hosting Chris) said Flash might be mroe threatened by Swish than anything ?? although that is a whole other topic I actually think it might get mroe people using it and make the plugin more common etc... so it may actually help flash out

yeah it was a good program (IS) shame they did not integrate all of it into imageready. not sure how much you play with FW but most of the cool stuff it had are in there and a few more goodies that are designed for web work. after using all of the programs FW still can do more than any other program or do more than most any combination of programs. PS is still teh best for tuning up photos etc... but is not a interface creator it can be used as such but it is not its strong points Image ready since it is part of it would be much better to use for this
(not saying this at either Chris ;) Just saying it for those people reading the post ;) hehehheheeh

Originally posted by Honu
Aloha
I think Image styler was replaced ny Image ready as you said ChrisM2001a.
Live Motion was created to go after flash adn as Chris (intelligent hosting Chris) said Flash might be mroe threatened by Swish than anything ?? although that is a whole other topic I actually think it might get mroe people using it and make the plugin more common etc... so it may actually help flash out

Seems like Chris is a popular name around here. lol

I visited the Swish site couple of months ago, and it is neat. How it'll compete with Flash is hard to say, but it's cheaper (and cheaper a program is chances are it'll have more users). Hope it'll get more people involved with Flash. Just love all those little games that can be made with it.

Games are popular on some sites. Sure can generate traffic.

My main beef with Flash is it's misuse/overuse. Adding too much eye candy when a small yet tastefully GIF animation can do the job, without plug-ins, nor having to click the "Skip Intro" just to get to the site in the first place.

Some sites really do benefit from Flash, Hosting sites I don't think is one of them. People come to compare and shop, not watch a little movie.

Flash is kewl, it's over use isn't.

Chris
PS - If you want to talk about Flash, more the merrier. Just didn't have room to add all the graphic programs in the thread title. :)

Aloha
can not agree with ya more
we have people saying we want to do a flash intro I ask why they say cause it is cool and that is there only reason
I say OK but I would put your money into marketing first then come back
I use analogies a lot
I always say first ya got to bake the cake tehn add frosting then put on the decorations and not until you know the exact name of who it goes to can you put on the final icing and what color etc.. it will be
so I say get to know your customers first let them get to know you and then we will put on the personalized icing

I do think fo sites that would deal with say nightclubs, DJ's bands etc.. Flash is a must do and the flashier the better but not for biz sites.
a guy wanted a simple flash intro on his biz site once so we said sure will do a demo for ya frigin funny he did not have flash installed nor could he cause of the firewall they were behind ????
hehehehehe

good thread ya started man ;)