PHWinfo - Afficher un message

03/03/2008, 19h31

vhteacher wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Right now I'm using PS to create website mockups using the layer comp feature
> to create pages (much like the pages feature in FW.) I purchased FW recently so
> that it would fill in what web stuff PS doesn't do. I thought that creating
> mockups would be easier in FW but since it's not working correctly I don't
> think it's a good work flow at this point.
>
> Creating a mockup in FW is good but PS is more powerful and has features FW
> doesn't have like smart objects, line spacing, and easier to work with filters
> and effects. I'm trying to find what FW's role in the workflow. The only thing
> I think FW has that PS doesn't is Common Library items and an easier way to
> create rollovers.
>
> Illustrator doesn't work for me as far as web layout is concerned because it's
> a little more difficult getting it to the web and the filters really create a
> large file size.
>
The workflow is different in FW than it is in PS (I use both for
different purposes, so I'm not trying to knock PS at all). I came from
PS to FW, so I know there is a definite difference in the approach, but
it's one which I find is quicker.

As you have probably already discovered, layer comps don't translate to
FW, much like FW pages don't translate to PS. You'd need to save off
separate PSDs of each comp. Same for FW; you'd need to save each page as
a separate PSD file in order to open it within PS and still retain
editability.

FW makes use of symbols as opposed to Smart Objects. While not exactly
the same as Smart objects which link to the original file, Symbols can
play a similar role from within FW.

The pages funtion includes the a master page feature and the ability to
share layers and web layers across multiple pages, which can both be
time savers. Line spacing for text is available in the P.I. In keeping
with text, FW also has a nifty command for placing lorem ipsum text as
placement text.

As for filters and effects, most third party filter plugins will work
with FW, including the filter set from PS 5.5. As for Effects, you have
a starting point with the Styles panel, and again, there are many style
sets out there on the web which can be added to FW.

I agree that Photoshop is a powerful bitmap editor. It's the king of
image manipulation, but its roots are more firmly placed in pre press
rather than web. FW is built for a web workflow. What is it you find is
not working correctly?

In general, FW also does a more efficient job of optimizing images, when
they are exported, and makes working with vectors a breeze (IMO).

Here are a couple links to articles that might :

http://www.pixelyzed.com/pixelforge/whychoosefireworks/

http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=82930

http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=1BFD3

http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=C5610

In the end it's really up to you. The client doesn't care how the job
gets done, so long as it's done to spec, on time and on budget. Use the
tools you feel benefit you the most, and save you the most time. I think
if you invest the time to learn FW, you will find it can save you time.

There are certainly things PS does which FW does not. The same argument
can be used the other way round. Each iteration of FW shows integration
improvements. For the longest time this wasn't possible due to the fact
MM and Adobe were competing against each other and not sharing. Now that
all the apps are under one umbrella, the integration is occurring, but
only so much can be done in any single release.

HTH

--
Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:.
http://www.communityMX.com/
CommunityMX - Free Resources:
http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
---
.:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
Adobe Community Expert
http://tinyurl.com/2a7dyp
---
See my work on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_babbage/

03/03/2008, 19h31	#4
Jim Babbage .:CMX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:. Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Fireworks Doesn't Read Photoshop no Fill vhteacher wrote: > Jim, > > Right now I'm using PS to create website mockups using the layer comp feature > to create pages (much like the pages feature in FW.) I purchased FW recently so > that it would fill in what web stuff PS doesn't do. I thought that creating > mockups would be easier in FW but since it's not working correctly I don't > think it's a good work flow at this point. > > Creating a mockup in FW is good but PS is more powerful and has features FW > doesn't have like smart objects, line spacing, and easier to work with filters > and effects. I'm trying to find what FW's role in the workflow. The only thing > I think FW has that PS doesn't is Common Library items and an easier way to > create rollovers. > > Illustrator doesn't work for me as far as web layout is concerned because it's > a little more difficult getting it to the web and the filters really create a > large file size. > The workflow is different in FW than it is in PS (I use both for different purposes, so I'm not trying to knock PS at all). I came from PS to FW, so I know there is a definite difference in the approach, but it's one which I find is quicker. As you have probably already discovered, layer comps don't translate to FW, much like FW pages don't translate to PS. You'd need to save off separate PSDs of each comp. Same for FW; you'd need to save each page as a separate PSD file in order to open it within PS and still retain editability. FW makes use of symbols as opposed to Smart Objects. While not exactly the same as Smart objects which link to the original file, Symbols can play a similar role from within FW. The pages funtion includes the a master page feature and the ability to share layers and web layers across multiple pages, which can both be time savers. Line spacing for text is available in the P.I. In keeping with text, FW also has a nifty command for placing lorem ipsum text as placement text. As for filters and effects, most third party filter plugins will work with FW, including the filter set from PS 5.5. As for Effects, you have a starting point with the Styles panel, and again, there are many style sets out there on the web which can be added to FW. I agree that Photoshop is a powerful bitmap editor. It's the king of image manipulation, but its roots are more firmly placed in pre press rather than web. FW is built for a web workflow. What is it you find is not working correctly? In general, FW also does a more efficient job of optimizing images, when they are exported, and makes working with vectors a breeze (IMO). Here are a couple links to articles that might : http://www.pixelyzed.com/pixelforge/whychoosefireworks/ http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=82930 http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=1BFD3 http://www.communitymx.com/content/a....cfm?cid=C5610 In the end it's really up to you. The client doesn't care how the job gets done, so long as it's done to spec, on time and on budget. Use the tools you feel benefit you the most, and save you the most time. I think if you invest the time to learn FW, you will find it can save you time. There are certainly things PS does which FW does not. The same argument can be used the other way round. Each iteration of FW shows integration improvements. For the longest time this wasn't possible due to the fact MM and Adobe were competing against each other and not sharing. Now that all the apps are under one umbrella, the integration is occurring, but only so much can be done in any single release. HTH -- Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:. http://www.communityMX.com/ CommunityMX - Free Resources: http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm --- .:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:. Adobe Community Expert http://tinyurl.com/2a7dyp --- See my work on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_babbage/