What do you use to create web pages

[Bernhard Sturm]

PS is (or has traditionally been) a bitmap graphic prgm. Whereas
AI is a vector one. Fireworks is a sort of in between thing.

I wonder, why almost nobody is using Fireworks as this *is* the tool for
webdesigners. PS is okay for print purposes, but does not offer the
flexibility to combine vector with raster manipulation, whereas
Illustrator, Freehand are vector only, and therefore not suitable for
webdesign purposes.

cheers
bernhard

 

[Neredbojias]

PS is (or has traditionally been) a bitmap graphic prgm. Whereas
AI is a vector one. Fireworks is a sort of in between thing.

Why not read:

<http://www.prepressure.com/image/bitmapvector.htm>

Okay, thanks, I'll check it out. Apparently the difference is just one
between bitmap and vector graphics - a difference I know. And reading
makes me sleepy so I was hoping for some informed feedback the easy way so
I wouldn't have to toil through the tedium of tepid typeface. But...I'll
check it out.

 

[dorayme]

I wonder, why almost nobody is using Fireworks as this *is* the tool for
webdesigners. PS is okay for print purposes, but does not offer the
flexibility to combine vector with raster manipulation, whereas
Illustrator, Freehand are vector only, and therefore not suitable for
webdesign purposes.

PS has traditionally been better for photo manipulations. Yes, FW
has a lot of tools but it is not as easy for many things as PS
(the actual steps for many manipulations are awkward). FW is good
for moving bits around (esp. on the same layer!), sizing
elements, generally organising an image, especially a complex one
and above all fabulous in exporting smallish files (PS is
hopeless on this, even the awkward "web sister" program
ImageReady is not so impressive)

I say "traditionally" because things change as new versions come
out and companies buy up each other and their stocks, combine
technologies. e.g. I notice that PS in later incarnations has
support for moving things that are on different layers with the
mouse directly.

As for AI, it is useful in designing various elements for web
pages. For example, logos. It is simply a very powerful program
and has things that FW cannot match however it tries.

There is another reason some of us might be not _just_ be using
FW (or its website making equivalents). In my own case, I often
have to prepare material for printing as well.

 

[Greg N.]

... exporting smallish files (PS is
hopeless on this,

xcuse me, what exactly do you think is the problem here?

 

[dorayme]

xcuse me, what exactly do you think is the problem here?

I have given you my experience and will go into it only if I see
some more from you on this subject. What is it exactly (and I
mean exactly) that you want me to talk about? Image Ready? Just
PS itself cf to FF in exporting to jpg or gif or png? Which
versions? Propose a test.

If you do not have experience of both, you might not know how
good FF is in this particularly strong suit it holds.

It is harder work to prepare smaller equal quality pics in PS
suitable for dialup in particular than in FF.

But if you are very experienced in PS and very careful, you will
do fine. I recall a time ImageReady came out and a friend and I
tested it and compared it to FF. We found it hard to get quality
for quality, file size for file size, and FF was clearly ahead in
this race. But things may be different in the latest programs?

My use of the word "hopeless" was an exaggeration.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

PS has traditionally been better for photo manipulations. Yes, FW
has a lot of tools but it is not as easy for many things as PS
(the actual steps for many manipulations are awkward). FW is good
for moving bits around (esp. on the same layer!), sizing
elements, generally organising an image, especially a complex one
and above all fabulous in exporting smallish files (PS is
hopeless on this, even the awkward "web sister" program
ImageReady is not so impressive)

Could you elaborate, please. Where exactly do these other applications
hold any significant advantage over PS/IM when exporting "smallish" files?

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Kevin Scholl]

I wonder, why almost nobody is using Fireworks as this *is* the tool for
webdesigners. PS is okay for print purposes, but does not offer the
flexibility to combine vector with raster manipulation, whereas
Illustrator, Freehand are vector only, and therefore not suitable for
webdesign purposes.

You do realize, do you not, that all text layers, as well as simple
geometric shapes, are not rendered as vector in Photoshop?

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Greg N.]

I have given you my experience and will go into it only if I see
some more from you on this subject. What is it exactly (and I
mean exactly) that you want me to talk about?

The sentence I quoted seems to say that PS is not good at creating small
image (JPG?) files. I had the same problem when I started to use PS CS2,
until I found there is a "save for web" function, which, as far as I can
tell, can create very compact JPGs.

Furthermore, you can use masks to optimize the range of quality in a
JPEG image. Selected parts of the pic may be rendered in a high quality
mode while the rest of the pic is in very low quality mode. This can
give the image an overall appearance of high quality despite very small
JPG size.

I guess you know all this, no? I'm not an expert, but I'm very much
interested in this field. What is it that Fireworks can do so much
better here?

 

[dorayme]

Could you elaborate, please. Where exactly do these other applications
hold any significant advantage over PS/IM when exporting "smallish" files?

I am looking at an image right now that was about 1.5 MB from a
digital camera. Cut size to 800x600 and export in FF at 80% and I
get a fine web pic for about 56K. I do similar in PS IR and get
closer to 150k. But wait, if I bring the thing down to about 56%
in IR I can get similar results to what I get in FF at 80%. So
there may well be a scale difference on my versions of programs.
So perhaps if one becomes familiar with the controls in IR one
can do fine. I notice, though, that I get consistently bigger
file sizes for other formats too that seem to not be so amenable
to reduction as with jpg. PNG 24 gives me 733K in IR whereas FF
gives 544k, gif is bigger by about 30k in IR.

Anyway, even if one can get file for file quality and size, there
is the question of management and interface controls, FF is
neater. No, I beg, you, please don't ask me to explain "neater".
Use both and see.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

I am looking at an image right now that was about 1.5 MB from a
digital camera. Cut size to 800x600 and export in FF at 80% and I
get a fine web pic for about 56K. I do similar in PS IR and get
closer to 150k. But wait, if I bring the thing down to about 56%
in IR I can get similar results to what I get in FF at 80%. So
there may well be a scale difference on my versions of programs.
So perhaps if one becomes familiar with the controls in IR one
can do fine. I notice, though, that I get consistently bigger
file sizes for other formats too that seem to not be so amenable
to reduction as with jpg. PNG 24 gives me 733K in IR whereas FF
gives 544k, gif is bigger by about 30k in IR.

Anyway, even if one can get file for file quality and size, there
is the question of management and interface controls, FF is
neater. No, I beg, you, please don't ask me to explain "neater".
Use both and see.

I've used both rather extensively (though I admittedly prefer PS/IR,
perhaps because I used it first). I suppose my wonder with your examples
above are with the classification of a "smallish" file being 800x600. I
was expecting something more akin to, say, an interface button, maybe
120x30 or something like that. 800x600 is hardly "smallish" IMHO.

In my experience, there is a sort of cut-off for the various file
formats, where FW and PS/IR exchange their quality and size ratio.
However, I DO find that FW consistently creates smaller PNG files for a
given quality, regardless of physical size. GIFs I can usually get
better results in PS/IR as the filer gets physically smaller. JPGs are
often a crap-shoot.

As to your final point, perhaps it is my personal preference for PS/IR,
but I find its interface rather more usable than FW. YMMV, of course.
Seems to me a matter of a given user utilizing what works best for him/her.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Bergamot]

I wonder, why almost nobody is using Fireworks as this *is* the tool for
webdesigners.

I've been using Fireworks for years. Familiarity with a product surely
affects one's opinion, but I think it does a great job for web graphics.
Besides, I can't see spending hundreds of dollars more for PS and
Illustrator for features I'll rarely, if ever, use.

PS is okay for print purposes,

I don't do print work, so that aspect has no appeal for me.

 

[dorayme]

The sentence I quoted seems to say that PS is not good at creating small
image (JPG?) files. I had the same problem when I started to use PS CS2,
until I found there is a "save for web" function, which, as far as I can
tell, can create very compact JPGs.

Furthermore, you can use masks to optimize the range of quality in a
JPEG image. Selected parts of the pic may be rendered in a high quality
mode while the rest of the pic is in very low quality mode. This can
give the image an overall appearance of high quality despite very small
JPG size.

I guess you know all this, no? I'm not an expert, but I'm very much
interested in this field. What is it that Fireworks can do so much
better here?

Yes, fair enough, and the mild challenges or calls for more
explanations caused me to take a better look at the more modern
PS and IR and it seems one can do quite well. I went the FF way
for many webby graphic tasks from the days of FF 2! Did I get set
in my ways? In that time, or just when IR came out, I was not too
impressed in the compression algorithms being used by IR and PS
cf to my (by then old) FF2.

One would have to investigate the issue closely with latest
programs. But FF has all these other advantages, or at least did:
much better text (prior to CS, text in PS was quite awkward and
clunky). Moving stuff around in PS was dependent on the layer
concerned being active. FF is quite brilliant in the way it
allows one to simply manage parts of the image all on one layer
or many, the objects (bits of text, shapes eg). Anyone used to
Illustrator will know the strengths of this classy vector
program. FF has some of the same elements to it.

But this said, if I am working on just a photograph to retouch it
or manipulate it in various ways, I use PS, the tools are better
and more intuitive. Once it is right, or if it has to be part of
a more complicated graphic, it is over to FF for me.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

I've used both rather extensively (though I admittedly prefer PS/IR,
perhaps because I used it first). I suppose my wonder with your examples
above are with the classification of a "smallish" file being 800x600. I
was expecting something more akin to, say, an interface button, maybe
120x30 or something like that. 800x600 is hardly "smallish" IMHO.

but 800x600 is exactly the kind of image size a webdesigner is working
on a daily base, and this is the realm of FW. I made the experience (and
I work on both tools) that from a workflow perspective FW rules out PS
by a lot of things. Somebody mentioned doing print AND webdesign with
the same tool, which is not a very good advice as you might (and I do)
produce high quality (e.g. for printing purposes) images or graphics on
Freehand/PS and then transfer them to FW for the webdesign task. I
_never_ work on exactly the same image material for print and webdesign
because webdesign is not the same media as print. This is the reason why
you shouldn't do everything in one single tool, IMHO.
But this discussion is a bit obsolete as Adobe will drop IR in favour of
FW for their future web-suites.

I was only wondering why so many seem to ignore the fact, that in terms
of workflow FW is much easier to handle as PS (I am talking about web
issues here).

just my two cents
bernhard

 

[dorayme]

I suppose my wonder with your examples
above are with the classification of a "smallish" file being 800x600. I
was expecting something more akin to, say, an interface button, maybe
120x30 or something like that. 800x600 is hardly "smallish" IMHO.

Oh... by "smallish" I was referring to comparative file size, not
actual width and height in pxs. I often prepare both thumbnails
and enlargements and their dimensions are fixed. What is needed
is quality at the min file size and that is what the discussion
has been touching on. The most recent task I did, the thumbs were
7k to 12k (and nice useful ones like 200 x 150 pxs) and 33 to 95k
for the biggest enlargements of 800 x 600.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

You do realize, do you not, that all text layers, as well as simple
geometric shapes, are not rendered as vector in Photoshop?

I assume you meant 'are rendered as vector'? Yes, I am aware of this.
But PS targets to print-media (this starts with the fact, that you have
to fiddle with the colorspaces in PS where this point is entirely
missing in FW for a good reason, or that PS offers you the possibility
to render your images mainly in cm or inches, where FW default-settings
are set in pixel (for obvious reasons as well).)
PS is mainly a 'raster-manipulation' tool with some vector additions,
where FW can treat entire images as 'vector-only' (you will find a lot
more vector tools in FW than in PS) additionally FW uses the same
raster-manipulation-plugins as PS, so if you have installed both apps on
your machine you can use all the filters in FW as in PS...

cheers
bernhard

 

[Andy Dingley]

*snerk* A good point. The environment is indeed a factor in coding. I
find that I work better either in silence or when listening to 60s/70s
instrumentals.

At home: Radio 3 (mainly for Kershaw)

At work: VERY LOUD Nirvana / Jesus & Mary Chain / Jedoun and the Space
Rhinos on headphones to keep the suitpidity out of my head.

 

[Bergamot]

[rehotoshop]
you can use masks to optimize the range of quality in a
JPEG image. Selected parts of the pic may be rendered in a high quality
mode while the rest of the pic is in very low quality mode.

FYI, you can do the same in Fireworks.

 

[dorayme]

[rehotoshop]
you can use masks to optimize the range of quality in a
JPEG image. Selected parts of the pic may be rendered in a high quality
mode while the rest of the pic is in very low quality mode.

FYI, you can do the same in Fireworks.

Yes, you can do lots of things in FW that you can in PS. In
general I have found that the PS tools are easier and more
intuitive to use for photo manipulation. The image pixel
selection tools (no surprise) and all the options have been
traditionally at least, superior. FW makes unnerving selection
points and lines to correspond to repeated use of such things as
the cloning stamp. Sure they disappear later and all is forgotten
after export, but each tiny thing you do creates an object. This
is a quite a strength in some ways, but it is clunky in other
ways.

 

[Nik Coughlin]

Just a little survey. Tell us what you use to create your web pages.

I like Dreamweaver and notepad to do some hand coding.

Dirt and Pointy Stick HTML Editor

Sadly brucies' site seems to have disappeared, but archive.org to the
rescue:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051108020013/http://usenetshit.info/editor/