Hot Stuff
Win a Subscription to "InDesign Magazine"
5 Winners Selected.
The Big Picture Magazine - FREE
Real-world solutions to design challenges
Get Creative Videocast
New every week. Watch what's important to you.
Comments
Login
Login to post a comment. Not a member? Sign up here
Forgot your password?
A How-to is a how-to.
I honestly intended this article to be a how-to. In hopes that people that are using Photoshop, ImageReady, and GoLive would benefit. My column features are based on Adobe software predominately. I write them hoping they inform and benefit the interested user. I believe all software has its merits and downsides and to each his or her own.
Debabelizer and Slices
"Perhaps George Penston relied solely on Debabelizer, but many of us found Debabelizer to be bulky, overpriced, and inefficient. "
I agree it was bulky, overpriced, and inefficent. I actually used Photoshop plug-ins then ImageReady 1.0 and Fireworks 2.0. But I felt the going standard at the time was Debabelizer. That is what one of the top Web companies was using at the time when I worked for them.
I also wanted to clarify that I was not trying to say that ImageReady 2.0 introduced the world to Slices, but that ImageReady 2.0 introduced Slices to the application itself. Sorry for the confusion.
I find it curious that the author of the story found it appropri
... to give his own article 2 positive reviews. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to post an unrated comment (as I just did) ?
Useful details for those new to the software
Great highlight of a very useful feature. I was originally intimidated by slices and restructuring large graphics, but with this info. I have ready to go! Thanks!
Adobe centric, but I still loved it
I enjoyed the article quite a bit since by natural selection I have ended up with almost entirely Adobe software. I realize, as does the author, that there is other software equally or more capable, but the point of his article was to show the amount of integration in Adobe's products. A different author might show a scenario using Macromedia products which might be very useful for many other people. The one readers complaint about this being an Adobe centric article was articulate and well laid out. I, however, disagree with his opinion because I (though I may be the only one ;-) use mostly Adobe software - for better or worse.
The World According To Adobe
This article reflects an attitude that the entire graphics world revolves around Adobe, and backs up this position by stating "facts" that are blatantly incorrect. Quoting from the article:
"A few years ago, one of the truly tedious tasks for a Web designer/producer was the creation and optimization of Web graphics."
Incorrect. I use Corel and Ulead products to create my web graphics. I have not found the "creation and optimization of Web graphics" to be "tedious" in any way.
"First we had to plan out how the Photoshop build was to be (exported) ..."
"[T]he Photoshop build" ? That makes it sound as if a Corel or Ulead (or Macromedia or Jasc or Metatools or Fractal Design or Microsoft, etc...) "build" would be out of the question. As we know, that was never the case.
"Relying solely on tools such as Debabelizer to optimize the manually sliced Web graphics..."
Perhaps George Penston relied solely on Debabelizer, but many of us found Debabelizer to be bulky, overpriced, and inefficient. At the time, I was using Smart Saver (the original 1.0 release of the product) and continue to use Smart Saver (now Smart Saver Pro) for the vast majority of my optimization. The newest version of Smart Saver is Smart Saver Pro 3.0, which is actually the sixth release of the product (there were three releases of the original Smart Saver followed by three releases of Smart Saver Pro). Given the fact that this optimizer is currently in its *sixth* release, I'd say that alternatives to Debabelizer have been around for quite a bit longer than Mr. Penston is aware of.
"It Slices, It Dices ImageReady 2.0 introduced Slices..."
Wrong again. Adobe was actually the last major company to introduce a slicing product. Corel, Macromedia, and Ulead were all way ahead of Adobe when it came to creating an image slicer.
"... all that extra up-front effort leaves us with very little tweaking to do in GoLive ..."
So now, I'm not only using Photoshop as my exclusive bitmap editor and Debabelizer as my exclusive optimizer, I'm also using GoLive as my exclusive HTML editor. Without exception, every Web designer I know uses Dreamweaver, Front Page, or Homesite. Personally, I decided not to purchase GoLive after I saw Adobe's original page promoting it. The page was designed for 1280 x 1024 resolution, making it virtually unreadable for those of us at more common resolutions. "My way is the right way, my resolution is the right resolution". How typically (and egocentrically) Adobe...
Mr. Penston's article reminded me a bit of Joe Gillespie's October 1999 article in Web Page Design for Designers in which he declared that 8-bit PNGs have bad compression compared to 8-bit GIFs. What's wrong with this statement ? Mr. Gillespie used Photoshop (and only Photoshop) for his compression testing, and Photoshop is known for its bugs in PNG implementation.
My comments are not meant as a shot at Mr. Penston. I'm sure he knows his stuff when it comes to discussing Photoshop, Image Ready, and GoLive. But for him to present the use of these products as the correct way (and possibly even the only way) of doing things is highly innaccurate, and is somewhat offensive to those of us who make our living using products created by companies such as Corel and Ulead.
Your site should strive to provide information for the entire graphics community, not just to Adobe-ites.