|
|
Posted by dorayme on 04/02/07 01:38
In article <F8-dnV_uhbinzo3bnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Kevin Scholl <kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > 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?
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.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|