Posted by Kevin Scholl on 04/02/07 04:01

dorayme wrote:
> 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.

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/
kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

[Back to original message]