RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Tools > Product Review Discussions
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Product Review Discussions Threads created automatically by the reviews system. Post your actual reviews over there.

The Photoshop CS Rip-off

 
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:14 AM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
>You are kind of contradicting yourself, unless i misunderstand you. You want to put bleeds and slugs on the photo, prior to putting it in the layout?

Most of the time *I* am not the one who plunks the finished work into Quark or InDesign. I must complete the work in Photoshop with the bleeds in place and provide the file as a CMYK TIFF for a magazine or newspaper's prepress folks to plunk into *their* DTP program.

The sample below shows a project that I had yesterday requiring two different specs. One 7.25 x 5 with no bleed and the second requiring 7.25 x 5.125 for a 1/8th inch bleed at the top only. The red area indicates the bleed area that had to be added. And I've shown, on the left, parts of the sky that I added to fill this new bleed area. I generally use red or lime green (on a lower layer) to indicate the bleed area. It just makes it easier to see any gaps when filling in (sky in this case).

Also note that there was a lot of compositing necessary in this piece (Illustrator files, additional photos etc.) and the text had to be in place when I sent the file on to the newspaper and magazine that were running the article.

So yes, PhotoShop is a DTP tool in the sense that I have to put it all together and send a flat file to the publisher.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg working-2.jpg (46.2 KB, 24 views)
top
  #22  
Old 09-08-2005, 11:01 AM
Photo678's Avatar
Photo678 Photo678 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
See, I would just do that in indesign, drop the background photo in, stretch beyond bleeds, add the text, etc etc...

as i said, i wouldn't have the patience to do that in photoshop, what took you "maybe" an hour in PS to do, could have been done in indesign in about 15 minutes.

what would happen if you had a multi page ad to do? would you send two files? What would happen if they needed to readjust the bleeds/slug/safety zones, all of that stuff is easily remedied in indesign and would, seem to me anyway, to be a huge pain in the rump to do in photoshop. if you did it all in indesign, they could easily add the indd file to the magazine layout or whatever.

I don't disagree that you "can" use ps as a dtp tool, you can also use paint, or word as well, but doesn't mean it is the best tool for the job.

I guess what my point is, is that photoshop wasn't really designed to be a page layout program...in fact you would have an easier time doing what you are doing in illustrator, you can add bleeds, you can add slugs, everything is a live layer without having to click, click, click on that stupid layers palette.
top
  #23  
Old 09-08-2005, 11:10 AM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
Okay, Photo... What happens if I plunk it into InDesign and send the publisher an InDesign file figuring they can "adjust the bleeds" etc. then they come back and say... "We use Quark and cannot accept an InDesign file"?

The only way I have total control over the layout, yet maintain compatibility with everyone is to output a TIFF file with everything in place.

I might add that I've needed to put a layout together and send the same file to two different publishers. One using Quark and the other using InDesign.
top
  #24  
Old 09-08-2005, 01:33 PM
Photo678's Avatar
Photo678 Photo678 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
lol...a good publisher should accept what you send, you as the designer are the one doing all the work...and when hired im sure they would ask what program you would be doing this in.

Also, in the case of two publishers...pdf's are the best route, tiffs are an image that cannot be manipulated easily once flattened, pdfs on the other hand allow for post output editing on the fly. I've done it before. PS doesn't have the levels of adjustment for outputting to pdf that indesign does.

Im just saying that with all the hoohaa i've had to put up with with publishers and printhouses over the years...indesign and quark are the way to go.

and you can VERY easily convert indd files to qex files and vice versa.
top
  #25  
Old 09-08-2005, 01:54 PM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
Been doing DTP for 24 years, Photo. (How well I remember the days of Atari Page Stream). Every job is different and calls for it's own tools and work flow. When I'm doing my own work, InDesign, PhotoShop and Illustrator are the tools of choice. And yes, it would be nice if I could drop an InD file on my local newspaper, but they are stuck in Quark. We have no ad agency in our area. I'm about as close as anyone can get so folks ask me to do creative work for them and leave the details to me.

Then there are cross platform issues and dealing with middle men who don't have a clue. They just broker the print work to someone else and can't even give you decent specs and have no idea what DTP programs their publisher uses.

And the sales people that say.."just email me the file" and when you do it bounces back because their email box has a size limit restriction. I maintain my own server space and have sent a direct link to publishers with instructions to just click the link and the file will download to their hard drive. They click and click, see nothing happening then call me and say, "The link didn't go to a web page." When I ask them to check their desktop they have three or four copies of the file sitting there waiting for them.

Then there was the guy (a broker) who told me to send a Mac Tiff file. I did and he tried to open it on his PC (he wanted to look at it before sending it off to his printer). Of course it had a Mac preview, not DOS, and he kept telling me the file was "broken".

I've seen about everything on this end. The thing that pi$$es me off the most is when I send the file link to my server and ask for a reply to let me know that it will work, I never hear from them and the file sits there clogging up my server.
top
  #26  
Old 09-11-2005, 06:59 PM
RooB's Avatar
RooB RooB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 157
Not that I'm into publishing or anything, but if you're hired to do a lot of jobs which involve a specific program and you spend a lot of frustrating time doing something in Photoshop that can be done in a mere fraction of the time in the proper program, why not purchase the software? Wouldn't it be a worthwhile investment? Is your time worth the price of purchase?

Personally, if I find a tool that lets me do my a job faster and more efficiently, I'll invest in it-- to not buy it isn't good business sense to me, especially if it's something that saves me a lot of time.

In the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.
top
  #27  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:28 AM
Swampy's Avatar
Swampy Swampy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Swamps of Florida
Posts: 4,418
RooB

If that message was directed to me, I spent the big bucks for the Adobe CS2 Premium upgrade, but three large color printers that I deal with are still at CS1. My point was that the end user may not have them so I have to prepare pieces based on what they require for their work flow.

>n the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.

Most four color process projects that I deal with contain photographic elements and, depending on the project it is often easier to assemble a piece in Photoshop than in InDesign, especially if it is a stand alone graphic (such as a spot ad or, as in the case of my sample above, a graphic to accompany an article in a county wide directory).

If Photoshops "intended target" is strictly photography, why would Adobe include text capabilities (with a dictionary even!) and the ablility to import EPS elements? Photoshop is such a staple "tool" in ad agencies, it's strange that you would imply that it should be confined to studio photography.
top
  #28  
Old 09-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Richard_Lynch's Avatar
Richard_Lynch Richard_Lynch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by RooB
In the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.
Really? I don't think so.

Depending on who you are and what level you are at (professionally and as a hobbyist) there are things that Photoshop will do quite substantially for prepress. It will satisfy the creative professional needs of many groups of artists. And in fact it seems quite overkill to me for people processing images at home for a photo-quality printer (which some would consider as Photography). Photoshop Elements will serve most people having to do with the latter (http://aps8.com/elements3.html). There is a lot more that Elements can do than is suggested by even professionals who call it a 'dumbed-down' version of Photoshop.

If you want to compare Photoshop to other packages, please name them so we can see what arena you are making this comment from. Then we can compare products in a sensible manner. There are just too many variables to make clear sense of that commentary.
top
  #29  
Old 09-12-2005, 12:36 PM
Richard_Lynch's Avatar
Richard_Lynch Richard_Lynch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo678
photoshop is NOT a jack of all trades...it is not a DTP tool...if you need bleeds, use something for that job, like indesign, or quark. That's like saying, "why can't i html code in paint".
Well, an extreme example, but I certainly agree Photoshop is not the best place to handle bleeds--unless, of course, one is using the program to extend the boundaries of a too-closely-cropped image.
top
  #30  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:33 PM
RooB's Avatar
RooB RooB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Posts: 157
"Adobe® Photoshop® CS2 software, the professional image-editing standard and leader of the Photoshop digital imaging line." -- Adobe.com

It's an image editor-- that's what it was designed for, and that's what its marketed for, but what people actually *use* it for and what its intended market is, are two seperate things.

However, I wouldn't make french fries out of apples.
top
 

  RetouchPRO > Tools > Product Review Discussions


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deep Paint 2.0: Make your Photoshop Image look like a REAL Oil Painting Photomaster Photo-Based Art 28 07-29-2009 02:59 PM
How do you learn to do "Photo-art"? DannyRaphael Photo-Art 101 18 09-24-2006 12:41 AM
Online Photoshop and Elements e-book project. TimShelbourne Photo Restoration 1 11-29-2005 02:04 PM
Cs Upgrade Romany Photoshop Help 2 02-02-2005 09:59 AM
Pros and Cons of P.S. 7 john_opitz Software 31 04-28-2002 07:43 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved