Jump to content


Photo

Is Fireworks Dead?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 iSiteBuild.com

iSiteBuild.com

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Running, Biking, Martial Arts, Snow Skiing, Family, Web Design, SEO, Article Marketing, Travel

Posted 20 December 2010 - 08:13 AM

Hi,

I've been using FW since 2000 but it seems like most designers now use Photoshop.
Is Fireworks going to be fazed out in favor of PS?
Should I start learning PS instead of upgrading my current FW software (Macromedia MX Studio 2004)?
Can one create the same graphics in FW or is it limited?

#2 Mikko

Mikko

    Fireworks Ninja

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:Bacon

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:26 AM

FW is much alive and getting bigger everyday.

#3 AReidMcG

AReidMcG

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 December 2010 - 12:45 PM

FW is much alive and getting bigger everyday.


How is it 'getting bigger' every day? No updates/patches have been released to sort the woeful memory problems.

Fireworks is a good prototyping/wireframing/web optimising tool, and for me that's about it.

I don't think Fw will be phased out, but it's limited when compared to Ps and Il.

#4 nima

nima

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Location:Earth, for the time being.
  • Interests:HTML, CSS, PHP, WordPress, MySQL, Apache - Fireworks, Photoshop - Mozilla, chrome - Sublime text

Posted 20 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

Hey,

In my opinion FW is great for main projects and integration would make it more unique. PS, FC, IA can be the best integrations.
PS tools focus on graphic designs so to design complex graphics PS can be the better choice, but not the best for designing websites. Importing the PS design to FW works just fine.
FW tools are made to speed up web/app designing but for someone who is a total PS eater, tools aren't a problem. If you're not a pro in PS, you shouldn't give up on FW.
Learn by different trainings as much as you can to become a master on FW, then you'll know how far you can go with FW rather than PS in website designing.


#5 AReidMcG

AReidMcG

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:43 PM

Importing the PS design to FW works just fine.

=======

Not always. I've had issues importing legacy formats of .psd files.

I'm aware that I'm being a bit negative about Fw: I think it's a piece of software that's about 90% complete. I'd like to see better text rendering and crisper lines on vectors. The memory issue is a huge frustration as well.

Having said that, I much prefer working with gradients in Fw, and I like the way that layers/objects are organised into folders.

It's a decent bit of kit, it's just not quite there yet.

#6 Mikko

Mikko

    Fireworks Ninja

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:Bacon

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:58 AM

Posted Image
I've seen this discussion done too many times - I'm getting tired of people who just complain.

#7 AReidMcG

AReidMcG

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 21 December 2010 - 08:43 AM

I've seen this discussion done too many times - I'm getting tired of people who just complain.


I'm not complaining. If anything I'm raising valid points that affect the way I work in the programme.

#8 Jai

Jai

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Interests:Anything that constitutes good design, css, html, logo design, wordpress

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:54 PM

Hi,

I am fairly new to Fireworks, however I have alittle experience when it comes to web designing. I've always heard of fireworks but never really paid much attention to it. I 've started getting to grips with it, hence the reason why I joined this forum. One of the things that made me succumb to my curiosity, and try fireworks was this article I read by a few designers....
My link

Very interesting article.

#9 Yriysreaktori

Yriysreaktori

    FireworksCommander

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 21 December 2010 - 09:40 PM

Jai, your link isn't working, can you please fix it :)

#10 Jai

Jai

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Interests:Anything that constitutes good design, css, html, logo design, wordpress

Posted 25 December 2010 - 01:11 PM

Jai, your link isn't working, can you please fix it :)


Opps! sorry about that, here's the link

My link

#11 Jim Babbage .:CMX:.

Jim Babbage .:CMX:.

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests:Photography, digital imaging, reading, listening to audiobooks, playing around with Fireworks!

Posted 29 January 2011 - 01:24 PM

I'm not complaining. If anything I'm raising valid points that affect the way I work in the programme.


Text rendering is based on Adobe's own text engine. Frankly most of the text I add in a design ends up as HMTL text anyway, so I don't worry too much about minor rendering issues. CS5 brought many new typography features to Fireworks as well. At least 12 improvements to help speed up your workflow with text.

CS5 also introduced Snap to Pixel, which can greatly sharpen vector edges when they get rendered on a half pixel distance.

I look at work by people like Blue2x and really see how far FW can be taken. Is it Photoshop? No. I'm glad for that. PS has it's strengths in the bitmap world and I use it all the time for high resolution bitmap editing/compositing. But spend a little while with the vector tools in Photoshop and I run screaming back to FW.

#12 curtj

curtj

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Manchester UK
  • Interests:Allsorts =]

Posted 13 April 2011 - 01:16 AM

PS tools cogitate on graphic designs so to organisation whole graphics PS can be the outstrip select, but not the mortal for artful websites. Mercantilism the PS pattern to FW entireness honorable thin......

Could you rephrase that?

=]

#13 &box

&box

    FireworksCommander

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 30 June 2011 - 05:47 AM

Could you rephrase that?

=]

That's SPAM dude. Generated by a robot computer programmed by a cynical person.

#14 curtj

curtj

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Manchester UK
  • Interests:Allsorts =]

Posted 30 June 2011 - 06:09 AM

That's SPAM dude. Generated by a robot computer programmed by a cynical person.


Thanks for that mate. I thought it was manually typed out by a victim of a recent head injury.

=]

#15 Alan

Alan

    FireworksGuru

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts
  • Location:San Francisco, California USA
  • Interests:Longboarding, art and video games

Posted 01 July 2011 - 09:47 AM

I thought that was funny. I removed the spammer, but kept curtj response to post.

My thought is you need to upgrade and get off of MX2004, CS5 is so much better and has a ton of bug fixes and enhancements that you probably already wished were in there. :) Try it out!

#16 blue2x

blue2x

    FireworksMaster

  • FwGurus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Location:Cagayan de Oro City , Philippines
  • Interests:Adobe Fireworks , Business , Investing , Art , Technology

Posted 02 July 2011 - 03:38 AM

Lol that was funny, yes i agree with Alan , CS5 rocks, and you need a good pc , with more than 1.5gigs ram, im having insufficient memory errors in my old pc =)

#17 Jedi

Jedi

    Fireworker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:53 PM

yeah i recommend mac .. am work with, much better.. when pc.. :)

#18 Eneza

Eneza

    Fireworker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Fireworks
    Designing
    Writing
    Programming
    Photography

Posted 07 September 2011 - 06:52 PM

I love FW but the industry standardized PS so I have to learn it from ground up! FW is fast but it seems the color rendered from FW is not as shiny as PS.
Do you have opinion on this? Still love the software... using it from time to time especially in "CRUNCH" times... It is not even close in being dead...

#19 joefin

joefin

    Fireworks Sparkle

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 12:35 PM

I don't think so brother because i think firework is a great software till now. Yes Photoshop is also giving some good facilites. But still firework is best.

#20 curtj

curtj

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Manchester UK
  • Interests:Allsorts =]

Posted 18 September 2011 - 03:13 PM

Adobe-wise, I use PS, AI, FW, AE and sometimes Flash regularly as a professional and have been a digital artist/designer for over ten years - this is how I see it from my perspective:

  • Photoshop is best for multi-layered single-page bitmap manipulation, whether that be image editing, overpainting, sketching, pixel art or anything else that requires pixels across layers and/or on a page being changed.
  • Illustrator is best for any type of illustration, be that technical, isometric, pixel art, cartoons, fine illustration etc - you get the gist.
  • Fireworks is best for multi-page, object-based design such as software (and hardware) user-interfaces, and web site design.

You can use any one of the above to do any of the things that the other two can do, but for me it's best to stick to what they are best at as outlined above.

The ideal way to use the above is to integrate all of them together for what you are producing.

When working on websites (my main output currently) I regularly edit images to perfection in PS before bringing them into a FW document. Then I might draw a short-run icon set in AI, bring them all into the FW common library. Sometimes I'll edit an image in PS, bring it into AI and add some detail, text, and flourishes, take that back into PS and touch up the new content then add it to a web page design in FW.

In short and despite the (current) technical shortcomings of FW, they're all excellent and if you prefer to use them differently to how I have declared they best be used then simply continue to do so - just because it's not how I'd do it, you're still doing the right thing. :)

So, until AI, or PS, or some other software becomes better at multi-page interface design, and has the level of integration with a great suite of tools such as the Adobe CS, or until people no longer require GUIs or web sites, FW will not be dead. Far from it.

Btw - I love them all, they're great to use. Best of all though, by a long shot, is After Effects. Now that is a fine piece of software. :)

#21 DuncanCox

DuncanCox

    FireStarter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 03:15 AM

I believe Fireworks and Photoshop both have different quality. So both are my favorite at different prospect.

#22 raja

raja

    FireMonkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 04:43 AM

FIREWORKS ROKZ.....

#23 J-fire

J-fire

    Fireworks Sparkle

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:10 PM

Photoshop pundits should learn their history. Many of the problems with FW came about because of the merger with Adobe. There never was a memory problem before Adobe took over. There never was a need for a snap-to-pixel problem before Adobe, FW used to snap to pixel by Default. Terrible font rendering started when they rushed the merge with PS in CS4. Macromedia was a vastly smarter company with much faster ways of working and saved us all TONS of time. You may remember having to crop and export every piece of your UI along guides in PS. FW invented image slices.
PS's layers and effects take many more clicks to get anything done and have not been fundamentally re-thought since the early 1980's. In the early versions of FW there was no layers panel because it wasn't necessary. Everything on the page was an object with properties. I will concede that there are many useful things to having a layers panel, but Photoshop has the most needlessly complicated UI. Put any PS expert next to any FW guru and have them recreate any site to pixel perfection and the FW will smoke the PS guy every time.

#24 curtj

curtj

    FireworksFreak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Manchester UK
  • Interests:Allsorts =]

Posted 05 December 2011 - 01:42 AM

...In the early versions of FW there was no layers panel because it wasn't necessary. Everything on the page was an object with properties...


That's a really interesting fact. I use layers for organising stuff, but would happily just use groups if it was possible to isolate and edit their contents - I could symbolise them I suppose (hmm, might try that actually) and in the meantime I'll continue to use Aaron Beall's excellent Layers extension for quickly converting groups to sublayers and back again.

I recently had to outsource some web design work I'd started. Then later down the line I had to pick up where the other designer had left off.
He had taken my FWPNG source artwork, imported it into Photoshop (Frustratingly, I have to work with loads of developers who also do this) created about 12 PSDs - one for each page - and each PSD had no layer organisation at all, meaning that there were 100+ unnamed loose layers, across 12 documents.

It was a complete mess.

I had to use Photoshop's 'Auto-Select:Layer' option with 'View>Show>Layer edges' in an attempt to simulate Fireworks, and also perform lots of duplicating between open documents to share assets, I didn't even bother to compare positioning between the different pages.

As you can imagine, it was an unpleasant way to work. Doing this in Fireworks just works nicely, layers or not.

I will just add though, that for the background image I had to distort a large, cloth-textured image to reveal another image behind it which involved painting and manipulating the shape and texture - I did this in Photoshop and it went smoothly and the results were perfect. As I said in an earlier post, each application has it's place.