Talk:Adobe Fireworks

I have added descriptions for some of the tools, but am not done yet. I have put an hour of work into this, and plan to spend more in the coming days. I added more information, and added a screencap of the toolbar.

I would like to:

• Create images of the tool icons to put beside their descriptions
• Finish listing all the tools and their functions
• Talk about other panels besides the tool panel
• Add a section for useful extensions, or perhaps simply a series of links
• Work on creating a graphical digram of the hierarchy of the toolbar to replace the current screenshot of the toolbar which isn't as helpful as my proposed diagram would be.

Oque 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fireworks has a very loyal following and while it's a much smaller player in the market, it offers some highly effective workflow advantages over its larger competitors. Some of these include:

• Vector Masking
• Transparency exporting
• Integration with Flash
• Object selection

I'm not sure if you wanted to include a section on why this program is so popular with professionals.

I've reverted the second paragraph to a version more in line with NPOV guidelines. Here's the previous version: Fireworks is similar in purpose to the popular Adobe Photoshop, and offers much more range and sophistication than does the latter. Photoshop has a habit of being intensely uncustomizable - making it a developer's worst enemy. With the release of Macromedia Studio 8, Fireworks improves its advantage over Adobe Photoshop. Fireworks is a primarily vector-based program, whereas Photoshop is stuck in the world of bitmap editing.

I reverted the last edit because

1) Fireworks is not "king over Photoshop", and implying that it is by saying that "more and more experienced graphic designers" see it that way is misleading and not factual. How many is "more and more", and what constitutes "experienced"? In my 10 years as a graphic designer, I can say with confidence that Fireworks may be useful, and may even be better than Photoshop in some ways, but is certainly not king over Photoshop.

2) Bitmaps suffer roughly the same reduction in quality no matter which program they're resized in. In fact, Photoshop offers 5 varieties of interpolation for upwards resizing, minimizing the loss of quality compared to most programs. Implying that Fireworks can resize images better than Photoshop is misleading - they both handle bitmaps and vector images the same way.

Response: However, FW is much more capable of vector processing and development - along with the bitmap end of the spectrum.

3) Photoshop has greatly expanded its vector capabilities since Fireworks was first released.

Response: "expanded" - Yes, expanded, BUT improved over Fireworks?? ... no

4) Most designers use Photoshop in conjunction with other graphics programs, such as Illustrator. Comparing Fireworks to Photoshop is therefore somewhat inaccurate. However, most designers I know, if forced to choose just one graphics editing program, would go with Photoshop.

Response: Fireworks is like Photoshop and Illustrator bundled into a single program - a program that has the features of PS and Illustrator but does it better.

5) On what basis do you make the statement that if Adobe merges the two products, the end result will "boast the fireworks core"? This seems like blatant speculation to me.

Response: As does your prognosis. I merely state that, due to the great and ever-increasing power and versatility of Fireworks, the combination (if it comes to that) will likely contain much of the Fireworks core data engine.

Rasi2290

It strikes me that this discussion is only from the point of view of designers as if they were/are the only users of Photoshop. Photoshop is also used extensively in Photography where I don't think many people would make the argument that Fireworks competes with it. Additionally, CS3 extended adds tools are designed for scientific image work which I'm sure don't exist (and shouldn't exist) in Fireworks. Smart objects, the wide array of plugins from Noise Ninja to Alien Skin's Exposure to any of a number of other plugins that exist for Photoshop don't exist for Fireworks. And that's not even mentioning that Adobe Lightroom, Apple's Aperature and Lightzone are all designed to work with Photoshop in round trip editing. Is it really important in a factual article to decide which software is "king" or even "queen" for that mattter?

Overnightparking 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)OvernightparkingReply

To the last editor of this article: I am Thor, a Recent Change Patroller and member of the Counter Vandalism Unit See here - You have edited this article again, despite being asked to keep your views concise and totally NPOV, which you have failed to observe. I will revert the article back again, and to prevent an edit war starting up, I am going to notify a Wikipedia Admin to watch this article closely. If this article has to be reverted back for a third time, a warning will be issued under the 3 Revert rule and the editor may be dealt with by administration. Take heed! Thor Malmjursson 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with meReply

I think we're well past 3 reverts now... Hillsy 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that it makes more sense to compare Fireworks to Imageready, not Photoshop. After all, Fireworks is specifically for web graphics, just like ImageReady. I've clarified the difference between all three. {As I have said, FW is like a combination of PS and Imageready - not one or the other.} Rasi2290

Due to the consistent edit warring by 68.57.226.12, this page is now protected. Please work out your differences on this talk page. When a resolution has been reached, let us know at WP:RFP and it will be unprotected. If 68.57.226.12 cannot be persuaded otherwise, we'll have to try something different. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what else can be said that isn't already on this discussion page...which 68.57.226.12 has apparently ignored so far. Rasi2290

My apologies - there are some responsed in the NPOV discussion, which I missed because they're mixed in with the original post. Let me fix that first and then address the response. Rasi2290

Ok, now that I've made clear what was in my original post and what was in the response...my responses follow.

1) Fireworks is not "king over Photoshop", and implying that it is by saying that "more and more experienced graphic designers" see it that way is misleading and not factual. How many is "more and more", and what constitutes "experienced"? In my 10 years as a graphic designer, I can say with confidence that Fireworks may be useful, and may even be better than Photoshop in some ways, but is certainly not king over Photoshop. Rasi2290

Since you haven't disputed this, I trust you agree? Rasi2290

2) Bitmaps suffer roughly the same reduction in quality no matter which program they're resized in. In fact, Photoshop offers 5 varieties of interpolation for upwards resizing, minimizing the loss of quality compared to most programs. Implying that Fireworks can resize images better than Photoshop is misleading - they both handle bitmaps and vector images the same way. Rasi2290

Response: However, FW is much more capable of vector processing and development - along with the bitmap end of the spectrum.

Agreed, Fireworks is better than Photoshop or Imageready for handing vectors. But that's not what you were saying. You were saying that Fireworks is better for resizing ALL graphics, which isn't true at all. Resized bitmaps suffer a similar reduction in quality in either program. Vectors can be resized in either program with no quality difference. If you want to make the point that Fireworks is better at handling vectors overall, I agree with you, but that's a totally seperate point. Rasi2290

3) Photoshop has greatly expanded its vector capabilities since Fireworks was first released. Rasi2290

Response: "expanded" - Yes, expanded, BUT improved over Fireworks?? ... no

In your original article you implied that photoshop was totally incapable of handling vector graphics. While this was true at one point, it no longer is. Simple vectors can be created in photoshop, more complex ones can be imported from Illustrator. Rasi2290

4) Most designers use Photoshop in conjunction with other graphics programs, such as Illustrator. Comparing Fireworks to Photoshop is therefore somewhat inaccurate. However, most designers I know, if forced to choose just one graphics editing program, would go with Photoshop. Rasi2290

Response: Fireworks is like Photoshop and Illustrator bundled into a single program - a program that has the features of PS and Illustrator but does it better.

Clarification: it's like a WEB version of those two programs bundled together. Photoshop and Illustrator were both designed for print graphics, and combined, they are far more powerful than Fireworks alone. This is why I think it makes no sense to compare Fireworks with Photoshop in the first place. Fireworks is for web graphics, so it should be compared to the web graphics version of Photoshop...which is Imageready. And in that context, I already granted that it's overall better than Imageready. Not Photoshop. Rasi2290

5) On what basis do you make the statement that if Adobe merges the two products, the end result will "boast the fireworks core"? This seems like blatant speculation to me. Rasi2290

Response: As does your prognosis. I merely state that, due to the great and ever-increasing power and versatility of Fireworks, the combination (if it comes to that) will likely contain much of the Fireworks core data engine.

My prognosis was similar as yours - with a few major differences. First, I was talking about it merging with ImageReady; again, this makes more sense than comparing it to Photoshop. Secondly, I made it more clear that nobody knows right now, and we're all speculating on this. And thirdly, I was more specific in what I think would happen. "Boast the Fireworks core" is sort of vague. If you mean that Adobe would start using the Macromedia interface, I assure you that will never, ever happen. Adobe has invested HUGE time and money into establishing their interface across all their programs, and people like it the way it is. If you mean that common operations will work differently - they'll work the 'macromedia' way instead of the 'adobe' way, again, that will never happen. If, however, you mean that Adobe will incorporate Fireworks' features into Imageready and/or PHotoshop, I agree completely.

I'm not even sure if this kind of speculation belongs in a wikipedia article, but if it does, it should be clear that it is exactly that.Rasi2290

I do agree with Rasi2290 here - perhaps it should be made clear that this is purely speculation. Good point. (MLS)

I've removed this image: [[Image:President Peter.png|thumb|allign|left|An image created using various Firworks tools]] . Its copyright status is under debate. Regardless of that question, though, it doesn't add anything to the article. Nothing about the picture demonstrates the specific capabilities of Fireworks - it could just as well have been made with any of several other image editing programs. FreplySpang (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"(also known as FW for short)" Who here calls it FW

Most people just type out Fireworks. Even in this talk, FW is used in only 2 responses. Lowtech42 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just think they listed it that way because of the signature Adobe CS "boxes with letters in it" icons for each program (sorry, but I have no idea what Adobe's real name for these icons are, if there is one). Oftentimes, particularly on Adobe's webpage, they refer in shorthand fashion to programs using these icons. Maybe it could be clarified that this is Adobe's own iconic system for each program. Because, as you are saying, I don't think I have ever heard of a designer calling it just "FW". 99.163.105.9 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody else think there is too much comparison to Adobe Products? I know its important and should be mentioned somewhere but in every sentence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleRobin (talk • contribs) 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

It's probably a long way off, but does anyone know Fireworks' ultimate fate?

Macromedia's Freehand was silently killed off and supplanted with Illustrator straight after the acquisition, but Fireworks and Photoshop share a lot of overlap.

Could Adobe pull an AutoDesk/Alias and maintain both products for the forseeable future (like AutoDesk did with Alias' Maya and their own 3D Studio MAX) or will they kill the lesser of the two products, Fireworks, off a couple of versions down the line whilst they integrate Fireworks' features into Photoshop? W3bbo 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Response: Obviously, no one knows, and whoever might have a guess undoubtedly can't and won't say -- furthermore, I speculate Adobe doesn't even know, they are still trying to figure it out. We can observe, however, that FW is continuing to be developed in full force for the time being and so far as I can tell has not had any resource reduction. What complicates the future of FW is that Photoshop's core engine(which is over 10 years old now) could not really integrate FW's more advanced vector features(PS renders in layers with primitive vector curves as an aid sometimes, FW renders objects like a true vector editing application), as much of a dream come true that would be. If anything, I think FW is more ripe to start integrating PS's features, but I don't expect that to happen either because of the volume PS bitmap editing features that FW is missing and the effort that would be involved to implement, and in the end it would create even further conflict between Adobe apps. Ultimately, my guess is that FW will fight to find a purpose for its unique hybrid toolset, and if it doesn't find it and more users catch on within the next several versions, it will die. The current "purpose" Adobe seems to be toying with is "rapid prototyping." Whatever that means.

I don't know why both products could not co-exist peacefully. As was stated by the above Talker, much more blatant overlap has occurred elsewhere with Maya/3Ds Max. There is also an important price difference. Fireworks sells as a single app for $299 currently, while the standard edition of Photoshop is $699, with the extended edition costing $999. This puts Fireworks at a lower-end of the spectrum then PS, which sounds right to me considering it has one main application (web design) whereas PS has many possible applications within graphic design. If Fireworks is completely done away with, some users of it who do not own the Creative Suite will step up to PS, but others will just look elsewhere, unwilling to spend the $700 price of admission. And besides that, it's another stuffer for Creative Suite Web Premium. 99.163.105.9 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The images are to demonstrate firework's abilities. Feel free to delete them if you feel it is necessary. --Trenchy (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Just about every image editing program has those features (skew, perspective). Even MSPaint does... I don't think your images add much to the article, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.216.193 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a great big walloping section which is pure Point Of View. I've removed it (check out the revisions to see what it was). If someone wants to fix it and re-add it, that's fine. But don't re-add it in its current state. I also added unencyclopedic and cleanup to the page.

Zapzupnz (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Personal blogs of people with no official affiliation to Adobe Fireworks bear no authority on the application, hence they do not belong in the External Links section. Nathan Pitman's dissatisfaction with Fireworks bears little relevance and no more official authority on Fireworks than the views of other designers who blog about their Fireworks experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.154.3.252 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "Userbase" section of this article seems to have a lot of problems:

Most web designers who design with Fireworks are usually coders of front ends who enjoy Fireworks Object Oriented approach to web design. With its powerful vector tools to create non-destructive scalable elements combined with tools specialized for the web, its been an attractive tool of choice. Long time users of Photoshop make it difficult to migrate their workflow to Fireworks since Photoshop has been the web design tool for many over a decade, regardless of the web advantage that Fireworks has over Photoshop. As of CS4, Adobe supported long time Photoshop users with Fireworks' improved support for import of .psd files, preserving all slices made in Photoshop. However, Adobe's cancellation of Image Ready in favor of Fireworks implies that Adobe Fireworks was the better tool for the web design community. Some web designers who have made the transition from Photoshop to Fireworks refer to Fireworks as "Adobe's best kept secret".

There are several weaselwords in there, no citations, assumptions about the Fireworks community and assumptions as what the implication was to ending Image Ready in favor of Fireworks. While that probably was the reason in Image Ready vs. Fireworks, without Adobe actually stating this, it seems a bit out of place on a wikipedia page to me. What if the actual reason was the head designer of Image Ready changing jobs? Who knows?

This section also seems to be a continuation of the PS vs. FW debate. It just doesn't seem to me to fit here, and I would delete it, but I wanted to see if anyone wanted to re-write it first. 99.163.105.9 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

new CS5 win32 screenshot UPDATE --Umar1996 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised this article doesn't have a "reception" section. Many users feel that Adobe is neglecting this product. Fireworks is intended as a graphics tool for web developers (It was originally part of Macromedia web suite including DreamWeaver and Flash.), but after the buyout Adobe has kind of failed to keep it up-to-date. One of the biggest problems for the past several versions is that Adobe has not added the ability to import and export SVGs. With the web moving onto smaller screens (mobile phones) and ultra-high resolution displays (including the MacBook Pro with Retina Display), web developers needs images that look great both at large resolutions and small resolutions without consuming lots of bandwidth. SVG is both small and infinitely scalable making it a great choice for graphics in modern web sites. SVG images are supported by IE9+, Safari 3.1+, Firefox 4.0+, and Chrome 1.0+, but SVGs are not supported by any version of Adobe Fireworks. - 24.119.24.82 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you can provide reliable sources that discuss what critics think of the product, sure, such information should be included. But without such links, it may be difficult to interest anyone in doing the research to find sources to update the article. (Please note postings from blogs, comments to blogs and news articles, etc., aren't reliable sources.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the version history section just has one version: the original Macromedia Fireworks, released in 1998. This needs to be researched and expanded to fill in each version, its release date, and its new features. Gparyani (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply