Do we still need graphic programs?

**cancerinform** · 08-12-2005, 03:57 PM

I am already now using flash for some simple graphic stuff. With all those new features can actually photoshop or some other graphic program be replaced, since in flash we can also save images? Some special effects may still require photoshop of course but what about most of the regular graphics? I am not a designer so correct me if I am missing something.

**pellepiano** · 08-12-2005, 05:07 PM

I would not even think of retouching in Flash. Or color correct. I also could not live without the Actions in PS. Even cropping images would be troublesome ( I guess).

**erixon** · 08-12-2005, 05:42 PM

Pixel by pixel operation gonna be very slow on big images. But a lot of other stuff that there is functions for gonna do quite fine. Not comparable with Photoshop quality but a lot of nice features anyway.

Flash can't save in image formats, so you need to send it to something external that do the stuff.

**csdstudio** · 08-12-2005, 06:02 PM

Not even apples to oranges. More like apples to pumkins. Photoshop has 800+ functions, flash has finally integrated 4 of them. Long way to go I'm affraid, even to replace Microsoft Paint, let alone Photoshop.

**cancerinform** · 08-12-2005, 07:07 PM

I was missing a lot

**joshchernoff** · 08-12-2005, 07:16 PM

That is the idea though, I would like to see flash go the way of a photo shop or gimp style
in with the all ready good flash app. I hate to go back from one to the other over and over agin. that would be so cool just to have one in all program.

**>flashl!ght<** · 08-12-2005, 09:33 PM

> 800+ functions, flash has finally integrated 4 of them
Maybe I missed something simple, but what exactly do you mean by 'function' ? Are you just pulling numbers out of the air for comparison(in which case I understand what you're saying), or are you literally meaning 800+ and 4? If so... what 4 functions? Sorry, I'm just really curious what exactly you meant.

I personally don't think Flash should include any features that the Flash Player does not support. If you need something like that, that's what the other tools(PS, FW, ect.) were built for. Flash is for getting it onto a Flash site.
However some of the features, such as the filters, blend modes, and bitmap manipulation(which I'm nearly in disbelief about, so awesome), will certainly make the need for outside tools alot smaller, depending on what you are doing.

Flash can save to an image format, just not at runtime.

**csdstudio** · 08-15-2005, 10:26 AM

Was just comparing the two applications, photoshop has 800+ image editing functions, filters, adjustments, tools, etc., while flash has just integrated a handful of basic tools.

**cancerinform** · 08-15-2005, 11:12 AM

...but aren't the ones flash has now integrated the ones most often used in graphic applications + flash is vector and much easier to handle, I think

By the way am I missing the newest photoshop? The one I have at work is CS, but has many hundred applications less than 800

**0vidiu** · 08-16-2005, 05:00 PM

flash and photoshop.. simply not the same picture

different tools for completly different jobs.

**Computer Dork** · 08-17-2005, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by 0vidiu

flash and photoshop.. simply not the same picture

different tools for completly different jobs.

If you think about it, the only reason that we don't have one all-encompassing graphic program right now is simply because they keep getting bigger and bigger. Photoshop CS2 compared to Photoshop 2 or 3 is almost laughable. If they didn't get so bloated with features (which can be both a blessing and a hinderance) then I'm sure it could be done.

**0vidiu** · 08-17-2005, 03:10 AM

you may be right... I sayed "different tools for completly different jobs" be cause I never use flash or illustrator for bitmap jobs.. you simply cannot...

**Computer Dork** · 08-17-2005, 06:08 AM

Right - but it really wouldn't be hard to make one program to do both, but not with all the features that all the programs have today or it would crash any OS.

**0vidiu** · 08-17-2005, 06:39 AM

true enough!

**phacker** · 08-17-2005, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Computer Dork

If you think about it, the only reason that we don't have one all-encompassing graphic program right now is simply because they keep getting bigger and bigger. Photoshop CS2 compared to Photoshop 2 or 3 is almost laughable. If they didn't get so bloated with features (which can be both a blessing and a hinderance) then I'm sure it could be done.

That's very true. Why should we expect one tool to do all things? You go into the hospital, one doctor doesn't do it all, why should one program?

**The_Mercenary** · 08-17-2005, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by csdstudio

Not even apples to oranges. More like apples to pumkins. Photoshop has 800+ functions, flash has finally integrated 4 of them. Long way to go I'm affraid, even to replace Microsoft Paint, let alone Photoshop.

Flash is a billion times better than paint

Thread: Do we still need graphic programs?

Thread Tools

Display

Do we still need graphic programs?

Posting Permissions