Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe photoshop, illustrator or inDesign ?
- Thread starter owazio
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm gonna go illustrator but it really depends on what you are doing. Photoshop is very useful as well - InDesign not so much. Dreamweaver does web stuff. What are you trying to achieve specifically?
I would like to create simple designs and if possible flash effects to add them in iWeb.
I don't know how proficient you are, but I guess you might be asking a little bit too much of iWeb for your ability. There are many ways to write a website, but as far as I know iweb and flash aren't very happy bedfellows.
Learn the basics at first... html
and learn Photoshop, Illustrator and Image ready. Indesign has nada to do with webdesign, it is for media. i.e. brochures, newspapers, buss cards etc.
html is rather simple. for references... http://www.webmonkey.com/
and learn Photoshop, Illustrator and Image ready. Indesign has nada to do with webdesign, it is for media. i.e. brochures, newspapers, buss cards etc.
html is rather simple. for references... http://www.webmonkey.com/
Definitely NOT Photoshop. It's way too clumsy for any kind of type orientated layouts. Plus you'll need an extra layer for each element. This requires a much more time consuming workflow compared to Illustrator or InDesign. This is 2010 and not 2000. 
I'd say InDesign, since CS4 you can even add buttons and export xml files. With CS5 you can more or less build a basic homepage in InDesign with no additional tools.
I'd say InDesign, since CS4 you can even add buttons and export xml files. With CS5 you can more or less build a basic homepage in InDesign with no additional tools.
Photoshop, despite being the dominant design program for website source creative for some reason, is really not the best tool for the job. Fireworks is Adobe's dedicated web design mockup and source file creation tool, and IMO is infinitely better at the task.
A vote for none of the above...
I would say check out RapidWeaver. If you are looking just to create comps, I would say Photoshop. I can't imagine attempting that in Illustrator, the thought give me chills, lol.
I used to use GoLive, and then DreamWeaver. I have used iWeb for some basic comp posting for clients, but it is pretty limited. RapidWeaver is deceptively simple, but deep enough to grow with you as get more skilled technically. Great, great, great user community for support. Nice third party themes to build sites on. Reasonably priced as compared to Dreamweaver, which is a nightmare to work with, IMO.
Cheers,
Michael
I would say check out RapidWeaver. If you are looking just to create comps, I would say Photoshop. I can't imagine attempting that in Illustrator, the thought give me chills, lol.
I used to use GoLive, and then DreamWeaver. I have used iWeb for some basic comp posting for clients, but it is pretty limited. RapidWeaver is deceptively simple, but deep enough to grow with you as get more skilled technically. Great, great, great user community for support. Nice third party themes to build sites on. Reasonably priced as compared to Dreamweaver, which is a nightmare to work with, IMO.
Cheers,
Michael
Sometimes I use inDesign and then export out a bitmap or PDF. Then I open the file in Photoshop to create my slices. I like inDesign because of the control I get with type. I can also import other files into inDesign to create a master comp that allows for non-destructive editing. And if you use highrez photos you can print out decent looking comps for the client. Then if you open the exported PDF in Photoshop, you can choose to resize it on import. It gives a lot more flexibility.
Of course, you can do the same thing with Illustrator and even do slices from there... but I find it to be a bit awkward doing slices compared to Photoshop. I use Illustrator more for graphics and inDesign for layout.
I also usually export out html and slices from Photoshop and then bring those into Dreamweaver to customize. It saves the step of having to create all those layout tags and css styles by hand. I would rather fix or modify existing elements instead of creating from scratch.
I've also done a lot of designs in Photoshop, but the type selection is really bad. You can't even set tabs in Photoshop! But for basic layout with minimum text, Photoshop is okay. It certainly is a good program to design mouse over graphics.
I guess in summary, I have a tendency to use all of the programs depending on the design and what my output goals are.
Of course, you can do the same thing with Illustrator and even do slices from there... but I find it to be a bit awkward doing slices compared to Photoshop. I use Illustrator more for graphics and inDesign for layout.
I also usually export out html and slices from Photoshop and then bring those into Dreamweaver to customize. It saves the step of having to create all those layout tags and css styles by hand. I would rather fix or modify existing elements instead of creating from scratch.
I've also done a lot of designs in Photoshop, but the type selection is really bad. You can't even set tabs in Photoshop! But for basic layout with minimum text, Photoshop is okay. It certainly is a good program to design mouse over graphics.
I guess in summary, I have a tendency to use all of the programs depending on the design and what my output goals are.
Fireworks and Dreamweaver.
Fireworks is designed specifically for web design. Having said that it seems that Photoshop and Dreamweaver is the industry standard. So if you can stretch to it either the Design or Web Premium Creative Suite contain the combinations of the applications you need, and if you have illustrator/photoshop/Fireworks you can choose/use the application best suited for the job of design, and you would have Dreamweaver to code the site.
Fireworks is designed specifically for web design. Having said that it seems that Photoshop and Dreamweaver is the industry standard. So if you can stretch to it either the Design or Web Premium Creative Suite contain the combinations of the applications you need, and if you have illustrator/photoshop/Fireworks you can choose/use the application best suited for the job of design, and you would have Dreamweaver to code the site.
Jeez, Flash effects = fail.
Since you talked about Flash, you probably should get some books on designing website usability first.
Since you talked about Flash, you probably should get some books on designing website usability first.
Definitely NOT Photoshop. It's way too clumsy for any kind of type orientated layouts. Plus you'll need an extra layer for each element. This requires a much more time consuming workflow compared to Illustrator or InDesign. This is 2010 and not 2000.
I'd say InDesign, since CS4 you can even add buttons and export xml files. With CS5 you can more or less build a basic homepage in InDesign with no additional tools.
lol, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your opinion. Truth is, the jury is still out on Flash. Just because you don't like it, or it doesn't play well on Apple stuff, doesn't make it irrelevant to the internet. You blame Flash for usability but most issues are related to how designers misuse Flash. Flash has many options that allows it to be part of the standards, but designers don't always follow those. Or they use it for something it wasn't intended for. Is is perfect? No... but for what other features it can provide far outweighs the perceived disadvantages.
Maybe you'd like the web to be all text and static... and boring like it was in the late 90's? As for me, Flash is just another tool like JavaScript and even CSS that allows for a better visual experience. I've seen some pretty amazing Flash based websites that allowed for an immersive experience that would not have been possible with anything else. Do you want those to go away?
But hey... it's okay to bash Flash if you can back it up with facts. My guess is that you read somewhere that Flash was bad, so you jumped on the bandwagon. Try telling that to the millions of websites that incorporate some type of Flash content. Just don't go around saying Flash is bad without knowing what you are talking about... Or maybe because you read that Steve doesn't like it for the iPhone or iPad.
Really? I just explained a workflow that's more efficient to me than using Photoshop, like I have done in the past. Well, to each their own.
At least I don't start posts with "lol". This always shows the superior expertise of a poster.
Try InDesign CS5
If I had to choose from the three and if you are going to continue using iWeb for the website, I'd go for InDesign CS5.
It has better layout capabilities than PS or AI, makes it very easy to create Flash animations, has the basic vector editing tools from AI and the effects from PS (i.e. drop shadows, bevelled edges etc).
However the killer feature of ID CS5 for your workflow is it's ability to export a selection to either JPG or SWF. So you can create your layout in InDesign then, for example, select your newly-designed logo and export it in a format and size ready for iWeb with no other software required.
Hope this helps, and if you've not done so already, try out the free trials of all three from Adobe.
Graham.
If I had to choose from the three and if you are going to continue using iWeb for the website, I'd go for InDesign CS5.
It has better layout capabilities than PS or AI, makes it very easy to create Flash animations, has the basic vector editing tools from AI and the effects from PS (i.e. drop shadows, bevelled edges etc).
However the killer feature of ID CS5 for your workflow is it's ability to export a selection to either JPG or SWF. So you can create your layout in InDesign then, for example, select your newly-designed logo and export it in a format and size ready for iWeb with no other software required.
Hope this helps, and if you've not done so already, try out the free trials of all three from Adobe.
Graham.
Photoshop with Sitegrinder is also an interesting combination.
Ive not used Sitegrinder, but it looks like it does a lot of the work of coding your design. And Sitegrinder only works with web designs made in Photoshop. It looks like it could be a good option for web design for artists/designers who are already familiar with Photoshop.
Ive not used Sitegrinder, but it looks like it does a lot of the work of coding your design. And Sitegrinder only works with web designs made in Photoshop. It looks like it could be a good option for web design for artists/designers who are already familiar with Photoshop.
This workflow works but if the poster is green then it might be too much to take on InDesign at the start.
to sketch up a layout, i use illustrator (boxes, lines, etc.). for graphics that will go on the actual website, i use photoshop. for code - textwrangler.
For graphics then Photoshop. I'll never understand why people design websites in Illustrator, they just add a million extra steps when dealing with anything thats not a solid color, it also seems to have a serious grudge with pixels and pixels are everything when designing a website. I also dont get the point of InDesign unless people are exporting everything as html and just using that as their site. I never liked Fireworks, I'm sure it speeds up exporting images but you have to make the images first, which Photoshop is obviously highly superior at. If you are expecting to use Photoshop to export as html then thats a bad idea, Photoshop is for saving images only.
What I do is create the entire page header to footer in Photoshop, the size doesnt have to fit the content, it just needs to have all the elements. You must have an understanding of what HTML is capable of first, many people starting out think they can do whatever they want, they cant, for instance everybody seems to want to align text to a curve, you cant do that. Every element has to be a square with no overlapping, if you want a text area to overlap part of an image then you have to save that image in pieces so part of it can be used as a background for the text area.
What I do is create the entire page header to footer in Photoshop, the size doesnt have to fit the content, it just needs to have all the elements. You must have an understanding of what HTML is capable of first, many people starting out think they can do whatever they want, they cant, for instance everybody seems to want to align text to a curve, you cant do that. Every element has to be a square with no overlapping, if you want a text area to overlap part of an image then you have to save that image in pieces so part of it can be used as a background for the text area.
I just want to clear up some of this mis-information that was posted above.
People design websites in Illustrator because it is a "decent" layout program that gives you better options for alignment than Photoshop does. Illustrator has more control over shapes (faster) and graphic elements than Photoshop. But Photoshop has better control over continuous tone images. Though, in my opinion, Photoshop does a better job of exporting slices and source code. However, for the best control over layout, margins, column control, gutters, etc... use inDesign. It's a program that is specifically designed for layout. You can export your designs to formats for web and print.
You don't know what you're talking about. You can create and manipulate images in Fireworks. Fireworks was originally designed as a Photoshop for web replacement. Adobe acquired Fireworks (and Flash) when they bought out Macromedia. If all you do is web design, it might interest you to learn Fireworks. Otherwise, use a combination of Illustrator and Photoshop to lesson the learning curve. If you need absolute layout control, use inDesign.
The above statement is wrong. Photoshop does far more than save images. You can even use it to export custom source code. I often use that option when I need a quick comp for the web, or just don't feel like writing code from scratch.
This information is wrong too. With CSS you can have absolute control over elements that include overlap and stacking order.
People design websites in Illustrator because it is a "decent" layout program that gives you better options for alignment than Photoshop does. Illustrator has more control over shapes (faster) and graphic elements than Photoshop. But Photoshop has better control over continuous tone images. Though, in my opinion, Photoshop does a better job of exporting slices and source code. However, for the best control over layout, margins, column control, gutters, etc... use inDesign. It's a program that is specifically designed for layout. You can export your designs to formats for web and print.
You don't know what you're talking about. You can create and manipulate images in Fireworks. Fireworks was originally designed as a Photoshop for web replacement. Adobe acquired Fireworks (and Flash) when they bought out Macromedia. If all you do is web design, it might interest you to learn Fireworks. Otherwise, use a combination of Illustrator and Photoshop to lesson the learning curve. If you need absolute layout control, use inDesign.
The above statement is wrong. Photoshop does far more than save images. You can even use it to export custom source code. I often use that option when I need a quick comp for the web, or just don't feel like writing code from scratch.
This information is wrong too. With CSS you can have absolute control over elements that include overlap and stacking order.
Maybe I should have been more clear about Fireworks, but before I go on, let me just say to each his own, and there are many ways to accomplish the same thing.
I use each program for what their strengths are... complex vectors get created in Illustrator, images get corrected and retouched in Photoshop, all the assets get brought into Fireworks to design the actual layouts, and the only thing coming out of Fireworks is exported image slices. Coding from there is a whole other discussion.
The biggest benefit of Fireworks is that it is a true hybrid of vectors and bitmaps. Unlike Photoshop, elements can get manipulated with the speed of Illustrator, but with pixel-perfect precision you can't get in Illustrator. Rather than just layers, you get multiple objects on single layers, multiple layers across frames, and multiple frames across pages.
I use each program for what their strengths are... complex vectors get created in Illustrator, images get corrected and retouched in Photoshop, all the assets get brought into Fireworks to design the actual layouts, and the only thing coming out of Fireworks is exported image slices. Coding from there is a whole other discussion.
The biggest benefit of Fireworks is that it is a true hybrid of vectors and bitmaps. Unlike Photoshop, elements can get manipulated with the speed of Illustrator, but with pixel-perfect precision you can't get in Illustrator. Rather than just layers, you get multiple objects on single layers, multiple layers across frames, and multiple frames across pages.