Fireworks and Photoshop workflow issues
August 31, 2009 9:04 AM Subscribe
Fireworks vs. Photoshop - which is better? (ok, that's obviously flamebait). How do I make a workflow argument for Photoshop in a production department entrenched in Fireworks?
We're a web production department that primarily designs and builds web pages from Fireworks source files. I prefer to design in Photoshop, but I'm getting pushback from the production department. The argument being, that working with photoshop is fundamentally slower, not built for the web, and therefore has no place in our workflow.
I'm trying to build the case that we can, and should, have a capacity to work with Photoshop. I see opposition to Photoshop as a training issue that can be overcome. How can I sell the benefits of adding photoshop expertise to our repertoire?
We're a web production department that primarily designs and builds web pages from Fireworks source files. I prefer to design in Photoshop, but I'm getting pushback from the production department. The argument being, that working with photoshop is fundamentally slower, not built for the web, and therefore has no place in our workflow.
I'm trying to build the case that we can, and should, have a capacity to work with Photoshop. I see opposition to Photoshop as a training issue that can be overcome. How can I sell the benefits of adding photoshop expertise to our repertoire?
What is it specifically about Photoshop that would be more beneficial? Your ammo should demonstrate a concrete benefit, especially if you're in the minority against an established preference.
Is this a standardization issue or a cost problem? Do you guys use the suite?
posted by sageleaf at 10:21 AM on August 31, 2009
Is this a standardization issue or a cost problem? Do you guys use the suite?
posted by sageleaf at 10:21 AM on August 31, 2009
Cost arguments will also include not just licensing but training time and potential loss of production time while you are migrating people.
One thing, in work environments, is not to mess with the workflow unless there is a damn good reason. People have created efficient workflows for their jobs and do not want to have to recreate them for another application unless absolutely necessary. There is a reason that software migration is an important decision and not done lightly.
If you can show that shifting to photoshop really will save time i.e., money or make people's lives easier you will get buy in from decision makers and for your sake, your co-workers. Otherwise, it will be a hard slog if all you have is that photoshop is "better" and no hard set of numbers or tangible rewards for people to migrate. You are already getting pushback so be prepared for these questions.
posted by jadepearl at 10:27 AM on August 31, 2009
One thing, in work environments, is not to mess with the workflow unless there is a damn good reason. People have created efficient workflows for their jobs and do not want to have to recreate them for another application unless absolutely necessary. There is a reason that software migration is an important decision and not done lightly.
If you can show that shifting to photoshop really will save time i.e., money or make people's lives easier you will get buy in from decision makers and for your sake, your co-workers. Otherwise, it will be a hard slog if all you have is that photoshop is "better" and no hard set of numbers or tangible rewards for people to migrate. You are already getting pushback so be prepared for these questions.
posted by jadepearl at 10:27 AM on August 31, 2009
Your strongest argument may be in terms of industry standards. Is photoshop the dominant application in this domain?
If photoshop is the industry standard for prototyping web pages, more of your potential employees will have mastered the product. Also the product is less likely to go out of development, leaving you in a lurch with out of date and no longer maintained software.
posted by idiopath at 10:50 AM on August 31, 2009
If photoshop is the industry standard for prototyping web pages, more of your potential employees will have mastered the product. Also the product is less likely to go out of development, leaving you in a lurch with out of date and no longer maintained software.
posted by idiopath at 10:50 AM on August 31, 2009
I think that you might want to try to appreciate what you have. I'm always trying to integrate some fireworks into my team's workflow.
Just this spring I busted my ass setting up that continuous integration server and getting it in our workflow. Bob printed out that "I broke the build" sign and I said, "What is that about? I thought we had a plan?" But then everyone was like "Oh, we thought that you were kidding when you said 'and we'll throw black cats or M80s into the cube of whoever breaks the build.'" I had the arduino based fireworks hucker PCBs already etched and everything.
posted by bdc34 at 11:07 AM on August 31, 2009
Just this spring I busted my ass setting up that continuous integration server and getting it in our workflow. Bob printed out that "I broke the build" sign and I said, "What is that about? I thought we had a plan?" But then everyone was like "Oh, we thought that you were kidding when you said 'and we'll throw black cats or M80s into the cube of whoever breaks the build.'" I had the arduino based fireworks hucker PCBs already etched and everything.
posted by bdc34 at 11:07 AM on August 31, 2009
Response by poster: This isn't an either/or proposition. I'm not suggesting replacing the existing workflow, rather I'm proposing we allow photoshop into the mix from time to time. It's not the industry standard for the web design field, but it has large foothold, so I think being able to have a working knowledge of how to use it would be a benefit, and frankly, a bit of an embarrassment if we shun it.
Also, most of the freelancers we work with are more comfortable with Photoshop. And there are some things you simply can't do, or can't do as easily in Fireworks that you can do in Photoshop.
Re: costs, they're negligible. Most our people have Photoshop licensing, so this is about changing attitudes more than anything.
posted by fauxtoes at 11:41 AM on August 31, 2009
Also, most of the freelancers we work with are more comfortable with Photoshop. And there are some things you simply can't do, or can't do as easily in Fireworks that you can do in Photoshop.
Re: costs, they're negligible. Most our people have Photoshop licensing, so this is about changing attitudes more than anything.
posted by fauxtoes at 11:41 AM on August 31, 2009
For your work Fireworks is probably the better tool. As a photographer I couldn't live without Photoshop but there is a reason why Adobe still makes Fireworks instead of absorbing it into Photoshop. Adobe will never make Photoshop a complete web design tool.
posted by JJ86 at 12:13 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by JJ86 at 12:13 PM on August 31, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older What would you do if you had an engineering degree... | Synthfilter: Sequential Circuits Prophet 600, keys... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
- Your company has invested money in Fireworks licenses. What are the differences between Photoshop and Fireworks that make leaving that behind a good choice?
- Your company will have to spend more money on Photoshop licenses. What is the value that you get from Photoshop that you don't get from Fireworks that will make this a smart business decision?
To win this sort of argument, you need to be able to present as much objective information as possible so that even the Fireworks folks will see the wisdom of the decision. If the argument boils down to "Well, Photoshop is just BETTER", then you'll have difficulty getting traction.
posted by DWRoelands at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2009