Talk:Adobe Fireworks

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's keep it factual and NPOV, please 

message: 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)
thread_title: WARNING

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I've removed this image:  . 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)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: "(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)
thread_title:  WTF 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Over Comparison? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fireworks' fate 

message: 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)
thread_title: Skewing & Distorting

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Link Authority 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Userbase" section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  user reception / criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Version history needs expansion