»

[AmigaMac]

Hey you ImageFX gurus out there... I was curious about your thoughts on ImageFX versus Photoshop... basically on what you can do with the application and how well it performs doing similar tasks. Which one of you out there is currently running ImageFX?

[Tigger]

AmigaMac wrote:
Hey you ImageFX gurus out there... I was curious about your thoughts on ImageFX versus Photoshop... basically on what you can do with the application and how well it performs doing similar tasks. Which one of you out there is currently running ImageFX?

ImageFX is more designed for video work, personally I think its easier to use, and Cinematte (included with ImageFX) pulls mattes better then about anything (thats why we ported it as a Photoshop/Aura plugin). And it runs pretty fast on my PC under UAE. Lots of cool effects too. Photoshop was designed for printwork, and though its gotten lots more video oriented, it still has that backwards feel at times.
-Tig

ImageFX and Photoshop are apples to oranges... If you want to compare ImageFX to something compare to to project dogwaffle or Aura2... in both cases the more modern Dogwaffle/Aura2 map floor with ImageFX...
Not to say ImageFX is bad.. it's a nice little app... it's just not comparable to modern apps in that it dosent support many things... it may in the future on A1...who knows..

[Nick]

I have used both and found Photoshop to be a bit awkward to use sometimes, but the again so can ImageFX. The way Photoshop does something is a bit silly and drawn out (excuss the pun). ImageFX has a lot more effects too. Its not very quick though.

[The_Editor]

Its not very quick though.

It will be !!

ImageFX has a lot more effects too

when you say effects do you mean filters?...if so I dont think so..there are thousands and thousands and thousands ...tens of thousands...of photoshop filters made by third partys..

as for awkward ...everything is awkward when your new... I remember thinking scala was very backward now I really like that app.
Once you get the hang of photoshop you will like it...and yes IFX is slow... try loading a 3000x3000 IIF into it... and watch it crash and burn..

[Roj]

Well, truth be known, I've frequently loaded HUGE images into ImageFX, along the size of 6000 x 6000 without a whole lot of trouble. Actually IFX was the ONLY app I have on the Amiga that would even display the images. Slow? Somewhat, but not unusably slow, and it certainly didn't crash. IFX's stability is very dependent on hardware and VM configuration. Also, FXForge is compatible with Photoshop's Filter Factory, so that leaves a lot of doors open.

"IFX is slow... try loading a 3000x3000 IIF into it... and watch it crash and burn.. "

Hmmm, I use IFX to process enormous files regularly ("" 600 dpi scans, about 100MBs per, around 6600x4800 pixels), and I haven't had any problems with it.

[DethKnight]

re:

found Photoshop to be a bit awkward to use sometimes

akward? you are overly polite and P.C., you should actually say *counter-intuitive* or *anti-intuitive* , where the root word is *intuition*
uh oh , which computer has *intuition*

viva la diamondbox,photogenics,gimp,artfx,imagefx and brilliance.

I dunno... to me it shines through in wich was chosen and why.

Adobe products where chosen to be the kings of desktop publishing on mac's long ago(IE:in the time of the amiga).. there is a reason 99% of print shops use one or more adobe products in their pipeline.

typically

Illustrator,Photoshop,InDesign, along with Quark,,,, the reason bieng is Adobe products are remarkable and wonderful products.
I've found all their apps to be well coded and polished to a perfect shine.

I think their one of the best app makers in the business because all their apps are very well laid out and easily learned. I mean once you learn one you learn the rest. and productivity is great.

Adobe is the savior of Mac's without Adobe Mac's would totally suck in every way.

I think the approach people like me have is the OS is an interface to the apps... to me I spend very little time in windows doing things... I spend times in apps doing things.. to me the apps matter.... Amiga and my other quirks aside when it comes time to go to work ... you gotta admit you spend very little time messing around with OS level stuff even on an amiga.... the less time you have to spend screwing around searching for files...or any number of things the better... In windows and and MacOS(a couple OS's I consider to be on par with eachother) you dont have to spend much time messing about ... you install an app and you use it and you click the icon to make it open and you make a folder to put the files in it produces..and its very easy and intuitive to get everything up and working fast... even Linux is getting fairly easy in that reguard these days as far as haveing a more icon/menu driven system.

I wasn't expecting to see Dogwaffle in there. I like blurbs.

[Targhan]

Photoshop vs. ImageFX. Considering the dent in the wallet as well as
the abilities of each program, ImageFX is far superior. The
difference in effects does not justify the cost difference. However,
I will also note that many proffessionals use both.

Even in the Amiga heyday, art would start in app1, then go to app2,
then app3, etc. Because certain functions of certain applications
feel better in one or another.

[gnarly]

I'm taking Photoshop's side in this one. I use it extensively every day at work, and I have to say that its bloody marvellous - except when it comes to batch processing, which is not its greatest talent.

I reckon ArtEffect would be a better program to compare directly against Photoshop though.

I used to use ImageFX years ago on my A1200 but could never get my head around it. I was always a big fan of Photogenics and Brilliance though.

photogenics is a nice 2D app... I hope they make a native PPC version for OS4/MOS.
still no photoshop stomper though.

I think IFX would be better compared to AFX aswell but when you do that... I mean... AFX is just worlds away... AFX is used to do comping work on movies...several movies where comped useing AFX..

I think a better comparison is an app like Aura2... I mean it does Video work likr ROTO/Paint/ crappy compositing stuff stroke recorder,animatable brushes,key framer,etc.... alot of simple video effects...its a full featured 2D package aswell..supporting wacom tablets...and spline based drawing... editable brushes..and of course layers wich BTW can contain video and even video of differant formats wich can then be encoded together when saved.

I think when you do a comparison like that you realise that either A1/Pegasos need to get some developers on board IE:Newtek or their in trouble app wise... because it would take years for someone else to develop an app like Aura2.

[The_Editor]

Brilliance was a truly amazing paint program.

by the lack of postings about brilliance its obvious that it wasn't the big seller that both you & I know it should have been.

I love Brilliance, just So DAMN EASY to animate things. Wooped DPaints arse by a country mile !!

Brilliance is one app I really do want ported to PPC (but I'm not holding much hope on that)