Painting
Someday, someone will write the complete history of Painter, the premier digital painting program. It was originally a Fractal Design creation. It was slow and buggy, and the user interface was a wretched, inconsistent mess, but it was the only Macintosh program that supported digitizing tablets and stylii. Metacreations bought the program, tried to slick up the engine, left the user interface a cluttered, inconsistent mess, and went out of business. Painter languished in never-never land awhile, and ended up in the hands of Corel, a Canadian maker of software packages that never lived up to their marketing promises. Corel itself has recently been purchased by somebody or other, and...
Actually, it might take an archaeologist to sort it all out.
I purchased version 7 of Painter. The user interface is still a wretched, albeit slightly less inconsistent mess. It’s still unstable. Screen redraws are monstrously slow and ugly. Although other programs now support digitizing tablets and stylii, Painter remains the only Macintosh program that lets people paint with brushes that behave like traditional brushes. The brush collection has been expanded almost beyond imagination.
I purchased version 8 of Painter shortly after its release. Slavishly following Adobe’s lead, Corel gobbled up still more screen real estate with a bar below the menu bar. The program is still more unstable and user-hostile than its predecessor. It was a complete waste of $150.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Image Handling
The Alpha and Omega software for artists remains Adobe Systems, Inc. I’ve been a Photoshop user since version 1.0.7, and have just purchased the newest version, which suffers from FeatureBloat™ and user interface over-engineering. Part of the program’s problem is the Macintosh OS X operating system, which makes navigating one’s hard drive needlessly cumbersome, but for the most part, Adobe seems to have followed Apple’s lead in devouring screen real estate for the sake of devouring screen real estate and pouring on colorful navigation junk for the sake of pouring on colorful navigation junk. Photoshop remains an incomparably powerful, flexible program, but I continue to use version 5.5 as well as the latest and greatest: my third party filters (see below) are incompatible with Photoshop 7, and my QuicKeys macros (see below) don’t work with Photoshop 7 or OS X.
I’ve met several people who regard Painter and Photoshop as competitors. Their functionality overlaps to a certain degree, but Painter is highly specialized, doesn’t handle layers and channels intelligibly, operates in its own slightly weird RGB color space, and neglects to support color management, whereas Photoshop’s brushes are clunky in comparison to Painter’s. I regard the programs as partners—and sorely wish someone would create Painter-style brushes that could be used in Photoshop.
I bought Photoshop 7, only to discover it devoured a significant portion of my screen to present—“inflict” would be a more accurate verb—a second bar below the standard menu bar. What does the extra bar do? Nothing ordinary menu choices and keyboard commands didn’t do in previous versions, except the bar gives me fewer choices and forces me to waste time and effort mousing. This is a classic example of software engineers adding so-called “functionality” that makes programs less useful and more difficult to use, and insults the end user’s intelligence. I don’t use the program. I’m done buying new versions of Photoshop.
I recommend that you not buy Photoshop filters from Extensis for two reasons: they invariably make wretched messes of Photoshop’s user interface, and I have no respect for companies that flog expensive upgrades—most of which are mere bug fixes—with great frequency.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ The single most useful source of Photoshop filters was Metacreations, some of whose filters were offered by Procreate for awhile, but seem now to have vanished into digital never never land. Kai’s Power Tools remains indispensable in all its iterations, although they’re incompatible with the newest versions of Photoshop and the Macintosh operating system. I’m currently using versions 2.01, 3, 5, (there was no version 4,) as well as parts of the KPT X set of filters. Some are so weird and silly you’ll never use them twice; many others, however, let you take command of images in ways that couldn’t even be imagined prior to their arrival. KPT Convolver, although now a digital dinosaur, is a joy and delight, and like all other Metacreations filters, sports an elegant, whimsical, eminently logical user interface.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ The Eye Candy and Xenofex sets of filters by Alien Skin Software are wonderful. They’re reliable, fast, and all but endlessly fascinating; equally to the point, their user interfaces are wholly up to the standards set by Adobe, Metacreations, and Xaos Tools. I’d consider them a bargain even if they cost twice their price. Alien Skin is in the process of reissuing its filters and/or creating new to work with the latest versions of Photoshop and the operating system. I have no doubt they’ll prove as wonderful as their predecessors.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Xaos Tools burst on the scene with Paint Alchemy the larger part of a decade ago, and richly deserved all the attention it got. The elaborate, complex filter let anyone transform any RGB image into... Well, into... Well, it’s hard to say, exactly. I rely on it to nudge me into moving sideways when I’m visually stuck. It’s good for generating texture bases. It does truly amazing things to color. It’s elegant. It’s daring. I can’t truthfully say it produces Great Art at the touch of a few buttons, but it’s an enduring source of wonder, and its user interface, although intimidating to many newcomers, is a model of clarity. Xaos Tools’ Terrazzo filter generates patterns. The user interface is elegant, and it’s fast, stable, and reliable. Sad to say, Xaos Tools doesn’t seem intent on accomplishing much these days. The company has announced any number of wonderful new developments, but few, if any, seem to have made it to market.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Drawing
Adobe Illustrator is indispensable and mostly reliable, but unwieldy. I preferred Freehand’s more intuitive, less cluttered user interface for years, but Freehand has always had serious file format problems. Although recent versions of Photoshop supposedly let people set type, it’s still far better to set it—and set it well—in Illustrator, save the document, open it in Photoshop, then use it as a channel or layer. I’ve been perfectly content with Illustrator 7 for five years.
I bought Illustrator version 10, only to discover I’d wasted my money. Like Photoshop 6 and 7, it suffers from FeatureBloat™. The user interface is needlessly complex. Simply saving or printing a document, for example, requires decisions upon decisions upon decisions, warnings upon warnings upon warnings. It’ll be a snowy Independence Day in Miami before I squander any more money on new versions of Illustrator.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Type
I started setting type professionally before Apple IIs, Lisas, and Macintoshes had even been imagined. I considered myself a writer first in those days and a typesetter somewhere down the scale of priorities, but if I do say so myself, a.) I didn’t do badly, and b.) I’m doing far better typographic work now that Adobe PostScript has replaced proprietary photo-typesetting systems such as Compugraphic and Atex.
Type these days seems to be up in the air. I’m hoping against hope my investment in PostScript type faces won’t be declared null and void by the arrival of incompatible new technologies and formats. It saddened me to learn Adobe has abandoned multiple master type faces, and saddened me deeper to learn the company has declined to issue new versions of Adobe Type Manager and Adobe Type Reunion for the newest Macintosh operating system, which sorely needs their functionality.
As feared, Adobe’s and Microsoft’s joint efforts to “improve” digital type have made typography much more rather than less difficult. It’s apparent both companies’ purported “development” efforts are designed only to force people to buy new software. I’m not buying any more Adobe or Microsoft products. If they’d wanted my dollars, they’d have earned them instead of trying to browbeat me into surrendering them.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Graphic Design
I started doing graphic design with Aldus (now Adobe) PageMaker and Adobe Illustrator in 1986. I still considered myself a writer first and a designer somewhere down the scale of priorities; the constraints of freelancing, however, drove me to put on multiple hats, then learn more about typography, then undertake more complex design projects, then embark upon image handling, and eventually enroll in graduate courses in graphic design. I went as far as PageMaker would allow me, switched to QuarkXPress when it finally outgrew mother and daughter boxes, and am now in the process of switching to Adobe InDesign, which I’ve followed from version 1.0. I have no doubt it will prove the successor to QuarkXPress.
A thorough familiarity with the behemoth, QuarkXPress, may remain a necessity for some while to come; as a professional graphic design and typographic program, however, it’s heavily freighted with cumbersome legacy code and a horrendous user interface, and doubly freighted with Quark, Inc.’s arrogance toward its surprisingly loyal customers. Precious little of actual value has been added to the program since version 3.1, released the larger part of a decade ago. It still can’t justify text well; it still can’t handle placed images with much predictability; it still depends on proprietary, illogical notions of typographic quality, and worst of all, still requires users to master an interface that simply defies reason. Its learning curve is measured in years, not months, and its idiosyncrasies, once endured for the sake of better quality work, have become relics of a less sophisticated past. To its credit, Quark, Inc. opened its flagship product’s architecture to outside developers. Many so-called “Quark XTensions” are very useful, especially when they enable users to overcome the program’s inherent limitations.
InDesign’s user interface suffers from FeatureBloat™ and gaudiness, and forces end users to do a great deal of mousing that could easily have been avoided. The program has made itself the lesser of two evils, which doesn’t impress me as any very great distinction. I’m using version 2.0.2, a hasty bug fix on top of a hasty bug fix. It’s reasonably stable, but a veritable paragon of user-unfriendly interface design. It supports PostScript type in some ways, but doesn’t in others. Adobe has apparently abandoned all support for multiple master type faces, which I regard as a long step backward. It lets me fit type, but only if I’m willing to waste time and effort using the mouse instead of the keyboard. Its typographic engine is powerful, but using it is the equavalent of steering a car with a cast iron lever and shifting gears with a length of rope attached to the transmission.
By all accounts in the professional literature, versions 5 and 6 of QuarkXPress are so badly mangled and crippled there’s no point in even considering them. I still use version 4.11 for many tasks, and am amazed that its clunky user interface is less inefficient and intrusive than InDesign’s.
I’m finished buying products from both Adobe and Quark. They’ve abandoned all pretence of improving products, insulted my intelligence, and lost my respect.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Adobe Acrobat’s cumbersome assortment of programs is based on a set of technologies I believe will prove, as Adobe fervently hopes, a universal file format and the successor to PostScript. The portable document format (PDF) is Adobe PostScript minus many of the arcane idiosyncrasies that have made it extremely powerful and adaptable, but difficult for programmers to work with. PDF is no longer in its oft-cited “infancy:” it has simply eluded the imaginations of far too many high end professionals, service bureaus and publishers and printers, and people who write applications for novices and amateurs.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ Utilities
I’ve relied on CE Software’s QuicKeys for over a decade. It’s a chunk of software that lets me assign—and reassign—functions to key combinations instead of having to use my mouse to make menu and dialogue box choices. QuicKeys is far from intuitively obvious, nor does it reach all the way down into every sub-sub-sub menu and dialogue box option, but it’s as essential to the way I work as my monitors and hard drives and keyboard.
I purchased the latest and greatest version of QuicKeys and installed it—not without difficulty—on my new computer. It’s a full-fledged application now, not a system-level utility that operates behind the scenes. It’s more difficult to create and modify macros than ever. Buttons—probably the direct result of the radically revised OS X user interface—are no longer accessible to macros, and automating mouse clicks is extremely difficult. One of the main reasons I’m still using an older version of Photoshop is that most of my QuicKeys macros, some simple, some very complex, continue to work in it.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ If you work at all extensively with Photoshop and Painter, your hard drives will soon become clogged with large fragmented files. I recommend keeping copies of your main applications’ preference files on an external storage cartridge, and verifying, defragmenting, and optimizing your hard drives at least weekly.
I purchased the supposedly most powerful and user-friendly version of Norton Utilities for Macintosh shortly after buying my current computer. It wasn’t actually a new version, nor was it actually compatible with the newest version of the operating system. I removed it from my hard drives and upgraded to Drive 10. I’d recommend the latter to you, but it’s slow, inconsistent, and less than fully reliable.
Addendum, December, 2005: I bought Tech Tool Pro 4 to optimize hard drives. In theory, it’s a replacement for Drive 10. In reality, it locks up the computer as often as I try to use it to test hard drives. It does a good job of optimizing hard drives, but it’s a visual insult and a model of undependability. An awful lot of purported “software developers” appear to be individuals who follow the Microsoft way.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~