Digital image editing applications are vital tools in the arsenal of graphic artists, web site designers, photographers and pre-press operators. Our reviews start with Photoshop, the defacto industry standard. But we then move swiftly on to some of the lesser known, but still useful, software alternatives to Photoshop.
For 15 years, Adobe Photoshop has been the primary digital image editor in the graphics industry.
Originally developed for photographers as a Mac only package, Photoshop has since gone on to become an indispensable tool in all parts of the graphic arts industry – as a creative design package, in the prepress industry and as a web site design tool.
Photoshop’s position at the top is not just down to its feature set, which has been consistently ahead of the competition. It is also down to Adobe’s commitment to making an extremely complicated application as easy to use as is it reasonable to expect.
Which is not to say that Photoshop is an easy programme to learn to use - hence the plethora training videos and online training courses. It is also fair to say that it is possible to become an expert in a certain aspect of Photoshop, for example as a web designer, without even being a beginner in another of its functions, for example digital photo retouching.
Adobe Photoshop comes bundled with another application called ImageReady, which is targetted at web graphics users. Although, there is little that ImageReady can do that can’t be done in Photoshop itself (apart from the creation of animated gifs), ImageReady does provide a very targetted environment for the creation of web graphics.
Becoming an expert in Photoshop is an endless and occasionally frustrating task. But, for the dedicated designer, it is usually an enjoyable one. Photoshop is probably the design application that allows the most freedom for creative expression and its popularity and dominance in the professional design arena continues with few serious challengers.
But that is not to say that there are no alternatives. Photoshop is not cheap and it is also not the only digital image editor capable of producing professional quality graphics. Particularly with regards to web design graphics, there are a number of perfectly capable alternatives to Photoshop.
Below we review four of the main Photoshop wannabees. Digital editing graphics applications that designers may want to consider, if Photoshop is not an option. Some are purely positioned for editing web graphics, whilst others, like Corel Photo-Paint, are closer to rivalling Photoshop on a feature-for-feature basis.
Print This Post Email This Post
414 words in this post.
Comments
Recently people have started noticing something odd. They have to click on a flash file, java applet, or any other interactive component before using it. What causes this? Thanks to a patent troll by Eolas Technologies, Microsoft has chosen to make a change to their Internet Exporer interface for all content that requires an applet, object, or embed tag.
A Ridiculous Patent
I’m not going to go into the specifics, but Eolas filed the patent in 1998 and basically claims to have invented the process of using interactive content on the internet. The W3C has even gotten involved, claiming that documents published over a decade ago qualify as prior art against this ridiculous patent.
Eolas wants 521 million dollars from Microsoft to license the priviledge of allowing IE 6 to work the way it has worked since 2001. Oh, and they don’t care about licensing to the browsers with smaller market share (Mozilla, Opera, et al).
Print This Post Email This Post
157 words in this post.
Comments
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has stepped squarely into a fight roiling the Web by agreeing to re-examine the Eolas patent for a browser plug-in, a development likely to bring cheer to Microsoft and software patent foes alike.
The 906 patent, owned by the University of California and licensed exclusively to one-man software company Eolas, describes how a Web browser can use external applications. The patent also earned that school and company a $521 million judgment after a federal jury found that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser infringed on it.
After Microsoft made public planned changes to IE that held the potential to break millions of Web sites, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) last month urged the USPTO to re-examine the so-called 906 patent in light of W3C technologies that it said predated Eolas’ patent.
Specifically, the consortium pointed out early HTML drafts by W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee and W3C staff member Dave Raggett that it said qualified as prior art in the case.
The W3C’s public call came as part of a larger campaign to identify prior art relevant to the Eolas case. Prior art is a similar invention that predates a patent, therefore invalidating it.
The USPTO responded quickly to the W3C’s request, and on Oct. 30 the office initiated an order for re-examination. On Monday that order was docketed to the patent examiner.
“A substantial outcry from a widespread segment of the affected industry has essentially raised a question of patentability with respect to the 906 patent claims,” Stephen Kunin, the USPTO’s deputy commissioner for patent examination policy, wrote in his order for re-examination. “This creates an extraordinary situation for which a director-ordered examination is an appropriate remedy.”
Kunin specifically cited the technologies that the W3C had raised in its request for re-examination.
“A substantial new question of patentability exists with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-8 of the 906 patent in view of prior art acknowledged by the patentee in the 906 patent and the newly cited teachings of Berners-Lee, Raggett I and Raggett II,” Kunin wrote.
The USPTO, University of California, the W3C, Microsoft and Eolas could not immediately be reached for comment.
One person involved in the case hailed the USPTO’s decision, praising the office’s responsiveness to concerns raised by industry and other Web advocates.
“The thing that’s exciting to me is that the (US)PTO sort of made the ruling on the basis of how much interest there is in this issue on the Internet,” said Dale Dougherty, a vice president of online publishing and research at Sebastapol, Calif.-based publisher O’Reilly & Associates, who posted news of the USPTO’s decision on the O’Reilly Web site. “And it seems that they felt they had to respond to it.”
Dougherty testified in the trial on Microsoft’s behalf to the effect that a Web browser called Viola constituted prior art to the 906 patent.
Print This Post Email This Post
480 words in this post.
Comments