7 Replies Latest reply on May 6, 2007 3:53 PM by Newsgroup_User

    Unsharp Mask

    treble101 Level 1
      When I am using the filter unsharp mask with Fireworks with the same settings as in PHotoshop or Imageready the Fireworks version looks a lot more fuzzy. I normally use the default PS settings: Amount 50%, Radius 1.0 pixels, Threshold 0 levels. Even when I use the FW default settings (Radius 4.1 pixels) the FW version looks worse. Granted, the FW filesize is a lot smaller, but I want the image to look good too...

      Does this filter work so much different in FW? I am starting to like FW after using ImageReady/Photoshop for so many years, but this is not acceptable to me.

        • 1. Re: Unsharp Mask
          Level 7
          treble101 wrote:

          > Does this filter work so much different in FW? I am starting to like FW after
          > using ImageReady/Photoshop for so many years, but this is not acceptable to me.

          If you don't come into Fireworks with the expectation that its tools
          will work the same way as another programs tools, you'll learn it much
          faster.

          --
          Linda Rathgeber [PVII] *Adobe Community Expert-Fireworks*
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          http://www.projectseven.com
          Fireworks Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/fireworks/
          CSS Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/css/
          http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          • 2. Re: Unsharp Mask
            treble101 Level 1
            I understand that Fireworks is different then Photoshop. But both come from the same software developer (yes, I know that FW was Macromedia several versions ago), and both have a lot in common in the interface. The Unsharp Mask options are exactly the same for FW and PS, so you might think that both these Adobe tools are similar, but the FW results looks a lot worse. What settings should I use then to make it look better?

            Adobe really let ImageReady users down I believe now. I see some things I really like in FireWorks, but if I can't get the same image quality in the end I will be able to use it.
            • 3. Re: Unsharp Mask
              Level 7
              treble101 wrote:
              > I understand that Fireworks is different then Photoshop. But both come from
              > the same software developer (yes, I know that FW was Macromedia several
              > versions ago),

              One version ago. :-)

              > Adobe really let ImageReady users down I believe now. I see some things I
              > really like in FireWorks, but if I can't get the same image quality in the end
              > I will be able to use it.

              That's because you are attempting to use the same settings you used in
              Image Ready. What you need to do is forget about the settings you used
              in Image Ready and adjust the settings until the image looks the way you
              want in Fireworks.


              --
              Linda Rathgeber [PVII] *Adobe Community Expert-Fireworks*
              --------------------------------------------------------------
              http://www.projectseven.com
              Fireworks Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/fireworks/
              CSS Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/css/
              http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/
              --------------------------------------------------------------
              • 4. Re: Unsharp Mask
                Level 1
                Treble101,

                If I may chime in and make a couple of comment. Perhaps a bit touch of clarification about the difference between Fireworks CS3 and Photoshop CS3 (or legacy version of Ps).

                In case if you didn't realize that there are two nifty, but important features (and that is -- in terms of functionality) in Fw CS3 are two: vector-based and bitmap-based. That is to say, Fireworks is sorta of declasse versions of Illustrator (vector-based) and Photoshop (bitmap-based) application. To make this more simple to define FW, that is what FW are all about. Not only that, but it is specifically developed for web-based graphic or photo to be used for Internet medium.

                While Photoshop is specifically developed for high-end, professional-quality tool for print or professional photograph editing, either that is the primary tool for Photoshop.

                I was like you, it took me a while to fully understand the functionality and use primary features in legacy versions of Fireworks (at the time Fireworks MX, as part of formerly Macromedia Studio MX). I still use Fireworks for years, but most often with Photoshop. When it comes to web project, or need to convert or optimze photo files for web use, I turn to Fireworks.

                All in all, Fireworks CS3 has been proven a big transformation from previous version. The only thing I found that one missing feature is "CS3 style" GUI style.

                As for previous version of FW and formerly Macromedia Fireworks, it is only a version ago, not "several" versions ago, though.

                Hopefully that helps to clarify on the surface of functionality, feature and difference between Fw CS3, Ps CS3 and formerly Macromedia version per se.

                Cheers, Brian

                quote:

                Originally posted by: treble101
                I understand that Fireworks is different then Photoshop. But both come from the same software developer (yes, I know that FW was Macromedia several versions ago), and both have a lot in common in the interface. The Unsharp Mask options are exactly the same for FW and PS, so you might think that both these Adobe tools are similar, but the FW results looks a lot worse. What settings should I use then to make it look better?

                Adobe really let ImageReady users down I believe now. I see some things I really like in FireWorks, but if I can't get the same image quality in the end I will be able to use it.



                • 5. Re: Unsharp Mask
                  Level 7
                  Deaf Web Designer wrote:


                  > In case if you didn't realize that there are two nifty, but important features
                  > (and that is -- in terms of functionality) in Fw CS3 are two: vector-based and
                  > bitmap-based. That is to say, Fireworks is sorta of declasse versions of
                  > Illustrator (vector-based) and Photoshop (bitmap-based) application.

                  Fireworks is not a lower or dumbed down version of Photoshop or
                  Illustrator. As a Web graphics authoring and editing tool it is in a
                  class by itself, and top of the line. Rather than wishing Fireworks were
                  more like Photoshop or Illustrator, my wish is for Illustrator and
                  Photoshop to be more like Fireworks. :-)

                  --
                  Linda Rathgeber [PVII] *Adobe Community Expert-Fireworks*
                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  http://www.projectseven.com
                  Fireworks Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/fireworks/
                  CSS Newsgroup: news://forums.projectseven.com/css/
                  http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/
                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  • 6. Re: Unsharp Mask
                    treble101 Level 1
                    OK, I stand corrected. Fireworks is only one version 'Adobe'

                    I was perfectly happy with PS/IR combination and now I have to spend a lot of time and frustration learning a new program. Luckily everyone on this forum is very helpful and patient.

                    • 7. Re: Unsharp Mask
                      Level 7
                      treble101 wrote:
                      > OK, I stand corrected. Fireworks is only one version 'Adobe'
                      >
                      > I was perfectly happy with PS/IR combination and now I have to spend a lot of
                      > time and frustration learning a new program. Luckily everyone on this forum is
                      > very helpful and patient.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      If you're that stuck on PS and IR, you can always leave CS2 installed.
                      Not the way I'd go (EULA Issues aside), personally, but it's important
                      that you work the way you want. Personally, since I started using FW for
                      web and screen graphics, I haven't looked back. I've never been fond of
                      the IR workflow and I've used PS since version 2.5.


                      --
                      Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community Expert:.
                      Extending Knowledge, Daily
                      http://www.communityMX.com/
                      CommunityMX - Free Resources:
                      http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
                      ---
                      .:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
                      news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.fireworks
                      news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver