[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: This is not a Mac vs. Wintel thread!

In a message dated 97-05-28 18:49:58 EDT, chax@THERIVER.COM (Charles
Alexander) writes:
<< I use a lot of Adobe Photoshop, >>

I don't have a copy of this program and have been using Corel Photo Paint for
manipulating my bit images.  It has some of the same plug in tools that are
Photoshop compatable and for some reason, I seem to prefer the working
interface of the Photo Paint program over Photoshop which I have used in
another's studio.  The Corel program is for PC's in case one is not familiar
with it.  It also has all the major export/import filters so changing the
file format for other uses is no problem at all.

I still can't get used to Corel Draw although it seems to be the program of
choice for illustrators.  My preferred vector drawing program on the PC is
Micrografx Designer but that may be because it's roots stem from early CAD
programs that this company used to offer.  The Micrografx is essentially a
technical drawing program, however it can do almost anything that Corel Draw
does.  I find this program more logical for much of the work I do, since you
have an extensive range of separate drawing tools rather than the singular
one used in Corel Draw.

Although the Micrografx program is up to version five now and has a wealth of
features, their earlier Version 3.0 program is still available in some
catalogs.  If one needs a vector drawing program and has other tools for bit
image work etc. then I would certainly recommend this earlier program.  It's
incredibly fast and has enough features still to be a viable tool.  These
days I think one can get a copy for around $50. US or so.  I still use this
program whenever I am doing the initial part of any of my designwork then
import it into the current program when it's time to do a lot of detail work.
 However I always prefer the earlier version still because of the speed and
simplicity.  This early version is a very well crafted program...it's tight,
fast and problem free.

I've been running some tests on the new Epson Stylist Color 800 that a friend
has and I'm not yet convinced that it can produce the output of artwork in an
acceptable manner.  At least not on 24lb rag paper.  I'm still interested in
the comments on the new printers including the Alps etc.  When we are
discussing these printers, how much of a sacrifice in quality are we talking
about that seems to be acceptable.  I'm still trying to get a handle on this.
 I'm assuming that for non coated stock that the lower resolution of 720 dpi
is the setting used.  I find the printer definitely not suitable for type
since the bleed is still visible, unlike a 600dpi laser print on the rag
paper.  Of course on coated stock in the high resolution mode, the output is
gorgeous, but that isn't how I would be using this device.

Chris Ray


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]