It seems that most graphic artists can be categorized in two
ways. (Yes, I'm already generalizing, and yes there are always exceptions -
let's get that out of the way upfront). There are the schooled artists and the
non-schooled.
I don't know if I've ever met a schooled graphic artist who
wasn't deeply embedded in the Adobe school. Many schooled artists don't even
consider other software.
Is it too soon for an aside already? Yes? Well bear with me.
I always thought it ironic that so many graphic artists used
a Mac and Adobe products. They complain
about how the Mac is superior to Windows yet it's far behind in sales and
popularity. And how those unenlightened Windows users would be convinced of the
Mac's superiority if only they'd give it
a serious chance. Then they sit down and use Adobe products and ignore similar
complaints from the CorelDraw community. If
only they'd give it a serious chance.
Anyway.
When I was hired at my current job 12 years ago, I was using
PageMaker for page layout, Illustrator for vector, and Photoshop for bitmap
editing. As most of you know, this was (and in many cases still is) the de facto
setup for DTP: Edit images in Photoshop, create the vector images in
Illustrator, and place them all along with text in Quark or InDesign. Three
applications... all expensive.
That's how I did it... 12 years ago.
Until I was shown CorelDraw.
The ability to combine a page layout application with a
vector illustration program had obvious and immediate appeal. The fact that
CorelDraw alone was far cheaper than Illustrator or Quark made it even more
appealing. Once I took a look at PhotoPaint's integration with CorelDraw, and found
that it was a viable alternative to Photoshop, I knew my reliance on Adobe
products had ended. Once I realized I could create and output multi-page
documents within my vector illustration program, I knew I had found a better
way. Yet here I am 12 years later, still enlightening people who had no idea.
I worked prepress many years ago, before becoming a
professional graphic artist. I recall seeing then (just as I'm sure it is still
being done now) Quark or PageMaker documents sent over that really looked like
an Illustrator file plopped into a .qxd document and sent over.
I still see this sometimes, and it seems rather silly now. Too
many times people hang onto the things they are familiar with, even to the
exclusion of better, faster, cheaper, and easier methods.
Fortunately with the rise of the PDF format, graphic artists
are now allowed more freedom to choose which application they feel best suited
to their abilities. I've heard some old-school Illustrator apologists who still
claim to be able to tell when something has a "Draw" look to it. But besides
these misguided fringe thinkers, many newer generation pre-press workers don't
even care anymore. If the file is in a format they can work with and lacking
any major issues, they don't care if it was created in CorelDraw, Illustrator,
Freehand, or Windows Paint.
So in the 1990's, when CorelDraw was being beat up by the schooled
establishment, those of us who discovered that this fantastic product more than
met our needs continued to use it. Reports of Corel's death were greatly
exaggerated.
Which leads back to my initial aside above.
Apple was pronounced dead continuously during the 90's and
early 2000's, but its loyal base of users refused to let it die. I am not an
Apple user, but I salute and respect those people who stood by a product they
believed in.
Sometimes a product doesn't become the most popular, but its
fan base keeps it alive. Apple remained on life support for several years and
is actually gaining popularity now. It was kept alive by zealous users and openings
in niche markets, such as the graphic arts industries.
Ironically, mainstream graphics industries are what
CorelDraw had to avoid in order to make its own comeback. The product found its
way into other niches, such as signage, slot glass, clothing design, and
overseas markets.
Macs and CorelDraw have clawed their way back onto the radar
and can no longer be ignored.
Perhaps most ironic is that these two products have never
found much love for each other. Apple embraces almighty Adobe, while Corel only
has eyes for ubiquitous Microsoft.
Alas, it's perhaps best this way. Chances are that if it were the other
way around, and Corel/Apple and Adobe/Microsoft had taken sides, I'd still be
using Illustrator, you wouldn't own an iPod, and Corel would reside only memory of a few loyal fans.