Don't you think it's about time PHOTO-PAINT had vector shapes? I mean, PP already does a great job with text in this way. Why not treat shapes the same way?
I don't know who thought of it first, but Microsoft PhotoDraw 2000 boasted their combination of vector/raster features all in one program and Adobe eventually incorporated vector shapes into Photoshop as well, but still lacking features IMO.
Here's how I would propose vector shapes work in Corel PHOTO-PAINT:
You need to learn to love Draw more. Just rasterise in Draw and open in PP. It's the same difference but the other way around.
Look at Draw as a universal container.
The missing link is an ability to render at 48bit RGB in Draw.
Ned's Mother -- You gotta help us, Doc. We've tried nothing and we're fresh out of ideas! ( The Simpsons, Hurricane Neddy -- Season:8 Episode:8 First Aired:12/29/1996 )
Yani:You need to learn to love Draw more.
Dude! You're preaching to the choir! You can't possibly meet anyone who loves Draw more than me!
But even with all my love to Draw, there's still no reason I should have to switch applications to perform a simple task.
Hell, if CorelDRAW and PHOTO-PAINT were merged into one program? I would totally support that! But until that day comes, I don't want to switch applications to perform simple functions.
Your solution is extremely inefficient and doesn't solve all of the aforementioned concerns.
I agree that Photo-PAINT needs improved tools and your suggestions are reasonable ones. Adobe loves the fact the people think that there are true vectors in PS, when even in Indesign most imported PSD files fail to output. Photo-PAINT should maintain the shape container in CPT fomat but utilize a seperate CPT format that cannot be imported to Draw until all objects are rasterized.
Try this take a 4" wide x 6" high image at 300 dpi add several layers with shapes and text in PS then res that file up to 60" wide x 40" high at 200 dpi. Feel free to use Genuine Fractals or PS itself and then tell me about the vectors in PS.
This is the kind of stuff we successfully do with high quality original captures all the time in Photo-PAINT.
David Milisock
It's inefficient because of the relationship between Draw and PP. That where the effort needs to go as a priority. Then bit depth in key tools.
As long as something can be done then focus should go on what can't be done at all and what is broken or not that great.
What you say is valid but PP needs some work on its foundations.
Keep up the good work but. We like seeing people push Corel to do more.
The relationship between Draw and PP is pretty good IMO – it's the fact that they are separate applications that inclines me to judge your supposed solution.
Yani:As long as something can be done then focus should go on what can't be done at all and what is broken or not that great.
I totally disagree with this statement and this is generally the attitude I see on the Adobe forums as well. The reason why I have such a problem with this statement is because it absolutely voids out all workflow and efficiency requests. These requests, although small, are sometimes the most important things to incorportate into software! Why? Because the entire point of software is to make us do things faster.
Hell, I used to make drop shadows by myself. Just create a black rectangle, guassian blur and bam! There it is! But do I use the drop shadow tool? You bet I do! It saves me so much time! Granted, it only saves me seconds, but this time really ads up when you think about all the many techniques you use in your day-to-day workflow.
I could just delete my rounded-corner rectangle and create a new one at a higher resolution, but that takes time! Unnecessary time!
That's what this feature request is about. Time!
Honestly, if X5 came out with absolutely no new features? But they really got down and fixed many of the bugs and made a bunch of little things easier that they previously had on low priority? I would TOTALLY buy it! In fact, though I normally buy every 2 versions (I'm on X3 now), I would have bought X4 if it had this type of improvement.
Jed Hunsaker: Honestly, if X5 came out with absolutely no new features? But they really got down and fixed many of the bugs and made a bunch of little things easier that they previously had on low priority? I would TOTALLY buy it! In fact, though I normally buy every 2 versions (I'm on X3 now), I would have bought X4 if it had this type of improvement.
I agree FIX WHAT PARTIALLY WORKS! Color management updates for easier professional level use, drop shadow fixes. The list of features that Corel has is extensive, it needs more but as you say fixing those that have issues is reason to upgrade for me.
For example I have X3 and then X4 for true spot color work in Photo-PAINT and spot color transparency in Draw, along with expanded gamut printing support in Corel Published PDF files. These features alone are well worth the cost of the upgrades.
As far as the interface between CorelDRAW, Photo-PAINT and Trace it is well received and used hard by me. First Corel beat Adobe to it by two or three releases and Corel still does a much better job then the Adobe CS3.
Jed Hunsaker:Don't you think it's about time PHOTO-PAINT had vector shapes? I mean, PP already does a great job with text in this way. Why not treat shapes the same way?
IMO, you could add all these features and working in DRAW would still be a better choice. This is due to the fundamental benefits of Draw's resolution independence and handling of color, relative to a fixed color model - per document - in PP.
FWIW, it's possible to paste vector shapes into text strings inside PP (from Draw ideally) and have them stay vectors between CPT saves.
Jed Hunsaker:Even though these shapes are vector shapes, they should still be displayed at their current raster resolution (i.e. zooming in will still show pixelation). Why do I say this? Because any raster graphics editor should always show specific pixel information, especially for those working on low-resolution imagery (e.g. web graphics, icons, texture maps).
Many of us build web components in Draw and export (NOT using web image optimizer) to whatever we need. I find it's so much easier to change raw elements in Draw for shape, color, etc. than PP. Remember that transparencies and rotations are non-destructive in Draw.
Jeff Harrison MacroMonster.com Daily Diversion Blog
I use my paint brush religiously though! I would feel retarded if I couldn't paint like that in Draw.
Yani: You need to learn to love Draw more. Just rasterise in Draw and open in PP. It's the same difference but the other way around. Look at Draw as a universal container.
Jed Hunsaker:But even with all my love to Draw, there's still no reason I should have to switch applications to perform a simple task.
Improvements are needed.
I think Yani didn't mean switch applications to perform a simple task.
Be careful Yani; you are asking Jed to doubt in his sacred "workflow".
Latest on my gallery: Cycling and Sunset
Understanding why 'that app' is loved and why it is not would... help. ;)
Hunter:You are aware that you can take vectors from Draw and put them in PP and still keep them as vector shapes, right?
Really? Because I "attempt" to do this all the time and get a Resample prompt.
Granted, even if it did what you say, it still requires going into CorelDRAW, which I really don't think is necessary.
Jed Hunsaker: Hunter:You are aware that you can take vectors from Draw and put them in PP and still keep them as vector shapes, right?Really? Because I "attempt" to do this all the time and get a Resample prompt.
still keep them as vector shapes, right?
Jed, I do agree 95% with your proposition.
I'm using Draw for most of my bitmaps works, because:
But I use PP for the :
So depending of what I will need to do the most, I choose to base my work in CD or in PP, and use the other tool for editing.
This is sometimes not convenient at all ! So yes having a minimum of vector support in PP would be very, very handy !
Even more handy: the merge of the two tools !!!! (that's the 5% missing in my 100% support)
Yeah, a total merge of the two applications would be brilliant, but very complicated for Corel to pull off, I would imagine. Microsoft tried this with PhotoDraw 2000 back in... well, 2000, but I don't think it worked out so well for them.