Client Area

The Endless Fireworks vs. Photoshop Battle

During the last months and years we have seen countless posts on popular Blogs about which application is better – Fireworks or Photoshop. In some cases this was just useless bashing of one product, whilst in other cases there were some good points regarding when and why to use one of these Applications rather than the other.

Let the battle begin.

Since I launched the website FireworksLab (a free resource page for Adobe Fireworks files) some weeks ago, I have received various mails from people looking for a reason why they should use Fireworks instead of Photoshop. I have never answered any of these mails due of a lack of time but now I’m going to tell you why I use Fireworks instead of Photoshop for interface design and why you could do too – or why you should continue to use Photoshop. In addition I will show you why most of these “Fireworks vs. Photshop” posts are completely taken out of context and what I think about the Pros and Cons of both Adobe products.

The right tool for the job

Fireworks was made to build and export web graphics in an elegant way. Following the popularity of mobile devices like the Apple iPhone it is now often used to mock up and design user interfaces for apps.

While inDesign was made only for print, Fireworks was made only for Web. Each attempt to build something for print (like a flyer or a poster) will fail from the beginning – by default (this limitation can be bypassed) your documents cannot have a higher resolution than 6000×6000 pixels and after adding some objects to your canvas, Fireworks will become slower and slower until eventually, Fireworks will crash, of course. This is one of numerous reasons why you should never use Fireworks for print (I’ve tried it more than once).

Photoshop works kinda different – you can work with CMYK-Colours, high resolutions and filesizes bigger than 2GB (the biggest Fireworks *.png I’ve ever seen was 50MB) but with Photoshop this is not a problem.

You can guess what Photoshop was made for. Correct, Photoshop was primarily built to correct and manipulate photography. While Photoshop offers many ways to manipulate photos, it has a lot of built in features that can be used for web/interface design. You can use Photoshop to produce screen graphics but also for advanced print stuff.

Photoshop became popular as a big, mighty tool for creating and manipulating digital artworks over time. Everyone knows you can do anything with Photoshop. I guess that’s the reason why so many web designers decided to learn Photoshop instead of another design application – good marketing Adobe!

The little big differences

Vectors or Bitmaps

When you create an object in Fireworks (whatever it is), this object is basically a vector object. This means that when you scale up or down you won’t loose any quality. This is great but even more awesome is that when you’ve applied an effect (e.g. a dropshadow) to that object and you scale the object up, the effect will scale too. Fireworks will not just change the dimensions, it will also change the attributes from the applied effects. This feature can be a huge advantage when you are designing Apps for iOS.

Photshop generally works with bitmaps, not vectors. Sure, you can create vector objects, but Photoshop is always less intuitive than Fireworks when it comes to this job. Effects in Photoshop will always stick to their attributes and won’t change their dynamic when you scale up something.

Font Rendering

This is one of the big disadvantages of Fireworks – as a graphic design software made for the web it’s unable to render fonts as they would look in real Webbrowsers. The default anti-aliasing settings which can also be seen on Photoshop (sharp, strong, smooth) are nearly unusable and you have to set up your own custom settings for font rendering for different fonts and different sizes.

Comparison between Photoshop and Fireworks font rendering

While you can create and modify objects like rectangles or cirlces faster with Fireworks than with Photoshop, you end up having to play around for a long time with font rendering settings if you are working on something with many different fonts (and font sizes) and you care about how the fonts look on your design.

Image Compression

There have already been some comparisons on the web between the image compression capabilites of Fireworks compared to Photoshop. The result: Fireworks does a better job on saving flat png files at higher quality but lower file size.

Fireworks and Photoshop image compression

Personally, I totally don’t get the point of those comparisons – when you export graphics from your primary design software for use on websites or apps you should not care about the filesize. The reason behind this: there are tools which do a much, much better job when it comes to compressing graphics for the web than any Adobe software out there! While Fireworks has a good image compression technique, tools like ImageOptim or the webservice PunyPNG will still beat it.

Updates, Patches and Features

When reading changelogs of major releases of Fireworks you will (if you’re just a common webdesigner) find around three or four cool things you are happy about. In addition you will read that Adobe has added some new super ugly templates which no one uses as well as more Web 2.0 glossy gradient styles, some Flex-Export-Thingy (that the majority of users never need) and enhanced (but still not usable) CSS-Export.

Here are some examples of what could be really useful features for the common Fireworks user:

  • Mac Trackpad Support
  • Insert layer styles directly as CSS3, export Layer styles directly as CSS3
  • Folders for Pages
  • Improved Layer styles and/or better integration of Photoshop Live-Filters
  • Bugfixes!

I get jealous when I see which new features Photoshop-designers implement with every new major release of Photoshop – cool things like content aware fill, smooth edge detection or live colour comparisons.

Stability& Bugs

Fireworks definitely crashes more of often than Photoshop but actually I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Since the release of Creative Suite 5, Fireworks chrashes less than in previous versions. I’ve also noticed the Mac version is way more stable than Fireworks for Windows.

Regarding the Bugs… you fill find a lot of them in Fireworks, they are simply part of the product. You have to learn how to avoid them and how to fix your document when they destroy parts of your design. After some time you will be familiar with most of them and you will know how to bypass them.

Fireworks crashed.
– you will see this dialogue very often as a regular Fireworks user, ways too often.

Photoshop also contains some bugs but it’s way more bug free than Fireworks.

Developer-friendliness

A big advantage of Fireworks is it’s simplcity and how it handles selection of layers. Photoshop files can become very messy when you want to design fast. If you don’t clean up your files at the end of your work it will be really hard for the developer to find the correct layers and groups to export.

I have worked with several web and app developers and all of them learned the basics of Adobe Fireworks (in general that’s selecting, dragging and exporting) in less than ten minutes. Trying to explain to a total newbie (and non-designer) how to handle layers and countless masks in Photoshop can become a day job.

User Interface and User Experience

While Fireworks looks like an Adobe product, it still feels like something made by Macromedia. The overall style of the UI is the same in PS and FW since CS4 but the way the user interacts with the app feels totally different.

Overall, both Fireworks and Photoshop have the common elements every graphic design software has: tools, layers and a lot of windows/panels for colours, gradients, vector tools and much more. In my eyes there are only two huge differences between both apps: the way they to apply effects to objects/layers and how they work with gradients.

Effects

In Photoshop there is one common way to apply effects to a layer: you click the Add effects in Photoshop-symbol and a window pops up which allows you to apply and change all the effects for the layer. You can apply one effect once to one layer.

Differences between Effects Panel in Fireworks and Photoshop

In Fireworks there is a totally different way to work with effects. You can apply them via the properties panel in the effects section which you always open. To add an effect, click the “+” and choose your effect. Adjust all the settings for the effect and be happy. No extra windows or dialog boxes. I think the way that Fireworks handles this is much more intuitive than the way Photoshop does. More great things: you can apply the same effect as often as you want and you can’t just delete your effects.

Gradients

In Photoshop, gradients are handled as simple effects. You can apply them like all other effects via clicking “Add effects in Photoshop“. There you have the settings and you can play around with these to achieve your desired result.

In Fireworks gradients are not applied as effects but as gradients! There is a main section dedicated to gradient settings. After you’ve applied a gradient to an object you can drag, cut, rotate and squeeze gradients via the gradient handler – a special control that is used only in Fireworks.


- If you’ve never used Fireworks before, you probably don’t know how to handle gradients. Here is how it works.

Finally, should I switch?

If you have worked your whole life with Photoshop then lot of things will look unfamiliar to you in Fireworks. The same is true for Fireworks power users who try to use Photoshop for the first time.

In terms of user interface design, I think Fireworks is just the right tool for the job. If you have never worked with Fireworks before, just give it a try, watch some tutorial videos and try out some simple stuff. If you still think you can achieve better results faster with Photoshop, then just stick to Photoshop.

This advice also applies to actual users of Fireworks: you shouldn’t think that Fireworks is the best piece of software and that there will never be a better tool to get the job done. Personally I love to use Fireworks for Web and UI Design but when it comes to illustrations, icons or something to print I think it’s better to drop your good ol’ friend and start learning something new.

What about you?

Do you use different Apps for different jobs, or do you stick to one software? Do you prefer Fireworks to Photoshop and if so, why?

Open Comments and add your thoughts.
  • Andrea

    It is interesting, though, that a lot of recruiters still ask for strong Photoshop skills when it comes to open positions as Web designer or front end developer. They obviously don’t know what they are talking about: Fireworks is waaay more suited to the job. Just take a look at Photoshop’s layer management or at its poor vector capabilities: they were clearly not implemented keeping in mind the needs and expectations of Web professionals. Hope you will appreciate the unbiasedness nature of my comment ;-D

    • Anonymous

      I’ve noticed that too.

      Even though pretty much all web design jobs require PS skills, I always mention that I can use PS but prefer FW for web design, and not infrequently they say “oh, cool! We love Fireworks, too!” People expect PS, but FW has a sort of secret, unannounced popularity, it seems. It’s just the right tool!

      • http://www.facebook.com/eyalcagan Eyal Kofman Cagan

        I’m also say I can use Photoshop, but always ask if there is a lot of print to do;), and explain the possibilities to cut down production time wit FW

    • Alexandra Denisova

      well, i know it may sound strange, but some firms and companies (not the big ones probably) do not want to pay for one more expensive product. everyone works in photoshop, we have it, so please work in photoshop.

  • http://www.blazewebstudio.co.za geoffreygordon

    I am definitely a fireworks fan for developing websites. I love the ease of use in designing as opposed to Photoshop. Kudus on starting a resource website, there is such a lack of good resources around the web for fireworks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/imfarber Ikar M Farber

    font rendering… what the hell? I use FW-rendered text layers in PS, especially with complex fonts, ’cause FW’s raster output is way more accurate. And there’s no “Custom AA” in PS at all.

    and anyway, both PS and FW should learn to render fonts akin to browsers and different devices, I don’t get it why this functionality is still so underdeveloped. even $50 Xara WD does it better…

    • Anonymous

      Interesting, I do it the other way, PS rendered Text in FW.
      Never tried any other design software than Adobe’s but I guess it shouldn’t be hard to render text like a browser.

  • http://www.facebook.com/imfarber Ikar M Farber

    also, there is that Ctrl-K aka “Snap to Pixel” thingy.. over 9000 web designers would kill for having it in PS…  

    • Anonymous

      Snap to Pixel isn’t Fireworks exclusive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eyalcagan Eyal Kofman Cagan

    First of all I really admire the fireworks lab  the graphic quality of the files are superb, very inspiring! secondly Sorry for the long comment below…

    I think the main thing about FW vs. PS is that PS was made for print every other use is adaptation for example the image ready (R.I.P.) form the days of Macromedia / Adobe wars ;) , Any way here some (many) of my other thought:

    For me the break even (and most important) ‘Feature’ of Fireworks is that one can manage a smarter project workflow in it (something that is not really complicated or important when creating printed products).
    It’s specially important in the last years when the product destiny is not always defined and there is many destinies or (or in other words platforms and formats) for example the retina screen on iPhone 4 will require all images to be double sized.
    By using fireworks you can work without consider things like screen resolutions / density /orientation / native UI look and feel, etc…), because it is really easy to go back / change the style /swap the symbol or edit symbol content and re export or present it again.
    What I like most in fireworks workflow is that it can bring you from the first stages of the project:
    R&D -> UX -> Wire frames -Prototype ->Visual Concepts ->Final Mock up / Prototype
    Up to the final production stage:
    Mark up (for web and XAML) -> Export visual assets -> Make the Visuals compatible to the different solutions (and resolutions if you used bitmaps) 
    All this process can be manage in one or the most two files using the rapid prototyping method, and until you export, it really doesn’t matter what is your final media / formats, Fireworks can export:
    - Bitmaps (off course)
    - Xaml (trough this extension http://www.granthinkson.com/2008/10/26/fireworks-to-xaml-panel-updates-cs4-silverlight-fixes/)
    - Basic Html and CSS (it is useful to my opinion, for example for production start up stage or simple projects like 
    landing page / facebook apps, etc…, using the HTML enhanced symbol is a time saver for prototyping and simple web task)
    - SVG
    - Style to CSS (The last two are thought this extension
    http://fireworks.abeall.com/extensions/commands/
    by the commenter above)
     
    I think you  forgot the very important ‘Pages’ (or it is exist in PS? too) by using pages and later slices / hot spots you can:
    - Easily create click trough demos / web Prototypes (without writing any code) – more then once customers would be sure it’s already ready when you show designed prototype in the browser ;)
    - Export to many screen destinies by using method I mention above, for example it’s took me less then 2 hours to export (around 40 images) of  iPhone 3G / iPad  to the double sized and more detailed iPhone 4G, without stretching them as bitmaps

    And last you didn’t mention the possibilities that opens up with symbols/ common library / Smart symbols / and extensions,  it’s a very large concept (I addressed some above) and many ‘time savers’ can be acquired in many stages of the project, but this is probably for another blog post ;) , Maybe I should open a blog of myself with such a long comment ;)

    • Anonymous

      Hi Eyal,

      first of all – I’m seriously impressed by the amount of your comment, thank you!
      Didn’t knew about the XAML Export Plugin so far, looks like a very handy tool if you have to export for .NET devs. Haven’t tried it out but I guess it works similar to the FXG export – will totally keep this in mind for the case I have to design a Windows or Silverlight App any day :)

      Personally I have totally no respect for automated HTML/CSS export tools – the exported code is often invalid or uses tons of bad practises. Fireworks isn’t an exception here. I think HTML/CSS should always be handcoded if it will be used out in the wild (for a simple demo for a presentation automated export works well I think).

      In case of Pages and Masterpages I totally agree with you, I think they are one of the most powerful features (especially when it comes to very big projects) of Fireworks. Since Photoshop doesn’t have a similar feature, the PS guys use groups and hide/show them or just make a new PSD for each page – unhandy.

      The reason why I haven’t mentioned Symbols in my post is that I’ve never used them so far and also don’t know in detail how they work (shame on me). I’ve to take a look when I’ve some spare time.

      Thank you for your comment and yes, why not start a blog – it seems like you have a lot you wan’t to tell! :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/eyalcagan Eyal Kofman Cagan

        Hi Ivo,
        Thanks for the kind response, I will try do it shortly this time:
        I didn’t used the FXG, but I believe if it export mark up and path data it’s the same
        Regarding the HTML CSS, I used the enhanced HTML, for exporting the master page layout and one other page and then replaced (and erased a lot of) it with usable and valid code, but still keep compatibility between my layers and code
        Symbols are really handy for reuse and modify, for example: I have an object that repeat allover my design, for example an icon
        In early stages (wire frame and prototype) I have a circle or any other place holder, later I edit the symbol and replaced the circle with the icon now I don’t need to go and copy paste it in all the places just change it once (in one place).

  • snake

    Awesome article. I’ve been using FW for probably 8 years now and I love it for the most part. My only gripe against it is it’s poor font rendering. Text will always come out slightly blurry compared to other software. Some people may not care about this, but when you invest a lot of time into a design, you want all aspects of it to turn out perfectly. I’ll sometimes convert my final PNG into a PSD and let photoshop handle the text. 
    Also, the “vector” tools are a misconception, FW probably shouldn’t use that term as it’s not actually a true vector tool like flash or illustrator is. Just sayin..

    • Anonymous

      Yes, nice font rendering should always be a part of a good looking design – if text won’t be rendered by the browser later, I also “rerender” all the text with PS.

      You are right about the vectors, FW doesn’t use “true” vectors. I think @glasshouseapps:twitter verbalized it very well with the following statement: “Fireworks is a bit like the lovechild of Illustrator and Photoshop. It’s vectors… but with pixels in mind.”

      Thanks for your comment! :)

  • Nikachu

    I’ve just had 2 designers, at the design company I work at, to try Fireworks. Both converted to using it exclusively within 2 days – it’s easy to pick up and lets you use your Photoshop and Illustrator skills without having to learn anything all that new. As this article states – it’s the right tool for the right job. I can create things faster, and more effectively with FW. Slicing up and exporting will save hours compared to PS. 
    PS is still the software of choice for manipulating images, but FW is where I bring all my ideas together for a website. 

  • clarke

    Thx for article.Fireworks great for work with grids and positioning of elements but working with layer styles in PS is better for me.
    fw – 1 month, ps – about 3 years experience.

  • Bitmap_junkie

    I have used FW since the early years of Macromedia. By far the fastest way to layout and slice and dice a site. Photoshop is great for building extensive images but it all ends up in FW for the finish work. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

  • http://twitter.com/digitalbdesigns James Seymour-Lock

    What about things like textures & pattens in fireworks, how does it handle these?

    • Anonymous

      Fireworks offers a similar option to Photoshop’s “Pattern Overlay” style. You can apply patterns and textures to any object on your canvas. There are a couple of preinstalled textures but these are mostly not usable due the extreme ugliness. Finally you can use patterns and textures in Fireworks like you know it from Photoshop.

  • http://twitter.com/manidf Mannuel

    Great article.

  • http://www.redesigningtheweb.com Chris

    I remember I was always against Photoshop as a keen Paint Shop Pro user. I could justify it because the interface was so different that I’d get frustrated and close Photoshop in under 2 minutes. However, when I finally made the push to use Photoshop for longer than 5 minutes I don’t think I ever opened Paint Shop Pro again.

    The same thing happened with Photoshop > Fireworks. Although I do remember it being a lot easier to pick up but I think that is due to some common features between the two programs (both being Adobe). I rarely open Photoshop now except to do advanced photo manipulation (which it does 100x better than Fireworks) but as a web designer I don’t know how I ever got anything done in Photoshop, Fireworks just makes it quicker! Modifying rounded corner radius anyone? ;)

  • Alexandra Denisova

    thanks for the article. as for me i started designing already in Fireworks (it just happened so, that i started doing different stuff and slightly moved to interface design). first i tried looots of different tools, including axure, visio and so on. i tried fireworks (cs3 at that time) and i almost immediately handled the basic principles and got it to work for me. since then i tried many other tools, but i think that fireworks is still the best for designing for web (even though i can’t say i use slices/hotspots/animation etc much). 
    opening photoshop is frustrating, i feel dumb, really. because these two products hae different principles of their working. to me fireworks is intuitive and simple. you just draw, scale, move and do simple actions easily. actually, you don’t even think about layers most of the time. you don’t need to think of them (which is by itself a hard mental work, really). you see which objects you’ve chosen and effects applied. this i couldn’t find how to do in photoshop (on my own). switching layers onn and off? no, thanks, i prefer pages, i prefer ctrl+f and i can actually see what’s going on on my canvas (i honestly couldn’t make my photoshop show me which element is chosen right now.. well, probably i am shallow or something). 
    dealing with vectors is also much easier. it’s hard to deal basic shapes in photoshop. rectangle with round corners is a huge story i PS, i’m just not ready to spend that much time and nerves. these are th main reasons i don’t even want to try photoshop any more.
    although i can understand that for a PS junkie woring in Fw is unfamiliar too and they don’t even give it a chance. well, let them overwork. 
    although i do realise that there are many things they could improve and promote and even get rid of. for example i would love to implement photoshop gradient files (.grd) into Firewors. because the pre-made styles for FW suck all the way (seriously, they’re like hello from the 90ies, wtf). but i have to ait, because there’s simply no other option for me – now i don’t see myself using anything else, because they have much higher learning curve and don’t give me the same ease which FW gives (InDesign? no, please, bury me alive). so yes, i think i’m a FW evangelist))))

  • Anonymous

    I don’t agree that one of the tool is better for UI work. Fireworks can save you a lot of time with radius corners and etc same as Photoshop can save your time creating a texture and sophisticated icons. It all depends on kind of work you are doing, if you are creating interfaces with sophisitcated graphics go with Photoshop, if your UI is using standard graphics or you are working with wireframes Fireworks will save your time. Also sometimes people don’t know good enough both tools thus claim that one tool is better in terms of functionality. As I noticed in this article it was mentioned that photoshop can’t  scale effects, how about using smart objects?

    • Anonymous

      I understand your point but what’s wrong about creating complex graphics with Photoshop and use them in Fireworks (this is what I do when I have to create icons for UI work)? No one says you have to choose just one tool – just take the tool you need for your job.

      Applied effects on smart objects won’t scale when you use free transform, they only scale if you change the image size. As far as I know there is no option to scale the effects of selected layers by “one-click”. Otherwise, please let me know how to, I would love to do this.

      • Anonymous

        You don’t need to apply effects on the smart object it self. For example you make a circle with stroke of 2px. Than you create smart object and scale your object to half of its size. The result will be a circle with 1px. 

        There is nothing wrong about using two tools at the same time. But in  some cases you loose time on jumping from one to another :)

  • Layne

    Not sure where all the love for FW is coming from. 

    I’ve used both FW and PS starting almost a decade ago, and FW is rapidly becoming a clumsy, irrelevant tool. PS stopped being a “photography” tool long ago and has become more seamlessly integrated with vector, video and CS workflow. I still work with a few designers who insist on using FW and it’s an incredible PITA to have to downshift and work with the stodgy interface, slow response and archaic tools. Nothing in the FW interface (macromedia’s old UI) feels natural or intuitive. And the crashes/slow response bugs make it an exercise in frustration. The people I know who use FW either think it’s a sound choice for exporting web and code out together (their code is usually a nightmare) or they’re too slow/cheap to commit to using PS.

  • http://www.fijdesign.com/websites.php Fij Design

    If have the funds, ideally want to use both, as both good for different things :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/ilmagodiloz Lorenzo Franchini Shephard

    It’s not a battle. Fireworks is the best tool for UI and web design. Plain and simple.

    Photoshop is the best tool for pixel manipulation, not prototyping and objects manipulation. Adobe is keeping adding new features of every kind into Photoshop in order to keep it the best design tool in the world, but let’s be realistic, we need the right tool for the right task.

    There is no battle. Fireworks and Photoshop have two totally different purposes, and they’re two great applications.

  • Andy Reid-McGlinn

    I use both products in my office. I agree with most of your points, but this

    “Regarding the Bugs… you fill find a lot of them in Fireworks, they are
    simply part of the product. You have to learn how to avoid them and how
    to fix your document when they destroy parts of your design. After some
    time you will be familiar with most of them and you will know how to
    bypass them.”

    Is completely unacceptable. Not that you’ve highlighted the issue, which you are right to, but because the problems exist in the first place. What’s even more frustrating is the Adobe simply ignore the problem (I’ve written them numerous times via their official forum, other websites…). I’m not the only user to experience probems, so why don’t they fix it?!?!

    • Anonymous

      I have to agree. It’s just embarrassing they don’t care what happens with such a great product. Personally I’ve stopped writing Bug reports to big companies (especially when it’s Adobe), just because nothing happens…

    • AJ

      I have never experienced a bug on Fireworks in 10 years, it had crashed on me for lacking enough RAM but that’s about it :D

  • http://twitter.com/afonsilho Afonso Filho

    Working with fireworks from the start. And also work with photoshop. I think by knowingthese tools, I learned to use them in time for the right projects.Fireworks is much better to interface, but when I need a texture expecífica for my application, I need to do in photoshop. Although you can do a lot of textures in Fireworks, Photoshop is much better for that, because of the other brushes and textureresources.But the interface design needs to be done in fireworks. For example: I draw an icon in photoshop. If I resize it to below the icon, and then you need to ally, will have to import the image of him again. In fireworks, being vector, can resize freely.Great article, always ask me the differences and why I use the fireworks, but always point to those same differences.Sorry my bad English.

  • http://twitter.com/M_Willett Matt Willett

    VERY good post. Very true about certain blogs having a dig at one or the other product and being very biased.

    I think Photoshop and Fireworks are completely different products and both have their place. Personally, I use both. Photoshop for image editing and drawing and Fireworks for everything else! haha.

    If Adobe were to drop either product, I’d be fucked!

  • AJ

    Good point and as someone else mentioned they are completely two different programs. I have personally worked with the Adobe family for more than 10 years and have never missed Photoshop so I don’t know what am I missing. I believe you can achieve the same results with either software so it’s basically a matter of preference.

    I do a lot of web programming and design so Fireworks seems to have its whole software family aimed at web development so you can be working this fireworks’ project and the next one you are working on flash. Macromedia is beautiful :D

  • Olikoz

    Great article. Thanks for sharing. 
    Addicted to fireworks since its early stages ; I do agree with most of your thoughts… except when it come with file size… biggest png files in my old G5 is 105.2MB ! 

  • minid

    What about Pixelmator 2? Still green for you? Fireworks works sloppy on my iMac. I don’t have a cheap one, I have a 3300€ iMac and Photoshop feels way better for working, selecting toons of stuff, but Fireworks has this ease of use that make it better to work but it’s slow to my taste.

    • Anonymous

      Pixelmator 2 is a wonderful product. It’s well designed and it’s performance and stability beats nearly every Adobe product ever made. Unfortunately it does not have layer styles – this means it’s completely uninteresting for UI designers. In addition it lacks advanced vector editing capabilities (like PS).

      Fireworks feels sloppy, totally agree and I wish Adobe will change this one day.

  • Sandokhan

    I started working with Fireworks but I found Photoshop better for print work so I switched now I’m also drawing on illustrator… won’t knock any of the products. There are things better done in Fireworks, Photoshop. Try em both, they are wonderful products.

  • Vern

    I don’t know if it was commented previously but one of the big features of FW is the ability to export an 8 bit png with a soft edge transparency. This can’t be done with PS CS4 (don’t know if CS5 can). PS can only save a 24bit png if you want a soft edge transparency.

    The benefit of this feature is the ability to create soft shadow transparency with simple graphics that aren’t HUGE in size. This is great for creating shadows and glows for websites without worrying about huge bandwidth issues.

    Photoshop can’t even open these png files properly. It “flattens” the alpha of the 8 bit png to an aliased masked. Now you could use some other application to convert the PS exported 24bit pngs, but using FW saves a lot of time. If PS could save pngs the same way as FW I wouldn’t bother using FW at all.

  • Mark Duran

    I’ve been a Photoshop and Fireworks user since they came out, and I agree, Fireworks is the best suited program for developing web pages. I’m working on a huge website and we were provided a few basic pages all developed in Photoshop by the ‘design’ firm…. 120 plus layers per file. Most of them were work arounds for making colored objects on the page. My biggest complaint against their Photoshop layouts is that between the files  there were small xy discrepancies for the objects on the page that were probably accidentally created, because layers can’t be  locked down. Second is Photoshops inability to create styles. Changing a text style meant hunting down the layer the text is on, then selecting the text and finally styling its characters and paragraphs. With Fireworks, change the style and your site is updated throughout.  I do bounce back and forth when I need to edit photography that appears on the page, but basically only use photoshop for editing artwork and creating collage. I don’t use PS for photography anymore, I use Lightroom which is better suited for that task.

  • http://yannacreations.com/ Web Agence Mauritius

    Nice article. We’ve been using FW since a long time but we do use PS in our design process as it seems to be more intuitive in some cases. So, instead of constantly trying to find out which one is the best, why not take advantage of both??

  • http://checktrafficwebsite.com FaxianHu

    Nice article. We’ve been using FW since a long time but we do use PS in
    our design process as it seems to be more intuitive in some cases.