Page Layout

[5ar5renko]

Is there any possibilities PL to move toward page layout direction? Adding master pages, headers, footers, page numbers, footnotes, TOC, table of indices, tables...

[Herbert123]

Well, I think master pages and automatic guide creation like the GuideGuide plugin for Photoshop would be very welcome.
I would be elated if Photoline would include the same page layout functionality as seen in the old Freehand.

On the other hand, I am unsure if it is wise to include too many DTP layout features. It would open a whole new can of worms - Scribus already offers a good free option for layout.

[5ar5renko]

Why not. Then we will have Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign in one fantastic piece of software.

[mwenz]

Software can rarely (if ever) be all things to all people. I personally think the current focus is fairly broad and ambitious as it is. Adding true page layout capabilities would take an incredible amount of effort that nothing else would really get worked on.

There are really good options for page layout ranging from the no-cast Scribus as mentioned, to others ranging from moderately low to expensive applications.

[5ar5renko]

then, why PL supports vector drawing, there is Inkscape for drawing. BTW, PL already supports character and paragraph formating and styles (photoshop has no text styles), frames linking, text wrap, multipage documents... Have you ever heard or used Canvas? It is complete DTP, vector drawing, bitmap editor, CAD and GIS software. But, PL has its advantages over Canvas (smaller, faster, can be used from USB...).

[mwenz]

Why does it support vector? At the minimum, I believe an image editing application should support rudimentary vector if for no other reason than the creation of clipping paths, etc.

I don't use the vector capabilities in PL beyond fine control of removing backgrounds. The rest of the vector capabilities? I could do without them for what I use PL for. But others do a certain degree of fuller illustration in it--which, again, I personally would simply use a better vector application for. I don't get to make decisions about PL and how I use it is not material in PL's grander scheme of design.

The points you make about some of the text capabilities. These are, in my opinion, rudimentary controls. They do not supplant a page layout application which offers far better and more intuitive means of working with documents. For a shorter document such as a brochure or flier? I would still use anything else. The applications' and their capabilities I use for documents would be onerous to replicate in PL.

And yes, I have used Canvas. And I would use what I do use instead of it.

[greenmorpher]

5ar5renko mentions Canvas, an application I am very familiar with. It began on Mac right back in the original day as a vector graphics desk accessory and developed over many years, then went cross platform, then went Windows only. It was sold to ACDSee and they develop and market it alongside their photo editing and archiving programs for Windows. It is up to v.14 or v.15 now, I believe.

They stopped developing the Mac version perhaps eight years ago now -- at Canvas X. At that time, Canvas X was a bit flakey and had a number of annoying bugs. But when Apple produced OS X.6.x, essentially a clean up of OS X to that time, voila, nearly all the bugs disappeared! They were not Canvas bugs at all, they were OS X bugs where Apple had departed from their own rules! There are now about four bugs which are quite consistent -- I know because I still work on OS X.6.8 and I use Canvas X all the time for print stuff ranging from advertisements for use in newspapers, etc., to 256 page books.

I used to use it for photo editing too -- it is about the equivalent of PS v.5 so it actually pretty capable with its capabilities extended in some interesting directions through interaction with the powerful vector aspects of the app. Some years ago I switched to PhotoLine for nearly all image work, however, to get some more up-to-date stuff, including some automation, and more speed. I also used Canvas for building websites until about two years ago when I switched to Sandvox, and I still use it for vector graphics (at Canvas 7-X, it was more than a match for Illustrator in general vector work).

Interestingly, ACDSee says they are now working on a new Mac version of Canvas which will be released late this year. I wonder what it will include and whether I will move to it. One of my problems in making the decision will be that I am happy working on OS X.6.8 -- I don't see anything that has happened to the OS since then as being of any use to me -- and I doubt that a new Canvas for Mac will be back compatible to X.6.8.

Cheers, geoff

[Herbert123]

I for one would welcome a couple more vector tools in Photoline that would improve the usability of those: a knife tool, an inset/outset tool, a variable stroke pen tool. Otherwise PL is actually already quite capable - especially with imported vector work.

For layout a master pages option and a "share layer with other pages" option would be extremely handy. Also a more comprehensive guide editor with automated guide creation option like the aforementioned guideguide Photoshop plugin. And guides should ideally be part of individual layers, so we can hide and show sets of guides. The current guide system is very inflexible.

@Greenmorpher: Canvas! Sure brings back memories - I discovered last month it still exists, and downloaded the newest version for Windows. Installed, played around with it, and uninstalled it: time has been unkind to Canvas indeed. It felt extremely outdated and awkward to use compared to other design software. ACDSee: what have you done to it?! A friggin' shame - Canvas used to be a pretty good piece of software.

Does anyone remember Freehand? Photoline could ideally offer those features (it's about 85~90% there), and old Freehand users would flock to Photoline (probably). That community is still lamenting the loss of Freehand, and still on the outlook for an alternative.

[photoken]

I for one would welcome a couple more vector tools in Photoline that would improve the usability of those: a knife tool, an inset/outset tool, a variable stroke pen tool. Otherwise PL is actually already quite capable - especially with imported vector work.

I agree, especially about the variable width pen tool. Illustrator does it right with its use of "width points", but that needs to be integrated with a graphics tablet so that varying the pen pressure will vary the stroke width. I realize that no program on the face of the Earth does that, but that's my dream....

One vector feature PL lacks that is in Illustrator and CorelDraw is the ability to define gradient colours across the drawing. Those two programs use the concept of a "mesh" to achieve that, and it works, but is rather old-fashioned and somewhat messy. I'd much prefer the use of "diffusion curves". Here's the original research paper:
http://maverick.inria.fr/Publications/2 ... /index.php

[photoken]

They do not supplant a page layout application which offers far better and more intuitive means of working with documents. For a shorter document such as a brochure or flier? I would still use anything else. The applications' and their capabilities I use for documents would be onerous to replicate in PL.

Yes. PL is not and should not attempt to be a page layout application. There are plenty of other apps to do that, including MS Word, Scribus, and Quark.

PL's strength is in its image editing features and is already far, far more advanced in those features than is its competition.

[5ar5renko]

@photoken: You are talking from a photographer aspect of view. In this case PL has everything you need for that. But, still, it can be more improved, I think not so much, to have some more advanced vector and DTP capabilities. Using three or more applications to finish the job is very unpleasant task, even if you use applications from same vendor (Adobe). InDesing, lets say, doesn't support TIF or even PSD layers (and Photoshop is Adobe's native application), it opens PDF's like pictures (you can't ungroup the objects), and so on. Not to talk about using RAM. Managing text or vectors, or bitmap is different among these three Adobe's applications. They are not orgamized well at all.
Using only one application to finish the job is far more useful: speed, no problems with supporting/importing any kind of files...

[photoken]

Using only one application to finish the job is far more useful.

I disagree. No application should attempt to do everything under the sun. That application would become bloated, full of bugs and difficult to maintain. It's far, far better to use programs which are excellent at specific tasks to do those tasks.

[5ar5renko]

OK, it is +1 for you. Now, lets see what others have to say on this subject. Or more important, what are Martin's or Gerhard's plans about this.

[photoken]

OK, it is +1 for you. Now, lets see what others have to say on this subject. Or more important, what are Martin's or Gerhard's plans about this.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've disagreed completely with everything you've said.

-123489 for me on this subject.

[5ar5renko]

@photoken: What do you think, why PL has multipage support? For photos? You are wrong. Photos need only one "page" and lots of layers. I know that PL is far ahead on its DTP road. I've just suggested what else should be added in further versions, and I know that PL is going to be best in vector drawing and DTP as it is in bitmap handling. They only have to follow what the "big" ones (Quark, Adobe, Xara) already done and add those features in PL -- their way.