why use photoshop

S

shadow_dog_dx

Active member
hey, ive done a few photoshop tutorials now and from what i've seen so far i can do everything and more (go back and change things etc) in after effects.
I know photoshop is very popular and that is why im wondering, if you have after effects is there any point in getting photoshop? What can you do in photoshop that you can't do in after effects? im not bagging it out, The reason im asking is because i want to know if it is worth buying it
 
It depends on what you want to do with it. Basically, Photoshop is for pictures and After Effects for video. However, Photoshop can be pretty useful for creating and treating graphic elements in your videos.
 
One is a compositing application the other is a painting apps. Not sure what you are asking? Of course a lot of people use it to composite still images or even CC their photos... however the root and the power of photoshop is its painting capabilities.
 
The main reason is the media you are working with. In AE, for broadcast, you have a frame size of 720X480. A single image file like a .tga or .tif or .bmp is about 1.1 megs uncompressed at that size. But, that is nowhere near print quality, which is at least 300 dpi and preferably 400 or more. A 720x 480 image at 400 dpi would give you a printed image about one inch by two, at photo resolutions.

Even modest digital cameras, something with say 6 megapixels like my D70 has a pixel count/frame size of 3008X2000, and I have worked with pic shot from a Canon EOS Mark II with a frame size of 4992X3228. I think that was 12 megapixels. And that exceeds even AE's frame size for Cineon Full. Also, when you double your frame size, you quadruple the file size.

With that in mind, think of working on a poster sized image say 2'X3', at 300 dpi, and you are looking at massive files, even with no layers by themselves. Factor in all the extra layers that go into a photoshop project (not counting adjustment layers) for different elements, and you get file sizes that go through the roof. I'm working on a .psd now which has over 30 layers and is just under 500 megs. I've also had .psd's that were approaching the on gig mark. This is one reason I suspect Photoshop is not able to do non destructive editing like AE, it would simply require terrabytes of memory to do it.

Lastly, you cant work in CMYK in AE (at least Iv'e never seen any way to, or reason to) and not being able to work in a print color mode can be a hinder.
 
Very well put matt.

Also, don't consider them as needing to buy one vs the other, to be honest they complement each other and were designed that way. Having both will open many more creative possibilities in your work than just one.
 
kai said:
Very well put matt.

Also, don't consider them as needing to buy one vs the other, to be honest they complement each other and were designed that way. Having both will open many more creative possibilities in your work than just one.
Click to expand...


Thanks kai, and well said yourself. Personally, the overwhelming majority of the 2D work I do for video I do in Photoshop. And with the video preview option in CS2, it's value shoots up even more for video work. I couldn't live without it.

Well, I could, but a world without PS would be like a world without puppies and kittens, or single malt scotch.

I tremble at the thought . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top