Apollo Hosting- Company Blog

I know, that should be "V". Lucas ruined that joke with the prequels.

In any case, we continue with part 2 of our 2 part series looking at elements of the new Microsoft Expression suite of design software. Though there are technically 3 pieces of software comprising the Expression suite, the "Interactive Designer" doesn't look all that interesting. Thus I do not feel like painstakingly validating my Windows install once more just to download it. I also lack any sort of frame of reference for comparison, unlike the other two elements.

Last time we looked at the Microsoft lance directed at the massive, spinning blades of the Dreamweaver windmill. This time we'll be looking at their even more hopeless charge into the grinder, the "Graphic Designer". Some may argue Dreamweaver's total mastery of the web design world, as there are simply a lot of other options out there, both great and small. Adobe Photoshop, on the other hand, is about as close to the textbook definition of "industry standard" as one can get.

Again, I'll note like last time I have no testing methodology, I simply opened up some files and started playing with them. The experience brought me back quite a while to when, believing the "hype", I convinced my then employer to move from the Corel Suite to Photoshop/Illustrator. To give you and idea of how long ago that was, I believe the versions in question were Corel 7 and Photoshop 5. I'm not as sure about the Corel version as I am about Photoshop.

The experience was one of frustration. Not that Photoshop was particularly more complex than Corel "PhotoPaint", but I simply didn't know how to accomplish goals in Photoshop that I could quickly accomplish in Corel. I ended up buying the Photoshop 5 Bible, reading it cover to cover, and learning it. I recommend the Photoshop Bible for anyone starting out. Not only is it comprehensive, but it is entertainingly written. You might not think that's an important quality in a book like that, but trust me, at over 600 pages, you need to get a smile or two now and then to keep going.

Expression Graphic Designer

So, what about the "Graphic Designer"? First, these ultra-generic names bug me. That's a relatively minor nitpick, but I didn't mention it last time, so I had to say it now. I guess you're supposed to be using the modifier "Expression", or even "Microsoft Expression" in front of them, but then it just gets too long. One does not have to say "Adobe" for the term "Photoshop" to be understood.

It's Photoshop, after all. They make jokes about it on the Daily Show these days. I doubt anyone's going to be making jokes about "Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer-ing" a photo. MEGD-ing? Maybe... not.

First thing you notice, and one of those items touted on their Graphic Designer website, is the more "Illustrator-esque" page layout for file display. Graphic Designer's "hook" seems to be that it is Illustrator and Photoshop all rolled into one. It cares not for your simplistic barriers between bitmap and vector. It does all! Kind of like Fireworks. Which, you know, worked out so well for Macromedia.

The core question is: does it do "all" well? Admittedly, the whole vector/bitmap blend threw me a bit. Photoshop is slowly gaining vector editing capabilities with each successive release. Hell, the "pen" tool has been there for quite some time. It just didn't do quite so much as it did in Illustrator. Now there's "shape layers", which are the closet analog to what the Graphic Designer serves up with its vector/bitmap layer split. In Graphic Designer, you are given the choice to create 2 basic types of layers, one bitmap, one vector, and the available editing tools change depending on the type of layer upon which you are operating.

Bitmap layers provide access to a fairly rote assortment of painting, blurring, cloning, and... "bucketing" tools. There's nothing earth shattering there. In fact, a lot of the tools seem to be harkening back to much elder versions of Photoshop in terms of functionality. Many seemingly straightforward tools have actually matured quite a bit over the years, and these seem like throwbacks, especially the cloning tools.

Selecting a vector layer changes your tool selection to an equally well worn set. Pens, text, and splines, oh my. Granted, can't complain too much here, as I won't make any claims of being an Illustrator guru. I've used it, and I can accomplish the basics, but I'm not any sort of high level expert.

Like the tools, the layers are functional, but represent another throwback to the earlier implementations in Photoshop. There aren't any "layer styles" per se, but they offer a selection of "live filters" that can be added to vector layers. They can't be added to bitmap layers directly, but bitmap layers can be easily converted to vector layers. Otherwise, applying filters to bitmap layers is a one-time deal that can't be edited outside of the "undo" command right after application, just like Photoshop.

The live filters represent pretty much all of the "image filters" available in the program, though you will not be finding quite the same depth in the more common ones, like "inner bevel," as you might be accustomed to in Photoshop. Some of the more utilitarian live filters also qualify as versions of Photoshop's adjustments layers, but again, there's a lack of depth to their implementation.

I admit, the opportunity to add any filter non-destructively is something Photoshop still lacks. Layer effects and adjustment layers work wonders, but I'm committed once I decide to run that "plastic wrap" filter. On the other hand, I have no doubt Adobe is probably working on some kind of adjustable, non-destructive filter stack. Photoshop has been moving towards completely non-destructive editing for many versions now, and that seems like a very logical step.

Lastly... Channels, layer masks? What are these strange and unfathomable things of which you speak?

I suppose it's more fair to say Expressions Graphic Designer is trying to knock off Photoshop LE, or, perhaps Fireworks. Fireworks is dead anyway, so maybe no one will notice. The lack of high-level editing options, and channels period, don't really set this up as Photoshop killer. It might erode some users who ended up with Photoshop but aren't really utilizing its full capabilities.

It could certainly be a useful tool for editing web graphics, and it will have tight integration with the "Web Designer." Microsoft probably realized it will never dislodge hardcore Photoshop users who need advanced editing capabilities, so they left those advanced tricks out. This is a fight for the consumer market, and the Graphic Designer is a good balance of power and complexity for a consumer application. This is not a program for print work or detailed photo editing / color correction. It may end up being a good choice for light effects work and web graphics editing.