Yet another Creative Suite update. Yet another $600 Adobe will try to extort out of us. After reviewing the new features for the applications I actually use and sitting through the online launch event, here are some reactions. This is entirely based on my experience and opinions. I'm not a video editor (though I do need After Effects every once in a while for small projects) so I won't be touching on any of that. I'm sticking with the package I own: Design Premium. If you agree or disagree, well, that's what the comments are for. Have at it.

InDesign CS5

I'll start with the application I use the most, given that 90% of my job is spent doing page layout.

Flash Development

The biggest new feature of CS5 is the integration of Flash creation across every application. At first, my eyes rolled. Quark has had this feature for awhile, and it seemed stupid for them, too. However, after further consideration, I actually have a need for this feature.

You see, I have this oddity: I develop a lot of website designs in InDesign by setting my rulers to points (1pt = 1px), setting my RGB color to sRGB, and using an Applescript I wrote that exports an InDesign file to a layered Photoshop file in an incredibly silly and roundabout way. I know, it's crazy, but InDesign is my Fireworks. With the addition of Flash development, I can turn my InDesign files immediately into prototypes. I'm surprised to find myself looking forward to this feature.

However, why can't InDesign create actual web graphics? Much of designing for the web is an exercise in typography. What is Adobe's typography tool? InDesign. With more web designers using grids for their designs, it seems that a logical extension for InDesign would be to build in some tools for web design into InDesign, such as image slicing and Save for Web, exporting my style sheet as a CSS file or at the very least including a native way to create a layered Photoshop file from InDesign. Adobe is touting enhanced ePub exporting, and an ePub file is simply an XHTML document, so why not HTML, too? If Adobe wants to put the tools for web design into the hands of print designers, InDesign is a perfect place to do it. (It would also give Adobe a chance to up-sell to Dreamweaver to turn those files into dynamic sites.)

Update: As one of the commenters pointed out, InDesign has an “Export to Dreamweaver” tool, which does turn your style sheet into CSS. If you’ve tried to use it, you’ll know that the tool does not let you design a website; it’s meant more for taking a story you’ve set in InDesign, like a magazine article, and move it to Dreamweaver for a web designer to prep for online. It does not let you actually design a website. What I’m suggesting is the robustness of the Flash exporting capability but for HTML.

One question, though: If I can export an InDesign document to Flash Professional, why can't I export it to Flash Catalyst? Catalyst is in every version of Creative Suite, and yet one of their biggest content creation applications can't leverage it? Very odd.

Also…

• Multiple page sizes in one document is awesome and sorely needed.
• Making the layers palette more like Illustrator's is brilliant.
• Making multiple columns a paragraph style is something I've wanted since I stopped using PageMaker.
• Will tracking text changes sync with the track changes in Microsoft Word documents?
• Can I preview how an ePub file will look on devices akin to how Save for Web and Devices works in Photoshop and Illustrator?
• I'm jealous of QuarkXPress 8's Grid Styles feature; I'm surprised InDesign does not have a similar feature. (At least my grid calculator still has some life in it.)

Photoshop CS5

To laymen, Photoshop is graphic design. When someone who isn't a designer thinks of a graphic design tool, it's usually Photoshop. Thus, Adobe's marketing department continues to demand more features be shoehorned into Photoshop to drive sales.

In this release's case, it's the 3D tools.

Attempting to turn Photoshop into a 3D application akin to 3D Studio Max or Cinema 4D seems just stupid to me. I've tried to use CS4's 3D tools, and they really stink. Hopefully, they are improved in CS5, but I don't think that matters. Developing 3D assets is a very particular skill that requires a considerable toolbox and a specific workflow. Adobe could create their own 3D application, something simpler to use—something between Google SketchUp and Cinema 4D would be hot—and offering the power of placing native 3D files into all Adobe apps. Instead, we get the already overwhelming Photoshop interface with 3D tools essentially slapped on.

The awkwardly named Repoussé feature (Was "Extrude" already trademarked or something?) seems akin to WordArt in Microsoft Office, but I'll have to use it to be sure.

And why is that feature only in Photoshop and not Illustrator? I might want those elements as vectors, not pixels.

To be fair, Photoshop CS5 has some truly magical features. Content-aware fill and the new refine edge tool, if they work as advertised, will change my life. I think the Puppet Warp tool should have gotten a different name, as it will clearly have uses beyond just manipulating limbs and appendages. The new brush tools seem far more accessible than those in Corel Painter. I look forward to all of those tools.

Nevertheless, we all agree that Photoshop is just way too gigantic now. It's time to break it up into some smaller, more manageable pieces.

Illustrator CS5

As I said above, Repoussé should also be an Illustrator feature. The 3D tool in Illustrator is neat—I've used it for a lot of artwork, and it's fun to experiment with. However, those objects can't be used like Photoshop 3D layers, i.e., manipulating those 3D attributes in an After Effects project. It's another reason why Adobe should just bite the bullet and move all of these features into their own 3D application.

(It's worth noting, to be clear, that Adobe used to have a dedicated 3D application: Adobe Dimensions. It was discontinued and became the 3D tool in Illustrator.)

For the most part, Illustrator CS5 looks awesome, the one app that I'd be very excited to upgrade. The interactive stroke widths, the artboards panel—a huge improvement to CS4's best new feature, multiple artboards—and the pixel grid will save me tons of time.

Dreamweaver CS5

I still don't know any serious web developers who are writing code in Dreamweaver. When text editors like TextMate or streamlined IDEs like Coda are so easily extensible and malleable, and with so many new web resources coming out so rapidly (How many updates to jQuery and Rails have there been since Dreamweaver CS4 came out?), Dreamweaver still just seems like a relic of the late 90s web boom.

With that said, the new features in Dreamweaver actually make it compelling, especially the integration with CMS applications like WordPress and the BrowserLab feature. If I purchase this upgrade, Dreamweaver CS5 may deserve a second look.

By the way, why isn't the BrowserLab feature built in to Dreamweaver instead acting as a separate application?

Fireworks CS5

The last time I used Fireworks, it was a Macromedia product. About two months ago, after reading the Hicksdesign article about Fireworks, I fired it up for a new web project, just to take it for a spin. I gave up quickly; it's a buggy piece of crap. It also had a steep learning curve for me because it is still so different than all of the other Adobe applications. Many designers swear by it, and I can truly see the appeal. It looks like Fireworks is still Adobe's stepchild, though, given that the only new features advertised are "performance enhancements" and things it should have always had, like Adobe Swatch Exchange support and "pixel-precise rendering." Too bad. There's a huge opportunity for another company to sweep in and take a lot of marketshare.

Flash Professional and Flash Catalyst CS5

I hate Flash. I'm a huge fan of the Click to Flash plug-in for Safari. Sadly, that doesn't mean I don't need Flash. Like Fireworks, I opened Flash Professional for the first time recently in years. So much had changed that I couldn't finish the relatively simple thing I needed to do. Flash Professional has become such a giant bear that a simpler application development tool was definitely needed. For small microsites (I hate that word), interactive presentations and banner ads, Catalyst could be useful. We'll see how easy it is in actual use, but I don't know enough to pass judgement.

The Really Nerdy Stuff

There are two very nerdy improvements that I'm excited about.

• The big news is 64-bit support for Mac users; Windows users already had it. As of this writing, I'm not sure if the entire suite is now 64-bit, but Photoshop is. Enormous performance improvements are in store now that Photoshop can use all of your RAM, not just 3GB of it. Update: According to Photoshop’s Product Manager, support for 64-bit is only in Photoshop, After Effects, and Premiere Pro. Another Update: Illustrator CS5 does have increased RAM limits, but not much.
• Also big news is the use of Adobe AIR for CS extensions. I've been working on an InDesign extension, but creating a UI for it has been difficult. It meant using Adobe's kludgy ScriptUI or Flash. Now, because AIR is WebKit based, I can build the UI with just HTML. Odd that Adobe would embrace something more open than Flash, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

So… is it worth it?

Every 18 months, Adobe wants several hundred dollars from us. It's how they keep bringing new features to us. Sometimes, those new features are ridiculous. Sometimes, they pay off in ways that we never expected. No matter what, we end up having to pay for the upgrade because we get left behind or can't open files we receive from other designers. And given that Adobe has a near monopoly now on some tools, we're left with little choice.

The pricing is definitely high. Final Cut Studio is $999, $299 to upgrade. Apple's entire video suite is cheaper to upgrade than just Photoshop Extended ($349 to upgrade). Because of their stranglehold on the design industry, we're stuck paying it. (Yes, I know, Apple subsidizes the cost of their software by selling the machines required to run their software. Still…)

Where else could we go? QuarkXPress 8 is $799. For $100 less, I can upgrade InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator—the whole lot, not just my page layout application.

Because what pisses us off the most is the lack of choice and competition. Our entire industry runs on Adobe's products now. Quark has been marginalized, decent Photoshop competitors aren't up to snuff, Illustrator competitors hardly exist and Fireworks has no equal. If I could do my job without Adobe's products, I would, but I simply cannot. And for what it's worth, every day I learn something I didn't know in Photoshop or InDesign that delights me.

In this designer's opinion, the $600 I or my employer will spend on the CS5 upgrade is, sadly, worth it. It's like paying a ransom: it hurts like hell, but at least I have my kid back.

Adobe really has become the new Microsoft. Hopefully, someone will put together the tools, the user experience, the price and the marketing acumen to truly challenge them. (I'm looking at you, Corel.)