Is Working On Stills Easier in After Effects or Photoshop?

Is Working On Stills Easier in After Effects or Photoshop?

on Apr 4th 2012 with 57 comments

We always tend to go to Photoshop for working with still images, but today I’d like to bring up a few thoughts about why working in After Effects might be a better solution for your next project.

Non-Destructive Workflow

Non-destructive workflow is a must, especially when working within a team. Since After Effects is designed for animation nothing is destructive. That means that every effect value can be stacked as desired and modified later. The only way to get that kind of non-destructiveness in Photoshop is often to create multiple layers to achieve the same result and will sometimes be impossible. Let’s see the same effect applied in both After Effects and Photoshop.

Here’s the original picture.

The differents effects applied in After Effects.

And now in Photoshop.

The goal was to have the smallest amount of layers and to keep everything non-destructive. Everything went well in After Effects, one layer, logically stacked effects, everything is at its place. But in Photoshop, things were a bit more complicated. First, effects can be non-destructive and linked to the image as long as the image is converted to a dynamic object, but adjustments and stamps will need their own layer which rapidly increases the amount of layers. Secondly, sad fact, liquify cannot be applied to a smart object. It then becomes impossible to keep everything non-destructive since we will have to apply our blur and our lens correction on a regular (non smart object) layer.

DRY Workflow

DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) is a way that programmers usually tend to work and so should designers.

After Effects has a lot of features that allow a DRY workflow. Since everything can be linked with the pick whip or expressions, duplication of work is not necessary. This becomes really useful when designing websites or applications.

Edit This Look At That

After Effects now allows ETLAT (Edit This Look At That) workflow when splitting the viewer (View > New Viewer) and working in different compositions which isn’t yet permitted by Photoshop’s smart objects.

File Management

After Effects files does not embed its medias, it links to it. This means lighter .aep files, easy exportation of external files, easy update of external files, but mainly, the possibility to use proxies. Really big compositions can become really hard to handle with Photoshop on an average performance computer. That’s where proxies become handy. Saving and previewing times will stay low and your render will still be as sharp as your original files were.

Here’s a helpful tutorial about setting up a proxy in After Effects :

http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/proxies_and_workflow_tips/

Tools Closer To Reality

When aiming for a photo-realistic composition or design, After Effects’s tools will often feel more genuine. Lights, particles, 3D perspective (or 2.5D as some would suggest) and also, last but not least, lots of plug-ins. Trapcode suite, Optical Flares, Plexus, etc.

Conclusion

Again, although working on still images in After Effects isn’t the “typical” workflow you might want to seriously consider After Effects as your tool of choice on your next non-animated project.

What do you think?

 
Enjoyed this Post?

Subscribe to our RSS Feed, Follow us on Twitter or simply recommend us to friends and colleagues!

By

Rollover to read this author's bio or click through to see a full list of posts by this author.

Web & motion designer based in Quebec (yeah I'm one of those french Canadians) and like everybody else I like bacon, party rocking, coffee and yellow walkmans."  

Plus Premium
 
 
  • Andre

    When I first read the title I was shocked to say the least. Using AE for stills. I sat, opened both programs and thought about this for a while.

    I think in most peoples workflow they have after effects and photoshop open. Something I quickly realised is that some, if not most of us do you or have used AE for stills(even if the still was for a motion project).

    Colour correcting an image, I mean why do it in photoshop when you can get the same effect in AE without having to jump to another program.

    Presonally I think people should consider what their going to use the program for. I think in some cases if your a motion designer you don’t need photoshop(nice addition). Simple tasks can be done in AE like illustrated up top. Resulting in saving you some money :D

    Although if your a full time designer, that does some animation in AE. I would think twice before removing my PS just yet.

    Sebastien, great article. Enjoyed reading it :)

  • http://www.creativedojo.net VinhSon Nguyen

    Great points for people who’ve never worked on stills in After Effects.
    I believe the reason why AE works so well with stills is because it was designed not only for mograph, but also for compositing. Working with footage is similar to working with stills, except you’re working with 24/30 stills a second. Not to mention the price point :P

    I’d probably edit stills better in AE than in PS, but I still work in PS for who knows what reason!

  • Brett

    I do all my still or motion design in AE. I’ve always said AE is photoshop for video on steroids. it also saves time over moving between the two applications on projects. Photoshop has come a long way since I first got in the business ten years ago and now is a lot less destructive than it used to be. Certain things like painting textures, etc. are still better off left to photoshop. Good article, really makes you think.

  • Clint Porter

    What a great post! You put your finger on a lot of things I’ve been thinking about lately. I do a lot of video editing/motion graphics, but lately I’ve needed to learn Photoshop. To me, Photoshop feels cobbled together out of bits and pieces of design paradigms designed to address ’90s technical constraints. So many of its features feel like hacks to address earlier flaws in its core paradigms. It would be great if they could start over and build a consistent, coherent, nonlinear, nondestructive paradigm from the ground up.

    Photoshop may be the king of the hill of raster graphics and they may have a huge technical lead, but if Adobe doesn’t solve this, I think there’s still room for another player to come in and steal Adobe’s cheese.

  • http://youtube.com/user/qspark Matt Sparks

    if i need a still image or graphic for a video that i didn’t already make in Photoshop for other reasons, i tend to just make it in after effects, it’s quick and simple, but you don’t have all the functionality of photoshop

  • http://- Mushanga

    Good to know I’m not the only one seeking refuge in AE when it comes to creating stills :p

  • Gery Greyhound

    I thought that I’m the only one who uses AE for some still image editings :)

    (Especially when working with shape layers or texts: why the hell do i need to rasterize if I want to apply a filter to them? With rasterizing, I loose the ability to change the font, letter size, spacing, etc later… Why can’t I “pre-compose” anything, then apply the effects to the pre-comp like in AE? Really frustrating!)

    • http://www.vimeo.com/johnmichalec John Michalec

      Totally agree. To me Photoshop is really nothing but frustration! After Effects allows you SO much more freedom to try effects, apply them to one certain layer, and the whole layer concept makes a lot more sense. Blending modes get much better results in AE too.

      I’ve heard you can change the default settings of ctrl+z in Ps but I haven’t bothered trying to find it. But that default of 2 is pretty lame. The workflow in Ps really just keeps me from trying new things.

      • David

        ctrl+alt+z

  • jason

    I also do most creative tasks in AE. PS is still great for manipulating photos, but the non-destructive creation process is great in AE. The only major speed bump in using AE is dealing with the render queue – it can be clunky for just exporting single frames. I use the Ctrl-Alt-S command, but still have to set the output/name/Best settings every time. Copy-to-clipboard works, but then I’m transferring back into Photoshop.

    Good article, I was wondering if anyone else used AE this way.

  • Ran Tasipi

    Although in many circumstances using programs other than Photoshop in order to achieve a specific goal could be a clever solution, I guess it is a strategic choice of Adobe do not cannibalize its own softwares. Probably from the user point of view it might seems an irrational choice, but from a strictly professional point of view I think that knowing how to use multiple programs is the best thing.

    PS: I’m not Adobe employed :)

  • http://mjmurdock.com mjmurdock

    I generally work with my painting stuff in PS and bring it into AE to do the final FX and color correction.
    I’ve wanted PS to work like AE’s effects stacking for a LONG time.

  • D-ray

    I typically work with my stills in AE, take them into Photoshop for video editing and end in premiere for compositing and final export.

  • Daniel

    All this time I was using AE for stills I was sure i’m doing wrong and developing a “bad habit” so it turns out I was wrong? Thanks for this nice post! +1 for AE users

  • http://MatthewSabia.com Matthew Sabia

    It totally depends on the project. I work on 90% of my still projects in PS, but sometimes it’s MUCH easier in AE.

  • Jonathan

    For me it depends on the project. I would say that Photoshop is better for creation while After Effects is better for compositing. I think that the big thing about After Effects is that adjustments and filters are applied on the layer and stored there instead of on their separate layer. Another advantage is pre composing and being able to collapse the transformations. Smart Objects are somewhat the equivalent, and groups sort of work, however I still wonder why Adobe hasn’t changed that. It also annoys me that there aren’t simple matte options, like luma, luma inverted, alpha, and alpha inverted. Having to select a grayscale version of it and then create a layer mask just seems so tedious. I also prefer After Effects because I can very easily cut, copy, and paste effects and filters on the same or a different layer.

    I know that I said that Photoshop is for creation, but there are still some things that I’ll make in After Effects. One of its great advantages is particle systems and lens flares. I have Optical Flares, and I frequently have I’ve exported a preview still from Photoshop, created the flares and the particles, and then exported those elements back into Photoshop. Sometimes I even just render everything inside of After Effects.

    But what I think the advantage of Photoshop is is the ease of use with the brushes. Being able to very easily paint selections instead of always using bezier curves or having to work with AE brushes is very good. If I need to edit a rather large still composition, I’ll most likely be in Photoshop for that task.

    Overall, I would say I use AE more, but there are still tasks that Photoshop does better. I think that while you can get away with only have one, things are easier if you have both.

  • http://eddiepotros.com e11world

    I actually never thought of using after effects to do photo editing but it is something I’m considering after reading this article and a few of the comments. But it won’t be my main tool for that of course. I’d like to use the plugins I have in AE for images. That’s the big advantage there.

  • sabini1

    I’ve always used AE for stills, and the results are pretty nice :)

  • Marc

    I’m just starting out with AE (about 6 months now) but it makes so much more sense then photoshop. I think photoshop is cluttered with sub sub sub context menus. Very hard to find anything.

    AE used the same structure for everything, once you understand that, you’re ready to go.

    What I find frustrating is that Adobe doesn’t sync key shortcuts between these applications (PS, AE, PP etc). I’m always fighting with find the correct shortcuts :)

    But, other than that, AE is great for stills.

  • http://www.alemotion.net Alessandro

    Good Article. I have been using after effects for still for such a long time that some times I hit “s” to scale stuff in photoshop ;)

  • Dave

    cool! to be honest, i know AE like the back of my hand and have always been somewhat confused using PS. i started treating all my stills in AE a few years ago simply because it was faster, easier, and i really liked the results i was getting. good to know others out there are doing the same. great post!

  • http://www.zakworks.com/ Mohamed Zakzouk

    This is really very nice article :)
    I used after effects a lot of times with still images
    specially when I’m working on photo manipulation or color correct a photo
    AE give me more beautifully colors and also better result
    Thanks again
    :)

  • marc

    Great article. I think a lot of folks don’t consider the flexibility AE offers as a post tool for stills. I just kind of stumbled across the idea one day while working on a still when I wanted to get an effect I could only create with Particular. I find also that a lot of times, if I’m creating a relatively simple animation, I bypass Photoshop altogether and go straight to AE as a layout tool.

    One thing I love is the speed and flexibility AE gives you when you need your layout to have a 3D (ok… 2.5D) look. Rather than creating vanishing points and faking it in Photoshop, I set up a camera rig in AE, make all the layers 3D layers and move things around to my hearts content. Working in Photoshop, if it’s off a little bit you could lose hours making any changes. In AE, you can change it in seconds.

  • http://videohive.net/user/steve314 steve314

    Sure, I prefer AE over Ps! Only drawback is AE always works on 72 dpi…

    • http://www.efentwell.com Kaspar

      excactly!!! so that means, in the end, there isn’t a way to use AE for print properly – at least not when they shall be any big.. right?

  • Bob

    Sory i can’t read them all. Who won ?

  • kuunami

    It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one who edits stills in After Effects.

  • xtian

    is it reliable in high resolution output? I’ve used AE for images that i will later animate(which is only 2k in maximum size) but I’ve never tried using it in editing Large high res format images… so my question is, will it be reliable to use it in poster size or larger print or just the size used on videos which is smaller?

    • http://www.efentwell.com Kaspar

      yeah, i was wondering about the same thing!
      especially because video allways runs on 72dpi and for print it would be interresting the have that value at a higher rate – so is there some kind of a workaround to properly use AE for print?

      • http://www.warcrystudios.tk John

        DPI (dots per inch) is a concept that video does not have and since AE is primarily a video editing tool, does not need such a concept.

        Larger DPI can be simulated by increasing effective resolution.

        You can easily work with very high resolution stills. I’ve stitched matte paintings with ease at 8k resolutions and higher. You just need a good stock of RAM.

        I agree that AE lacks a proper brush system but I hope it will get there but creating procedural effects with the aid of particle systems or stuff like that (the Shatter plugin is amazing) is easier with AE.

        Using AE for stills saved me hundreds of hours of work in PS.

  • http://think360studio.com/ Think360studio

    Hi sebastian. I agree with Jonathan. we can’t create differences because both are individually important. And Moreover it depends on work. If AE has logically stacked effects then on the other side PS has many feature which are very easy like brushes and paint selection.

  • Karim

    This is true, sometimes it’s a little irriating to know you’re going to get into PS when working in AE. And many of us (AE users) get stuck in PS.

  • Drake

    I’ve been condemned by one of my illustrator friends for using AE for still work, its all I ever use! Good to know im not alone.

  • YAR

    I hate working with PS after AE. the work flow is 10x more intuitive in AE. PS was designed by ancient alien minds to confuse the hell out of anyone who uses it. :)

  • http://blogs.adobe.com/toddkopriva Todd Kopriva

    You make some very good points.

    I think that it’s largely a matter of what you’re familiar with.

    Fortunately, you can export PSD files from After Effects and import PSD files into After Effects, so you don’t really need to choose; you can go back and forth and use whatever works best for you at any stage of your workflow.

  • Wilson

    Absolutley agree here. Since I work in AE most of the day I’ve been using it for stills since CS4, it’s just faster for me. I even do basic editing and audio in AE. If they added subframe audio units to the timeline for more precise audio editing I would never leave AE at all.

  • http://www.creationtheory.com.au Todd

    I’m a retoucher who started stuffing around with After Effects a few years ago and very quickly discovered an amazing program. Since then my workflow has evolved to round-tripping between the two on most projects. Trapcode and Optical Flares alone would be worth it, but yes, the non-destructive filters is SO much better – to the point where I actually hit up the PS Dev team re implimenting the same engine. They said that they had actually done a test build of just that, but the closed beta feedback was that in hi res, where you can have a file over 2gb, it was just not technically feasible for most computers.

    The other main feature mentioned, that I would think could be easily implemented is true linking of external files ( not imported smart objects ). The big ones that AE has no answer for, as everyone has mentioned, are the advanced selection toolset and the brushes. Not to mention the absence of a feature set to create industry standard cmyk pre-press quality finals.

    • Steve

      This is really interesting and sums the situation up nicely.

      It’s great to see so many AE artists coming out of the woodwork, the idea that using AE for stills is somehow unprofessional should definitely be put to rest.

      As another user pointed out, AE’s 3D system is invaluable for some design projects. For me (a motion design director), I also often want to add motion blur to objects in a unified and consistent manner to give clients an impression of pace and movement. You can do all that in PS, albeit manually and destructively, but if you’re designing storyboard-type styleframes you often then want to show the same thing from a different point of view. Having a camera that you can move in or around your scene saves so much time over making an entirely new image in PS.

  • http://Toleratedcinematics.com Ignace

    hey, I always did this already but I thought I was beeing unprofessional, I’m happy to see that I did a good thing lol:p

  • Ward B

    I make all my posters/stills/… in After Effects. You have so much more controll. E.g.: particular, lense flares,…

    As Ignace, also I am happy to see i’m not the only one who’s making his graphical designs in After Effects.

    • http://www.efentwell.com Kaspar

      and are you able to get a proper print from that? or is it something that is only used on a computerscreen? i was wondering because AE works on 72dpi and for print you might be in need of more than that…
      cheers

      • Ward B

        Just work with big compositions (10.000x…), yeah, you need a good pc for that. You then have a 72dpi 10.000px file. You can rescale it in PS afterwards and you will have a 300dpi 3000px file :) We all love mathematics!

  • Chris

    One of the things I’ve wanted in PS ever since smart objects were introduced is the ability to edit the smart object and see the changes on the main document in realtime. GIMME!

    I use mostly photoshop, mainly due to the interface being way more natural to me. After Effects has some great features/functionality that PS just doesn’t have, but that doesn’t trump the interface differences for me.

    That being said, I often use After Effects to accomplish things that I COULD do in photoshop, but are easier or more realistic in AE (lens flares, particles..). I mostly use it to create layers for atmosphere or effects on my Photoshop work.

  • Adis Kapetanovic

    I honestly thought I also was building a bad habit by working on stills in AE. I’m not a pro by any means in Photoshop which is the main reason why I like working in After Effects. It’s easier, I know where everything is. I know what buttons to push to make things look pretty.

    Phew thank God I’m not the only one that does this.

  • http://vimeo.comkhari Khari

    I Always use AE for ALL of my Photo projects. I could use photoshop, But AE is way quicker and easier. I would say. completely forget photoshop if you want really good results.

  • David Fabian

    I’ve been using after effects for stills for a while. Mainly because the pen tool and masking is so much easier. Plus I always get confused with photoshop haha the layers in after effects are much simpler for me to use idk why.

  • http://www.deviousgenius.com Phil

    This is true up to a point. I use AE, Photoshop, Illustrator and sometimes indesign all in one go at times. AE has great generators and simulations (like particles, lens flares, etc.) but when I need to do stuff for print, sorry, AE can’t do it all. I don’t think it should be AE VS PS thing. The two worker together really well.

    Photoshop (in my opinion) still is more superior when it comes to photo manipulation and cleanup. AE is limited still in that regards. I’d never for example, do a typography design in AE. I’d rather do that in Illustrator and then import it in for example. AE can’t do CMYK, or 300DPI, and their text tool is bit shonky and sluggish.

  • fdsfsfds

    Yep, but then again Photoshop is a confused program these days and becoming really weak in many areas

  • Marko

    I first used After Effects in editing stills, because i didnt know how to compose video. i used AE 6.5 many years ago. and so, i didn’t learn how to edit stills in Photoshop. I use after effects for everything!

  • http://www.mailcraft.com.br Armenni

    Nice. I use AE for treating still images, MS-Paint for video composition, and Maya for sound effects.

    Ok now, seriously. It’s all about what you want to achieve. If you want to work your still images to a certain level (a very basic one), AND you are familiar with AE, be my guest to use it as much as you like.

    However, if you want the REAL DEAL, you can’t put photoshop aside. And, once you master PS, you’ll find out that there are MILLIONS of ways of working still images without a single trace of destruction.

    (Except for liquify. But seriously, can you liquify on AE and have something as good as liquifying on Photoshop? I’ve been using both softwares for 6 years now, and I would say: No, you can’t.)

  • Ucial

    I have been using AE for stills forever, but then I know more about AE than PS, and masking works 100 times better in AE than PS =)

  • B2theA

    Fully agree with this! I actually learned how to use after effects before photoshop, and have used it ever since for almost everything.

  • mo

    you do boards in photoshop, animate in AE. You will never have the ability to paint in after effects like you do in photoshop. You can set up a light in AE to show some depth, I can paint some depth.

  • http://www.medialark.com medialark

    I use After Effects to edit images all the time. I thought I was the only one. Non-destructive editing is definitely the way to go and I’m just as into Photoshop for some reason.

  • Ion Kaceli

    I still do not know how to edit photos in AE, and would love to. Any tutorial? I find it difficult to export the files as tiffs/jpgs, how do you do that? Anybody? thanks

  • erika

    Hello! I have a question. This post is awesome btw. I always design in after effects! I love it so much that I sometimes start designs in AE for print design. Is there a way to export a frame at 300dpi? Or nah? Or some kind of sneaky way to get a high quality image?

    • erika

      that 300 dpi question was stoopid :( I need one of those pointy hats and a stool and a corner.