# Mapmaking Discussion & Philosophy (WIP/Critique) > Software Discussion >  CC3 vs Photoshop

## Pilias

So I am looking through more of the stuff on the forum and I was curious about something.

I noticed many people here use Photoshop as their main app for making maps and there are a ton of resources for using Photoshop in the tutorials.  With all of that in mind, wouldn't it actually be easier to learn to do digital maps using a program like Photoshop rather than using CC3?

Both seem to have a steep learning curve to them.

----------


## Gandwarf

With CC3 you can create a decent looking map right from the start and within a few minutes. The software was made for mapping and comes with a lot of symbols and styles you can immediately start using. The end result will look a bit generic (people will probably notice you created the map using CC3) and you will really have to dig into the software to create something more unique. 

With no Photoshop skills whatsoever, good luck creating a map right from the start  :Very Happy: 

However, once you get the hang of Photoshop you will be able to create really unique looking maps. You will have infinite freedom and could also use it to create other kinds of images or edit photos. Having Photoshop skills can be something desirable to have on your resume.

It all depends on your needs I guess... if you are willing to make the investmest, Photoshop is probably the way to go.

If like me you just want to create some decent looking maps without too much hassle, pick CC3.

----------


## jfrazierjr

And if you're really cheap, just save all your money and get GIMP..

----------


## Steel General

> And if you're really cheap, just save all your money and get GIMP..


Yup, can't go wrong with free!

----------


## Darken

> Yup, can't go wrong with free!


I personally go with Gimpshop, which works exactly like GIMP but supposedly better emulates Photoshop.  I use it just because it better organizes the windows into a single taskbar item.  Easier access.

----------


## NeonKnight

Well, for me, not knowing a lot about Photoshop or Gimp, I know with CC3, I can whip a map up (usually I make  alot of Dungeon Maps) in about 30 minutes, and have it look good.

But then, I have ben using CC3/CC2 for about 15+ years now.

----------


## Darken

Here's my take on it:

CC3 can create beautiful maps in a very short amount of time.  But you are limited to what the software provides.  I'm a bit OCD about my maps, so I prefer more traditional image editing program.  It gives me more control at the cost of time, but for me that difference is worth it.  And that is the ultimate decision you need to make.

----------


## Nomadic

As a long time Photoshop user I will say that it has an incredible range of abilities that are very useful for mapping as well as for other things such as general photo manipulation (which can make you big bucks). It is the perfect tool for making maps distinctly your own. For quick maps though CC3 is perfectly suited to such a task (in fact I am considering buying it just for that reason).

----------


## Sigurd

I say this as someone who has not taken to CC3. They really have different strengths.

CC3 has a wealth of included art in a structure that is organized for gaming. CC3 is a Computer Assisted aDventure program. Once you learn to use it and have enough of its art material there is nothing that will make a role playing game appropriate map faster. You will consistently be able to create, expand, adapt and recreate maps and locations in the style of CC3's art packs (which are many and very good). Some things, like consistent scale, and unified style are really very well done in CC3.


Photoshop, and other generalized graphics programs are better at 'art' but have no included specialized material for gaming, no intrinsic style for anything you produce and you are the only source for structure and components. Thankfully there are places on the web you can find pictures, tutorials and components. You pay far more for your base tool but have less dependency on add on packs because the program is more flexible. You are left free to make your maps less consistent but more unique to you.

Sigurd

----------


## Midgardsormr

> CC3 is a Computer Assisted aDventure program.


Clever; I like it!

I like to use both. CC3 and its add-ons have some powers that Photoshop lacks. As has been mentioned, its ability to handle scale is very useful to me because I don't really have a very good head for distances. Ironic in a mapmaker, I know, but there it is. 

City Designer is extremely useful for laying down large numbers of buildings relatively rapidly, which is something Photoshop does not do well. However, a simplified image from City Designer can be styled in Photoshop or Gimp, giving the best of both.

On the other hand, CC3 and its add-ons do tend to push the cartographer into a particular style of map—it's possible to break out of that, but it takes a bit of thought. Also, there are some image quality issues; I don't do any text in CC3 any more. I do that entirely in Photoshop or Illustrator now because it just looks nicer.

Fractal Terrains, also, is much better when supported by Photoshop or Illustrator.

----------


## Ascension

I'd say that it depends on what your needs are and what you're looking to do.  If you're just doing up stuff for your D&D group then it doesn't really have to be all that spectacular so I'd say CC3 is the way to go.  CC3 can do some pretty nice things as there is evidence of many maps here that don't look like a CC3 map.  If you want to do quick towns, CC3 is the way to go as well.  If you can't draw at all then CC3 is also the best way to go.

If, however, you want to get more artsy and learn things for yourself and develop your own style then Photoshop/Gimp is the way to go.  The styles are virtually limitless there and are only dependent upon how creative _you_ are and not the people who do the artwork for Pro Fantasy.  

Price is also a factor; Gimp/Inkscape are free, CC3 and its add-ons are affordable, Photoshop/Illustrator are pricey.

----------


## Steel General

Ditto what Ascension said...

----------


## RobA

> I personally go with Gimpshop, which works exactly like GIMP but supposedly better emulates Photoshop.  I use it just because it better organizes the windows into a single taskbar item.  Easier access.


I'd stay away from gimpshop, as it is several versions behind the current gimp release, and is (to the best if my knowledge) unsupported.

If you want a SDI interface for gimp, there is an old plugin for it, or even easier, get portable gimp which gets bundled with a maintained version of said plugin.

-Rob A>

----------


## Gandwarf

> I'd stay away from gimpshop, as it is several versions behind the current gimp release, and is (to the best if my knowledge) unsupported.


I downloaded Gimpshop yesterday... unfortunately it keeps crashing for me as soon as I want to create a new image. Very frustrating. I noticed it is a bug that has been around since 2005 (obviously only on some configurations).

So I uninstalled and now I am messing with The Gimp. This is the second time I am trying The Gimp. About half a year ago I turned away disgusted because of the interface. I have been editing some images and somehow the interface doesn't seem to bother me anymore.

----------


## Midgardsormr

> About half a year ago I turned away disgusted because of the interface.


Given that you're a CC3 user, I find that statement hilarious.

----------


## Gandwarf

> Given that you're a CC3 user, I find that statement hilarious.


Haha, now that you mention it...

I feel the need to explain  :Very Happy: 
For general image manipulation I am used to the inferface of either Adobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. They are pretty similar. Now enter The Gimp, which uses a pretty different interface, to do the same stuff...

Admittedly, CC3 has a very different interface as well. But I see this as a unique program to make maps with. I haven't used anything similar, so I can't really compare the interface to anything.

Another example: we use an older version of Lotus Notes as the e-mail client at work.  I despise it's interface, as it's so different from other e-mail clients, like Outlook or Thunderbird (but then I am comparing again). 

And don't even get me started on another program we use for time management. It actually uses the function keys for commands like copy or paste. So the shortcut to copy something is not CTRL-C but the F2 key for example. Very old school, especially for a program that was written only a few years ago.
It drives me nuts. NUTS, I tell you...

----------


## JoeyD473

> Another example: we use an older version of Lotus Notes as the e-mail client at work.  I despise it's interface, as it's so different from other e-mail clients, like Outlook or Thunderbird (but then I am comparing again).


Lotus Notes has been a waste of time for the past 5 (if not 10) years. No one should be using it anymore. But that is a personal opinion

----------


## Nomadic

I cant use GIMP... I just can't. I learned advanced graphical editing on photoshop and dealing with GIMPs interface after 5 years of photoshop is like driving a $1500 used car after 5 years with a sports car. Sure the clunker will get you from point A to point B fine but it isn't near as good at doing so. Of course you pay for what you get when it comes to photoshop vs GIMP.

----------


## loydb

I'm a fan of CC3. I do my initial map creation in it, then use Photoshop to do labeling and various other bits of post-processing.

Check out this post, someone specifically asked what I did in Photoshop vs. CC3, so I figured out what I used each for. http://forum.profantasy.com/comments...page=1#Item_33

----------


## RobA

> I cant use GIMP... I just can't. I learned advanced graphical editing on photoshop and dealing with GIMPs interface after 5 years of photoshop is like driving a $1500 used car after 5 years with a sports car. Sure the clunker will get you from point A to point B fine but it isn't near as good at doing so. Of course you pay for what you get when it comes to photoshop vs GIMP.


Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop.  I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....

Guess it is little thing called perspective  :Wink:   (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)

And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner  :Wink: 

-Rob A>

----------


## waldronate

There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger

In any skill-driven activity, you tend to prefer the first way you learned it. For example, is the correct way to remove an object to select the objects and then select a modify attributes command, to select a modify attributes command and select objects to modify, or to type in a command that has all of the parameters needed to perform the command? The first is the object verb paradigm ("files delete"), the second is the verb object paradigm ("delete files"), and the last is the way of the command-line elders ("rm *"). Each is appropriate to its audience and context.

On the subject of value for the dollar, if my employer gives me a copy of Photoshop and pays me to use it, then that beats the heck out of having to do my own tech support for a "free" product with a user interface rather unlike the company-standard software applications I use every day.

----------


## NeonKnight

> Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop.  I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....
> 
> Guess it is little thing called perspective   (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)
> 
> And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner 
> 
> -Rob A>


LOL! That's my Feeling with regards to CC3 and things Like GIMP and Photoshop.

I know to do things in CC3 but find the simple thing like drawing and filling a BOX or Circle in Photoshop/GIMP to be impossible!

----------


## Nomadic

> Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop.  I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....
> 
> Guess it is little thing called perspective   (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)
> 
> And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner 
> 
> -Rob A>


Except I have never had any problem picking up and running with any other graphical based software before. GIMP is the absolute only program that I failed at learning. The interface is so mucked up for me that I can't even figure out how to do simple things.

As to your last comment the ease of use interface is the extra you get that more than justifies the cost. You are the only person I have ever heard that had trouble with it and I have known technophobic people that have given it a try. I am guessing this is due to your learning on GIMP as opposed to any other of the more standardized programs and then sticking with it and its very different interface.

At any rate I agree with waldron on the concept of nothing being intuitive. There's just different degrees of learning curve. For the majority in my experience photoshop has a much shallower curve due to its much larger support base and well designed layout. Thats not to say that GIMP isn't great for those without the cash, but for those that can afford it, PS is an excellent first choice for photo manipulation.

----------


## ravells

I started with Paintshop Pro and moving to Photoshop and getting comfortable with it took me the best part of a year. Now I am, I've forgotten all the PSP conventions. It all depends on what you're used to.

I've got Illustrator - never use it. I know it's more powerful than the budget equivalent I do use (Drawplus) but Drawplus is one of the most intuitive applications I have ever used. 

I think once you get get stuck to something it's difficult to move. I don't have CC3, but I have CC2, but it was too limited for me once I discovered Drawplus, PSP and Photoshop. 

For me, (and apologies to the CC users out there) CC is a complex interface you have to get used to in order to get to use the lovely symbols. My problem with the symbols is that they they kill any individuality of mapping....but they do mean you can produce great looking maps and fast.

----------


## Kingbreaker

> There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger
> 
> In any skill-driven activity, you tend to prefer the first way you learned it. For example, is the correct way to remove an object to select the objects and then select a modify attributes command, to select a modify attributes command and select objects to modify, or to type in a command that has all of the parameters needed to perform the command? The first is the object verb paradigm ("files delete"), the second is the verb object paradigm ("delete files"), and the last is the way of the command-line elders ("rm *"). Each is appropriate to its audience and context.
> 
> On the subject of value for the dollar, if my employer gives me a copy of Photoshop and pays me to use it, then that beats the heck out of having to do my own tech support for a "free" product with a user interface rather unlike the company-standard software applications I use every day.


I'm hosed then - I am most confortable with the Macromedia Freehand interface  :Smile:

----------


## waldronate

> I'm hosed then - I am most confortable with the Macromedia Freehand interface


I hear they have support groups.  :Wink:

----------


## Nomadic

> I hear they have support groups.


But ever since adobe bought them out you have to have acrobat to read their newsletters.  :Razz:

----------


## huishou

Campaign Cartographer is a CAD engine that has been repurposed to provide mapping functionality. It also has many style packs in the form of its annuals and huge numbers of symbols via its symbol packs. Some folks find the learning curve steep, but there are many video tutorials and training materials available.

If you have some drawing skills and are expecting to make your maps from scratch, go with Photoshop (or GIMP)!! I believe they can produce superior results, though I have't used Campaign Cartographer but I've seen many maps on these forums. I use an older version of photoshop with XP-Pen Artist 12 Pro drawing tablet with screen and I love it! I find that most of the stunning maps on these forums are made with Photoshop, GIMP or a program like that.

----------


## damonjynx

Well as others have pointed out there are a number of things to consider:

1. Budget
2. Purpose
3. Artistic skill

1. The all important $$. Personal opinion aside, if 'free' is your only option, GIMP or KRITA are probably going to be your choices. I tried running the latest version of GIMP on a brand new Mac with OS Catalina and the performance was woeful, it drove me insane. On my work PC I was able to figure out how to recreate (more or less) my Photoshop workflow for Dungeon and Hex maps (for using on my home Mac which no longer runs Adobe CS4). KRITA works much better on my Mac and what I'll be using when needed. CC3+ is reasonably priced and you can get some good deals. I just bought the Humble Bundle for $51AUD which came with 3 core programs; CC3+, City & Dungeon Designer and a host of other stuff. As others have mentioned, you are limited by the art packs you have unless you have the skill to create your own. Then we have Adobe, I prefer this over the free programs as its more what I'm used to but I refuse to pay a subscription for essentially an update to a program I already own. Unless you can generate a reasonable income from it or use it for business purposes (to receive tax benefits - depending on how that works in your locale) I would suggest the other options.
2. If you want to create truly unique, artisitic maps, that are 100% your own, an image editing program is what you need. If, on the other hand, you want to produce quality maps quickly, in a wide range of styles for gaming purposes, whether for VTTs or print media, then I think CC3+ is a good choice and why I decided to go that route. Using Crossover (a paid WINE utility) I am able to run CC3+ on my Mac natively without having to install Windows #.
3. If you've no artistic skill, like me, then CC3+ is definitely a must have. If the reverse is true one of the image editing software programs will probably be more to your taste.

Either way, all packages have a learning curve. I tried the demo version of CC2 I think it was, back in the early 2000's and I couldn't get my head around it (not much internet support, tutorials etc around back then) so I bought Dundjinni and only used when necessary so I never got proficient with it. Now I find myself looking forward to getting down with CC3+.

----------


## Mark Oliva

> Well as others have pointed out there are a number of things to consider:
> 
> 1. Budget
> 2. Purpose
> 3. Artistic skill


Sure.  But the comparison basis is wrong.  This isn't really a question of a choice between Photoshop and CC3+, which always will be an apples and oranges comparison.  The issue really is the question of whether one wants to make one's own maps from bottom up with programs such as Photoshop, the GIMP, etc., or whether one wants to use a cartographic tool like CC3+, Dundjinni, Other World Mapper, MapForge, FM8, etc. 

They're two different worlds of cartography.  Some live more comfortably in one, some more comfortably in the other, and some even go back and forth between both.  By and large, one will find that the _fastest_ maps were made with one of the cartographic applications, and the _best_ maps in most cases were made with one of the graphical applications ... although I certainly acknowledge that there have been Dundjinni and MapForge maps posted here that reach Photoshop/GIMP quality levels.  I can't says the same for CC3+, FM8 or OWM maps ... which are the tool category that I use personally.

Servus,

----------

