Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 06:18:16 PM

Title: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 06:18:16 PM
Thomas Knoll designed Photoshop over 27 years ago for a very different time and technology and user base well before digital cameras and printers. But, Photoshop evolved over the years to be everything for everybody...so, if Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?

If you were to imagine an app that would be more than Elements, but less than Photoshop in terms of functionality, exactly what do you think it would need to have as a minimum feature set?

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?

So, leaving those items in as assumptions, what else in Photoshop could you live without?

Could you live without type?, Video? 3D? (I assume so). What about CMYK? What about History?, What about Bridge? (the reason I mention Bridge is presumably you would be using Lightroom for browsing and management). There would need to be some sort of brushing functionality, but I doubt you would be much besides simple brushes with softness/opacity and no brush effects, right?

Would you want the Blur gallery and Puppet warp? Liquify? What about editable keyboard shortcuts? (which was a huge engineering effort which is also why LR doesn't have it yet).

What about color management? LR's color management is simple but works well. But you would need to do color conversions, right?

So, what would be needed to create a Photoshop for Photographers that would be designed as a pixel editing companion to Lightroom?

I'm only playing blue sky dreaming here...but Eric has said that he and Thomas are interested in doing something on behalf of photographers (because they are both photographers to) and remember, Thomas was the guy who started this whole industry with his brother John...(even though when it started it wasn't really designed and intended for photographers per se).

So, it would be useful to get a list of must haves, nice to haves but not required and a list of shouldn't haves.

I'll start a new topic with this as a jump off point in a new thread with a couple of caveats...I will be on my best behavior but will tolerate zero ad hominem attacks...I think there needs to healthy debate and exchange of information without an anti-anthing slant. I would hope the tone could be such that Eric would feel comfortable engaging and provide useful feedback that could be taken back to Thomas and Adobe and even other 3rd party developers...

Thoughts?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now, what would it look li
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:24:12 PM
This is something I added to one of the other threads..  ironically along the same lines as your thoughts here... I'll add it.

Quote
I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.\
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 10, 2013, 06:33:43 PM
Thoughts?

There is GIMP already if you don't need LAB and video-editing capabilities. For 3D, I would use any other CG programs instead.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: shanly on May 10, 2013, 06:34:40 PM
Maybe stating the obvious but a starting point could be to NOT include any of the functionality only associated with PS Extended.  Not saying that there are no photographers using it but have to start somewhere.  

Include full ACR, 16 bit, adjustment layers, curves, layer masks, channels, paths.  (all stuff that's not in PSE).  

Include 32 bit support in order to work with the new 32 bit support in LR.

PS plug-in support.  e.g. PK Sharpener.

If we assume a combination with LR, then no absolute need for soft proofing or even printing support come to think of it.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:43:12 PM
I certainly allow for the possibility that I don't understand the value of some things in Ps, but I've never seen a REAL need for sharpening in Ps vs. what I can accomplish in Lr.  I've tried it both ways and even on large prints I can't see that Ps offers an advantage over Lr.  The one example that I mentioned elsewhere is an image I used Jeff's "progressive sharpening" on, which can only be done in Ps, and does have a positive effect on an image that wasn't entirely "correct" to begin with.  If that image had been taken as it should have been however, I wouldn't have had the need for it.

Layers I can see more of a need for.  I use Silver Efex for black and white conversions, and enjoy being able to open images as smart objects in Ps, then using Silver Efex as a layer that can be re-visited/edited later without having to start over.  I suppose the same applies to stitching.

Overall though, and I realize I may be in the minority here, I just dont' need Ps for many things, so my "Ps for Photographers" list is pretty limited.  Would I enjoy more features other than the basic three I mentioned above?  I'm sure I would, but do I absolutely need them? No.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
If we assume a combination with LR, then no absolute need for soft proofing or even printing support come to think of it.

Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: johnvr on May 10, 2013, 06:47:35 PM
I appreciate you starting this thread.

I mainly use PS for my model photography. So, it's the detailed retouching and tools like liquefy that I mostly use.

Most of the rest of my work I do in LR.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:50:58 PM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).

absolutely, I don't think I have EVER used Ps for printing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: bill t. on May 10, 2013, 06:52:02 PM
Just add the following to LR...

*Ability to stitch RAW files*

Layers, with independent sets of all the LR controls assignable to each layer.

Masks, both paintable and gradation.

Killer selection tools

Make the Arrow tool drag an RGB printout with it.

Introduce a resizable tool sort like a selection tool, with a drag-along thumbnail right above that would show the histogram of only the selected area.

etc.

PS: Hey boys and girls, lets put down all our wildest wishes here to nip potential software patents in the bud!  Prior art, etc.  Future small scale developers will thank you for it.


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:54:53 PM
Just add the following to LR...


Make the Arrow tool drag an RGB printout with it.


You lost me on this one.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rasterdogs on May 10, 2013, 07:01:45 PM
Thomas Knoll designed Photoshop over 27 years ago for a very different time and technology and user base well before digital cameras and printers. But, Photoshop evolved over the years to be everything for everybody...so, if Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?

If you were to imagine an app that would be more than Elements, but less than Photoshop in terms of functionality, exactly what do you think it would need to have as a minimum feature set?

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?

So, leaving those items in as assumptions, what else in Photoshop could you live without?

Could you live without type?, Video? 3D? (I assume so). What about CMYK? What about History?, What about Bridge? (the reason I mention Bridge is presumably you would be using Lightroom for browsing and management). There would need to be some sort of brushing functionality, but I doubt you would be much besides simple brushes with softness/opacity and no brush effects, right?

Would you want the Blur gallery and Puppet warp? Liquify? What about editable keyboard shortcuts? (which was a huge engineering effort which is also why LR doesn't have it yet).

What about color management? LR's color management is simple but works well. But you would need to do color conversions, right?

So, what would be needed to create a Photoshop for Photographers that would be designed as a pixel editing companion to Lightroom?

I'm only playing blue sky dreaming here...but Eric has said that he and Thomas are interested in doing something on behalf of photographers (because they are both photographers to) and remember, Thomas was the guy who started this whole industry with his brother John...(even though when it started it wasn't really designed and intended for photographers per se).

So, it would be useful to get a list of must haves, nice to haves but not required and a list of shouldn't haves.

I'll start a new topic with this as a jump off point in a new thread with a couple of caveats...I will be on my best behavior but will tolerate zero ad hominem attacks...I think there needs to healthy debate and exchange of information without an anti-anthing slant. I would hope the tone could be such that Eric would feel comfortable engaging and provide useful feedback that could be taken back to Thomas and Adobe and even other 3rd party developers...

Thoughts?
Jeff, cool.
I'd look for something compact and reasonably streamlined and pretty much bare bones.
I'd be fine with all your 'live withouts' as you've noted them with the exception of history.
Your assumed "must have's" work for me.

I'm imagining something that naturally 'round trips' to LR and is almost like an LR plugin.
Soft proofing and printing works just fine in LR.
Color management - LR's is just fine.
Unsharp mask - LR is fine.
Simple brushes - yes.
Can live without editable kybd shortcuts, blur, liquify & puppet warp
Oh, this thing should be named 'Photo Pixel Wrangler'!   :D
I'd hope PPW would support the sort of local corrections that you demo in the LULA LR video on you Shiprock image.

 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 10, 2013, 07:08:35 PM
Interesting exercise.  Since you seem to want specifics, here's what I'd want:

Bridge:


Photoshop (in no particular order):





Things I don't need:

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 07:09:42 PM
I'd hope PPW would support the sort of local corrections that you demo in the LULA LR video on you Shiprock image.

Actually, not Shiprock, that was the Courthouse in Arches...but I get your drift :~)

Yes to all of those–LR is really, really close now except the progressive sharpening routine, which needs pixels to blend into itself if you catch the drift.

With a better masking capability, all the dodging/burning and sculpting could be done in Lightroom. Clarity is midtone contrast, but with a fixed 100 pixel radius, so LR Pro would need the ability to modify the base radius locally.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 10, 2013, 07:18:52 PM
Great thread idea for These Trying Times.  Bravo, doood.  : )  It is, however, going to comprise a heck of a resource for competitors' designs.

Everybody's going to have similar items, so I'll just list my single most important tool:

The cloner (or rubber stamp) in Adobese.  This indispensable tool (and its "spot removal" and "healing" variants) is at the top of my must-have list.  Fortunately, it's pretty much a commodity software item now, but given the genius of the current versions, I can't wait to see what improvements they can devise.


OK, wait.  I do have one more thing:

Plug-in hosting.  Don't break the capability to host plug-ins.  Great ideas can come from outta left field.  Don't shut them out.



Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrp on May 10, 2013, 07:24:58 PM
For my part, I use most of the features of Photoshop at one time or another.  Even if I never produce CMYK files, it can be useful to have CMYK around for creating masks from the channels, eg, the Statistics features can be useful for eliminating tourists, etc.

Perhaps an easier list to construct would be the features that are indispensable for studios and the other market segments that will be happy with the new subscription model, but which are of no use to standalone photographers, and eliminate those. Type? Video? 3D (but not vanishing point)? All the stuff that interacts with Illustrator or Acrobat / PDF.  I'm afraid that I don't know enough about their workflows to know what features are essential for them.  As others have suggested, removing something like Printing, and leaving that to Lightroom might be enough, although much content is destined for the internet.


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 10, 2013, 07:41:05 PM
Hi Jeff,

LR 5 is probably getting close to meeting my wish list that didn't happen in LR4. As you know, I do almost everything in LR now, including printing. Here are the four things I miss most and need to round-trip into PS for:

(1) selection and clean-up tools that are slicker, more precise and more flexible than what LR4 has. LR4 is still clunky in these respects, but I hear LR5 beta improves upon them. (Can't do LR5 myself because Adope won't support it in Snow Leopard and I can't leave it yet because I use some legacy software whose providers won't update, and the replacements are very pricey - the usual kind of mess).
(2) a manual skew correction tool in the lens correction panel. People doing architectural, cityscapes and the like often have asymmetrical keystoning to correct; L4 can't do it. I've heard LR5's "Upright" is an improvement.
(3) The ability to add text to page layouts in the print module.
(4) The ability to add custom text per image in the web module.

If I had LR4+the foregoing, I wouldn't miss Photoshop. Oh yes - of course maintain current ability to use certain plugins, such as the NIK suite - some good stuff there.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Philip Weber on May 10, 2013, 07:50:00 PM
If it doesn't support the host of plug-ins that I use in the way CS6 and its predecessors did, then it's of no value to me.

As a LR adjunct, it could be a great thing if engineered correctly and who better than Thomas and team...

Phil
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 10, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
If it doesn't support the host of plug-ins that I use in the way CS6 and its predecessors did, then it's of no value to me.

Phil

What if the plugins supported it? That's the usual way these things work. The main application is in charge and the plugins adapt.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: digitaldog on May 10, 2013, 07:56:43 PM
You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?
Right, all good and necessary.

Quote
So, leaving those items in as assumptions, what else in Photoshop could you live without?
Lose Video & 3D but need CMYK. History be nice, maybe a limited set. Screw Bridge <G>

Blur gallery and Puppet warp can go, Liquify can be real useful for retouchers but I could live without it. Editable keyboard shortcuts could go to lower engineering overhead. Since CMYK was on the list, need color management and Covert to Profile. Simplify color settings big time! IF the tool works in tandem with LR, I guess you can kill soft proofing (but I need that for CMYK).

LR provides a good 90% of what I need. Precise cloning is the big hole for me. I could probably raise that figure to 95% if LR got better, faster and more precise clone and pixel editing but maybe there's a limit to what's possible with parametric edits.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Manoli on May 10, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).


Absolutely.

Retain the Photoshop Image, Layer and Select menus together with a core functionality to include:
levels and curves, masks, channels (in my opinion paths are optional), automate and plug-in capability as exists, refine edge, content-aware delete and ideally, liquify.

I'm not greatly in favour of adding additional pixel editing 'tools' to Lightroom. These should ideally be kept in Lightroom Pro.

Tools >
selection / quick selection tools
patch  / clone stamp / healing brush
brush / eraser
dodge / burn
quick mask

Filters >
gaussian blur
dust & scratches
median
smart sharpen
unsharp mask
high pass
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kiklop on May 10, 2013, 08:02:59 PM
so, if Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?
It is a while since i felt the need for something like that. As someone that is occasionally teaching young students and photographers I often found PS too intimidating for those that want “Just” to edit their images.

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?
Pretty much so.

Could you live without type?, Video? 3D? (I assume so)
Not needed except type. Some options for styling watermarks with some text effects would still be a must I guess although not as powerful as with PS.

What about Bridge?
You either have this “editor” included and tight with LR or you need a functional browser (my preference).  Personally, I think bridge didn’t evolve as it should with recent PS releases and needs a new re-thinking.

There would need to be some sort of brushing functionality, but I doubt you would be much besides simple brushes with softness/opacity and no brush effects, right?


Right … but, while there isn’t a need for all advanced options of PS, brush work should be highly functional.  After all, brush is an essential tool for many image editing tasks.

Would you want the Blur gallery and Puppet warp? Liquify?
Yes – no - no

What about editable keyboard shortcuts? (which was a huge engineering effort which is also why LR doesn't have it yet).
Absolutely (I never get used to shortcuts in LR, among my biggest gripe with LR ergonomics.
  While I don’t personally like the way Gimp is interacting with user, their shortcut assignment procedure seems very easy and intuitive for me.

But you would need to do color conversions, right?
Yep, essential for something that is aimed to be serious photo imaging editor.

So, what would be needed to create a Photoshop for Photographers that would be designed as a pixel editing companion to Lightroom?
For Lightroom only? ;)
That would be a mistake IMHO but then again, I can understand possible adobe motivation.

One aspect that I would really like to see improved are selection options. For example, luminosity (or zones for those that like to think that way) based selections which some of us did with various actions.

If Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch”

 ..  so we aren’t talking about “photographer” optimized PS ?
If so, then there is a whole new possibility for a better user interface suited for photo editing but that not only is worth a new thread but probably a new subforum  ::) 


..  and Adobe and even other 3rd party developers...
And here is a turn down for me personally.
Sorry for saying this, but at this point, personally I would really prefer a photo editor from a photo-centric driven company (or team) than a wall street driven one (adobe). I know it is ugly to say this but IMHO adobe has crossed a turning point and I don't see there is going back any time soon.

I have a lot of work to do to prepare new workshop lessons without adobe products; it is a huge tasks and I’m not even sure what tools will I pick for the job, replacing PS will be especially hard at this point but adobe didn’t really let us any choice; teaching for products with lifetime subscription policy just isn’t ethical in my view.
 (Luckily I’m not alone since most of my colleagues I have spoken to do feel the same and preparing future workshop will be a collective task).
 
I have nothing but high respect for both Thomas and Eric but a happy end movie in my book is either they move from adobe or other talented people outside adobe  come with something really worth supporting (may take a while but for the sake of a better future it would be the best).

My apologies if last remarks are OT (feel free to delete them) but it is just part of my personal view about a photo editor i would like to see on the market 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 10, 2013, 09:06:48 PM
Sorry, can't resist.  : )

Photoshop for Photographers "shouldn't haves":  (assuming LR is used in close partnership)

Print
Type
3D
Video
Statistics
Vector tools and layers (except selection pen and maybe paths)
"Art" brushes, painting tools and filters.  Gaussian Blur does me just fine, thanks.
Exotica such as Puppet Warp and Content Aware Move



"must haves"

the same close relationship with LR (such as "load images as layers", stitch)
all existing file load/save ops
colour mgt
all existing layer functions
all existing selection tools
maintain plug-in compatibility
cloning, spotting and healing tools
16 and 32 bit image support, including HDR functions.
history
all existing transforms, including "warp"
info/histogram
maintain all existing keyboard shortcuts
64 bit and multicore utilization



"in your dreams"

pricing and licensing similar to current rules for LR
better auto blend and auto align layers, with more user controls
improved stitching with more user controls
improved or innovative selection tools
cool stuff we'd never have thought of.



Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 10, 2013, 09:12:02 PM
Yes I forgot, I would add "warp" into the desirable set of transforms to carry into an expanded LR or new app.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 10, 2013, 09:18:31 PM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).

Jeff, I think this is a great idea and thank you for starting this thread.

I think the "Pixel Plugin" Should initially focus on the key areas where LR is weak....but do not try to take on too much.

For example, layers, blending modes, and masks are important, as is alignment of the layers to assist blending.  HDR, focus stacking, & panos would be nice, but frankly, there are lots of other products available that work really nice (allow plugins..??).  

I would hate to not have content aware heal, patch, scale, and move, as well as the clone and regular patch tool.

If CMYK and LAB manipulation are easy...OK, but, while many still us them (because they know them), I suspect (limited knowleded opinion, here) that some of the newer LR/PS functions have replaced much of their need. (please don't kill me guys)

Improve the LR print module.  Better interpolation algorithms, and more sophisticated sharpening added to the PKS function.  Automatically sense the ppi the print driver wants.  Improve the print text and borders, and allow flexibility by image and by page.

I would miss some of the transform and new wide angle lens correction capabilty, but....

ANyway, many of the more knowledgable guys have and will provide input.

I think this is a great idea....JOHN
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter Le on May 10, 2013, 09:21:06 PM
     This all sounds great.....But really this is what should have happened before this move to cloud. I have lost all confidence and trust in Adobe because of the way they went about this. I applaud you Jeff for even starting this thread.....but before I can contribute I have to get over my utter despise for Adobe. There were a million better ways they could have gone about this.....they chose to be utterly Arrogant ! It may take a little while for some of us to get over this.......But thanks again for starting this thread.....it is in the right direction !
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on May 10, 2013, 09:30:33 PM
I would want two things basically:

1.  All the tools for compositing.

2.  A well maintained SDK.

A nice to have is styles - I use them a lot.

Great positive topic Jeff.  Best regards to Eric in trying times.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 10, 2013, 09:57:14 PM
Can't think right off hand anything to add to what's already been mentioned, but I do have functionality issues I'ld like addressed regarding quality previews at different zoom levels in relation to speed of edits within LR which I'm assuming function the same as ACR, my current Raw converter.

I've been having to use Photoshop to get truer representation (mainly saturation) of color in previews at different zoom sizes I can't get in ACR. So I'm wondering if these less than accurate zoom previews affect accurate Soft Proofing in LR. Not sure.

I'm thinking of switching to LR and so don't know much about the quality of their previews at less than 100%. In ACR if I apply Color Noise, Chromatic Aberration "All Edges" (I know it's been changed in newer versions) and sharpening, the saturation can be reduced by as much as applying -10 on the saturation slider at 100% view but look as intended at smaller zooms at "Fit In Window" sizes.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ButchM on May 10, 2013, 10:28:52 PM
New Photoshop?

While I have the utmost respect and admiration for Thomas and appreciate all he has done for me in my career ... unless he is also in charge of dictating license agreements, I have little faith in this idea. I've been investing in Photoshop for 20 years. Why would I want to take a giant leap backwards now? Sure I wouldn't mind filleting away the dead weight ... but that won't protect us from a future catastrophe such as transpired this week.

I'm sorry but this is neither the time or place to negotiate a paradigm ... if we bend and fade now ... we'll just be back to repeat the process again the next time some smart alec executive at Adobe chooses to push same buttons again later on.

We users are, and have never been nothing more than nameless, faceless entries in a spread sheet for corporations like Adobe. Adobe had revenues in the range of nearly $4.4 BILLION last year ... Do you think we have them against the ropes yet?

The only language they understand is the absence of capital. Currency of the realm. It is only by withholding that which is most dear to them that we as users and customers will ever effect change ... at least a change that will be of benefit.

We would be much further ahead in the process to seek out a new enterprising group of entrepreneurs to reach our goal ... rather than to be doomed with a firm only to repeat the scenario a few years hence ...After all ... those in the know here have already stated we are insignificant and unworthy to expect more.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: David Sutton on May 10, 2013, 11:54:13 PM
Cool. The ability to do the fine detail stuff that shows up on a print. Clone, mask, brush, select, erase, sharpen and so on accurately at a pixel level on a selection.  Layers, plug-ins, channels, type tool etc. CMYK and lab conversions a must.
Can we have a moan-free thread please? Pretty please.  :)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Joe S on May 11, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
Interesting exercise.  Since you seem to want specifics, here's what I'd want:

Bridge:

  • yes, but with better keywording/metadata support (I can't stand Lightroom, sorry Jeff).


I know it's a minority opinion but I agree.  I just can't stand lightroom either.   I have tried a couple times and prefer the camera raw/photoshop set.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rand47 on May 11, 2013, 12:26:06 AM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).

Exactamundo!!!!   Sign me up.
Rand
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ErikKaffehr on May 11, 2013, 12:31:50 AM
Hi,

Layers, curves, layer masks, paths, blending modes, plugin support, merge to hdr, focus stacking, background replacement.

Making a version of LR including core Photoshop functionality would be a good idea, even if came with a premium price. I like Photoshop, but I use very little of it.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: David Sutton on May 11, 2013, 12:43:08 AM
Another thing...I'd want to be able to download it from Adobe USA and not be left at the mercy of local representatives who play the cat and banjo with my wallet.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 11, 2013, 12:51:21 AM
Talk of "features" is interesting, but to me the question is architecture.  A new still photography tool kit should be based upon a completely redesigned architecture, and on that new architecture, new features can be reimagined, and some "old fashioned" features can be implemented as compatibility modules.

Dataflow architecture -- of the sort that is used every day in Nuke, of the sort that is being built into GEGL -- is /a virtual machine architecture/ that is suitable for the task.  Upon that architecture, you can build an entire range of "facilities" as conveniences, including -- if you so wish -- old fashioned layers.  But given this architecture, which allows many things undreamt of in legacy photoshop, you would come up with a new wish list.  

Compositing, for example, in Nuke is much better thought out.  The very same concepts can be used for still photography as for video.  Source material can be used and reused for partial renderings or control functions, dynamically or baked-in, and non-destructively to whatever extent one desires.  The inherent parallelism can be exploited for speed increase using any number of available processors, locally, or networked.  

The third-party plugin market would explode with possibilities not imaginable in photoshop.  But for those who wanted it or needed it, a compatibility module could be provided for legacy support of photoshop's existing user base.   8)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Bryan Conner on May 11, 2013, 12:52:25 AM
Thanks for starting this positive, constructive thread Jeff.  I hope everyone can remain positive and constructive.

I agree with the suggestions that have been made here so far.  When I send an image to CS5, it is for adding text, using your progressive sharpening action with a layer (16 bit) mask of course, using content aware cloning, cloning etc, and the occasional head/face/ or smile swap in a group portrait.  I also use merge to HDR and create panoramas.

I suggest calling this app Photoshop Elements Pro, or even Master.  This will help stoke the egos that had the red licked off of their candy by reading and hearing that CS and CC is developed and priced with PROFESSIONALS in mind  ;D

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 01:13:43 AM
I'm sorry but this is neither the time or place to negotiate a paradigm ...

Wrong, this is the perfect time to design a new paradigm...Look, Photoshop was never designed to be for photographers but got adopted by photographers en mass to be able to make scans and digital captures optimized where for tone, color or retouching...Photoshop has been a huge success in spite of everything Adobe has over the years, not because of anything Adobe has actually done.

So, now, in this new age a lightweight pixel editing app is exactly what's needed to go along with Lightroom and fill in the gaps in the workflow needed by photographers...

If you don't want to play what if...that's fine, but I warned everybody that I would take a really hard line here...if you want to piss&moan™ about big bad Adobe, you go right ahead, but but not in this thread bud. There are plenty of other threads that have already been polluted...this one won't be. I'll report you to the moderators and you will either be banned or your posts deleted...and if you think I don't have that power and influence with Mike & Chris, I guess you are new here (with three posts to your name) but I'm deadly serious...either pitch in and contribute or go away...you have been warned.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 01:23:58 AM
Talk of "features" is interesting, but to me the question is architecture.  A new still photography tool kit should be based upon a completely redesigned architecture, and on that new architecture, new features can be reimagined, and some "old fashioned" features can be implemented as compatibility modules.

I agree...Photoshop is way long in the tooth and is technically hindered by the weight of it's past code structure. While the functionality of the toolset needs to accomplish to right set of needs, the way it's designed and engineered would, by default need to be rebooted. Not unlike what happened with Lightroom. Mark Hamburg (the founding engineer of Lightroom) took a look at everything tat Photoshop did and completely re-imagined how to do it differently–to the point that if Photoshop did something a certain way, he was predisposed to do it differently (sometimes wrong, but generally right). Mark knew Photoshop well since he was the 2nd engineer to work on Photoshop...

How something is done does not need to be based on the past, what important to establish is what need to get done by photographers. I really see this new thing working with Lightroom because LR already has such parametric power and functionality and it would be inefficient to duplicate what LR can do. What needs to be done is to take an image (or images) "finished" in LR and move into a pixel editing environment to do the things that can't be done parametrically. But for me, I would want the results back in LR with as seemless an integration possible.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: bill t. on May 11, 2013, 01:24:57 AM
I think it would be appropriate to abandon the present user interface and organization of Photoshop, which is the result of 25 years of tacking, wedging, and duct taping features onto a program designed before there was anything like a consensus vision of what Photoshop should be in total.

A user interface something more like LR, please, although LR itself has already suffered some minor duct tape work in its UI.

Also, while I appreciate the database-like rigor LR brings to file organization, I would like the option to also use the old-fashioned, sloppy file handling we see in PS.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 11, 2013, 01:33:16 AM
After seeing all these responses, it's pretty apparent that us "photographers" use Ps for a lot more different things than I would have personally expected.  If this new "Lightroom Master Tool Collection" is really going to work in conjunction with Lightroom, which makes a lot of sense..  seems like one of the goals would to keep it from getting huge overall.  Keep it nimble so to speak.  

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to come up with say.. 10 things that we just HAVE to have (I personally don't need that many), and perhaps 5 things we would like to have, and maybe another 5 we don't want to see? Perhaps the numbers I suggested aren't the right starting point, but at least it starts putting some definition on this.

Just from what I've read here:

Needs

1.  Cloning/Retouching
2.  Stitching (which would include layering?)
3.  Stacking (focus stacking)
4.  HDR Merge
5.  Creative Sharpening/Image Detailing
6.  Several mentions of the warp/transform tools
7.  Several mentions of masking/selection tools
8.  Compositing
.....there were several printing related desires, but someone else throw those in.

Wants

...?

DON'T Want

1.  Subscription type licensing  (not being negative Jeff, but it was brought up)
2.  Anything that Lr already does well
?


Edit:  I should have added another section since I saw this mentioned several times

Characteristics

1.  Allows the use of 3rd party plug ins
2.  Perhaps understood, but round trips from and to Lr seamlessly
3.  16 bit and 32 bit support
4.  Default "smart objects" that return to Lr for Raw Editing


Just seeing what all this looks like if we put it in a box.  
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 01:46:07 AM
Great thread idea for These Trying Times.  Bravo, doood.  : )  It is, however, going to comprise a heck of a resource for competitors' designs.

Yep...but here's the think, if some your talent writes some code that can cherry pick the functionality that photographers need and offer it on terms photographers want, more power to him/her...

But here's the thing, if the elves on ACR/LR teams (not the suits) decide they want to do something, they will do it, and do it really, really well. If photographers leave Photoshop in droves, they will need to look somewhere to replace that functionality and where better to look towards the guy that started this whole thing in the first place. I suspect Thomas has some tricks up his sleeve (actually I know he does, but I can't talk about it).

Be sure you read what Eric wrote in this message (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78214.msg627516#msg627516).

So, if not Thomas, then if some hot talent comes up with some cool concepts and execution I think that is a good thing. While people paint me as an Adobe apologist, I'm really not...I am however a big fan of the engineering talent Adobe has and the skills and knowledge they have for writing really useful code. If Photoshop isn't the best tool for photographers, I have no problem working towards advancing a tool that is. But if I would bet on anybody, it's the likes of Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan. If they decide to take a whack at doing something, it'll be pretty friggin' cool.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Stone on May 11, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I've been a long time lurker here and I think this is an excellent discussion and the perfect time to begin such a conversation.  As a long time user of Photoshop, most of the features I would want to see in a "reboot" have already been mentioned so I won't restate what has already been said.

One thing I'd like to see, and I hope I can express it properly is the default use of the Smart Objects concept.  The seamless (or as seamless as possible) back and forth between LR and the pixel editor.  Double clicking a Smart Object currently opens ACR, I'd like it to take you back to LR to continue the raw-based edits.  Honestly, I'd like the new pixel editor to be a plugin to LR and not contain ACR functionality at all, I don't think the overhead of including "bridge-like" or ACR functionality would be beneficial, LR already does a wonderful job of file and catalog management.

Hope I was able to explain that clearly.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 11, 2013, 02:03:40 AM
I've been a long time lurker here and I think this is an excellent discussion and the perfect time to begin such a conversation.  As a long time user of Photoshop, most of the features I would want to see in a "reboot" have already been mentioned so I won't restate what has already been said.

One thing I'd like to see and I hope I can express it properly is the default use of the Smart Objects concept.  The seamless (or as seamless as possible) back and forth between LR and the pixel editor.  Double clicking a Smart Object currently opens ACR, I'd like it to take you back to LR to continue the raw-based edits.  Honestly, I'd like the new pixel editor to be a plugin to LR and not contain ACR functionality at all, I don't think the overhead of including "bridge-like" or ACR functionality would be beneficial, LR already does a wonderful job of file and catalog management.

Hope I was able to explain that clearly.

Makes perfect sense to me
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 02:09:49 AM
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to come up with say.. 10 things that we just HAVE to have (I personally don't need that many), and perhaps 5 things we would like to have, and maybe another 5 we don't want to see?

What I think would be most useful to to come up a list of must have functions for the top tasks photographers need to do that Lightroom can't, here's mine...

Retouching...how it's accomplished, I'm less concerned with how it's done and more concerned and how easy and efficiently it would be done. Will that require Photoshop tools? I don't know, but if you need to make selections to do accurate retouching of areas, then a lot of the features will be almost self evident. Clone/heal/content aware/blur/smooth/control texture and replace elements which leads to compositing.

Compositing...yes, we need to swap out heads/faces, skies, add photo elements together to combine them. Does this need layers? Actually, I'm not at all sure. Yes, if you think in Photoshop terms, but maybe not if a new compositing engine could be developed.

Yes, to HDR, Photomerge and focus bracketing...must haves. And there are third party developers who have made really nice small scale apps to be able to accomplish these tasks far better than Photoshop.

Image detailing. LR's capture sharpening and noise reduction is very good (I helped create it). Lightroom's output sharpening is very good (I helped create it) but "creative sharpening" is still very primitive in Lightroom. And for one really good reason–all Lightroom processing must be done parametrically. To do substantial and radical creative sharpening needs to be able to get access to pixels and return rendered pixels. Photoshop CC's Shake Reduction is an example...it's pretty cool and does a good job determining the required point spread function and applying an optimal deconvolution kernel sharping. Could this be done in raw? Maybe, but it already works with pixels. LR's -Sharpness does a pretty good lens blur of limited radius and strength but doing stiff beyond that is tough to do parametrically. So, capture and output sharpening is pretty good now, it's the creative stage that is currently weak in LR.

Yes, 8, 16, 32 bit functionality a given...yes channels and masks a given. For precision, paths for making selection as well as color/tone ranged selections ala Color Range (but on steroids) because Auto Mask is ok but limited...ideally this sort of masking should be available both parametrically and also for pixel based selections and adjustments.

So, the point here to to encourage thinking about what we need to do, not to get wrapped up in how to do it.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 11, 2013, 02:21:35 AM
What I think would be most useful to to come up a list of must have functions for the top tasks photographers need to do that Lightroom can't, here's mine...

Retouching...how it's accomplished, I'm less concerned with how it's done and more concerned and how easy and efficiently it would be done. Will that require Photoshop tools? I don't know, but if you need to make selections to do accurate retouching of areas, then a lot of the features will be almost self evident. Clone/heal/content aware/blur/smooth/control texture and replace elements which leads to compositing.

Compositing...yes, we need to swap out heads/faces, skies, add photo elements together to combine them. Does this need layers? Actually, I'm not at all sure. Yes, if you think in Photoshop terms, but maybe not if a new compositing engine could be developed.

Yes, to HDR, Photomerge and focus bracketing...must haves. And there are third party developers who have made really nice small scale apps to be able to accomplish these tasks far better than Photoshop.

Image detailing. LR's capture sharpening and noise reduction is very good (I helped create it). Lightroom's output sharpening is very good (I helped create it) but "creative sharpening" is still very primitive in Lightroom. And for one really good reason–all Lightroom processing must be done parametrically. To do substantial and radical creative sharpening needs to be able to get access to pixels and return rendered pixels. Photoshop CC's Shake Reduction is an example...it's pretty cool and does a good job determining the required point spread function and applying an optimal deconvolution kernel sharping. Could this be done in raw? Maybe, but it already works with pixels. LR's -Sharpness does a pretty good lens blur of limited radius and strength but doing stiff beyond that is tough to do parametrically. So, capture and output sharpening is pretty good now, it's the creative stage that is currently weak in LR.

Yes, 8, 16, 32 bit functionality a given...yes channels and masks a given. For precision, paths for making selection as well as color/tone ranged selections ala Color Range (but on steroids) because Auto Mask is ok but limited...ideally this sort of masking should be available both parametrically and also for pixel based selections and adjustments.

So, the point here to to encourage thinking about what we need to do, not to get wrapped up in how to do it.

Agreed, not concerned about how they work just that they do in fact work.  I added Creative Sharpening/Image Detailing (actually replaced Unsharp Mask as I suspect that would be part of it), and Compositing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: yaredna on May 11, 2013, 02:29:18 AM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).

Exactly my dream workflow... Now you're talking... As long as Adobe does pull another bogey and makes lightroom a rental sw....
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: yaredna on May 11, 2013, 02:34:58 AM
Yep...but here's the think, if some your talent writes some code that can cherry pick the functionality that photographers need and offer it on terms photographers want, more power to him/her...

....

So, if not Thomas, then if some hot talent comes up with some cool concepts and execution I think that is a good thing. While people paint me as an Adobe apologist, I'm really not...I am however a big fan of the engineering talent Adobe has and the skills and knowledge they have for writing really useful code. If Photoshop isn't the best tool for photographers, I have no problem working towards advancing a tool that is. But if I would bet on anybody, it's the likes of Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan. If they decide to take a whack at doing something, it'll be pretty friggin' cool.

I would love to INVEST in Thomas Knoll's new venture... A real tool for real photographers, PROs and amateurs.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: CoyoteButtes on May 11, 2013, 02:43:50 AM
Jeff, thanks for the best thread I've read on ANY forum for the last few days.

Rather than get detailed with hopeful features, I'd like to see the Elves for Son of Photoshop be innovative and algorithmically creative. That could just be the best thing that ever happened to Photoshop.

But I would like to see Son of Photoshop be done specifically for digital photographers - even us hobbyists. And I would like a non-subscription option - as will apparently be the case with Lightroom.

Thanks...Stan
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kencameron on May 11, 2013, 02:48:49 AM
One consideration is the extent to which a new program should do things that are already well done by third party programs that integrate with LR. I go out of LR mainly to do HDR, Stitching and B&W conversion, and the NP would have to do these things much better than PS currently does before I would be tempted to use it for them. The other main reasons I leave LR are for localised retouching, which would be aided by a great leap forward in selection, for which there is room, and warping/transforming, where PS is very good, IMO. The gap to be filled is between what LR does and what the best third party programs do. Overlap with either would be a waste.

Or maybe Adobe could use some of the buckets of money it is going to make out of CC to buy some of the best third party programs and put them together.  Google might be prepared to sell it the mainstream Nik products, keeping only the cell phone program which I understand is what it wanted.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 02:53:33 AM
But I would like to see Son of Photoshop be done specifically for digital photographers - even us hobbyists.

Yep...but, as I worked on The Digital Print, I decided to incorporate scans from film as a component to the book. The Digital Negative is all about raw image processing, but The Digital Print will cover scans and capture. And, I think that's an important consideration. The more I work with scans in Lightroom the better I like working on scans in Lightroom vs. Photoshop.

So, I think the blend of analog legacy and digital can work together...once you start working on pixels instead of parameters, I've found that the differences are inconsequential–when you have "pixels", pixels are pixels regardless of how they were created or where they came from.

Raw is a different animal because the raw can be reinterpreted infinitely without inherent loss. But once a film is scanned into a gamma encoded fixed color space, editing is destructive.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kikashi on May 11, 2013, 02:57:02 AM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

Jeff, I think that is precisely what's needed.

My specific suggestion? Content-aware fill.

Jeremy
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Oldfox on May 11, 2013, 03:14:37 AM
- Layers, Masks
- Curves
- Selections
- Clone
- Gradient
- Brush
- Crop (CS5)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 11, 2013, 03:18:49 AM
Talk of "features" is interesting, but to me the question is architecture.  A new still photography tool kit should be based upon a completely redesigned architecture, and on that new architecture, new features can be reimagined, and some "old fashioned" features can be implemented as compatibility modules.

Dataflow architecture -- of the sort that is used every day in Nuke, of the sort that is being built into GEGL -- is /a virtual machine architecture/ that is suitable for the task.  Upon that architecture, you can build an entire range of "facilities" as conveniences, including -- if you so wish -- old fashioned layers.  But given this architecture, which allows many things undreamt of in legacy photoshop, you would come up with a new wish list.  

Compositing, for example, in Nuke is much better thought out.  The very same concepts can be used for still photography as for video.  Source material can be used and reused for partial renderings or control functions, dynamically or baked-in, and non-destructively to whatever extent one desires.  The inherent parallelism can be exploited for speed increase using any number of available processors, locally, or networked.  

The third-party plugin market would explode with possibilities not imaginable in photoshop.  But for those who wanted it or needed it, a compatibility module could be provided for legacy support of photoshop's existing user base.   8)

I would like to put this front and center into the discussion, especially calling on Eric Chan.  

Without an architecture that is rich and generative, involving a virtual machine architecture that allows a broad spectrum of possibilities to be expressed, any such reconceptualization of photoshop is vulnerable to anyone who can do this.  

There might be VM architectures better than dataflow for these applications, but I haven't seen such yet.  It is a low-level abstraction upon which any number of higher-level abstractions can be built.  It allows arbitrarily complex ideas to be expressed.  It allows non-destructive editing up to the extent that one's processor and memory will permit.  It allows for inherent parallelism.  It allows for entirely new market-making ideas to take flight, as well as being an apt platform for some more traditional techniques.  You can hide the machine layer where necessary, or reveal its full expressive potential.  

This goes way beyond what most people here are considering.  Others are giving genuinely good ideas about things they'd like to be able to do as photographers using more or less a traditional model.  That is worthwhile.  But the possibilities for reaching into entirely new realms, e.g., group workflow, multimedia production, real-time processing for broadcast or client-server applications, makes this a ripe area for development.  

Nuke went far into this, but one can go farther.  You can scale up; you can even scale down for modest needs.  It's all about having the right conceptual architecture.

Eric, talk to me.  I think I can bring something to the table.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 03:38:42 AM
But once a film is scanned into a gamma encoded fixed color space, editing is destructive.

What do you mean "editing is destructive"?

A parametric adjustment of a digital scan is equally (non-)destructive as a parametric interpretation of RAW data,
as a matter of fact, converting RAW data to actual pixels, interpreted or otherwise, is an inherently lossy process,
while the digital scan can produce the cleanest possible high-bit source that you could ever wish for.

i.e. your source either is:
- 14bit raw + interpretation, (where the 14bits may be questionable to begin with)

or
- 32bit noise free, encoded RGB, from a multipass scan.


Okay, not the thread to start this discussion, but it does illustrate one of my wishes for a new imaging workflow:

- better separation of functionality,
- better break down of processing pipeline into discrete but optimal steps.

It is not useful to have more than 1 way to get to the same result, even though that may look like "flexibility", it merely introduces inefficient and even incorrect processing or workflows. (For example: separation of capture sharpening and output sharpening etc).

If the workflow is better separated in discrete elements (read: modules & applications), then it also becomes easier to charge people for the use of these separate elements, even through a subscription type purchasing model. I need to be able to subscribe to only those modules that I actually use. Even 1 time use should be possible. i.e. the book module is probably useful only once in a very long while for most of us.


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Wayland on May 11, 2013, 03:43:08 AM
OK. Looking at this in a blue sky way, one of the most important things for me is the ability to revisit my work and be able to change anything at any time in the future with the software I own rights for at that point.

At the moment that is achieved with layers and smart objects. I don't care how it is done but when my skills are improved by ten or twenty years more experience I want to be able to improve on the work I do now.

It's like having an old negative of a great subject taken when you were starting out and going back to the darkroom with advanced skills and producing something far beyond the work you could have produced as a rookie.

That is why I am dead set against the CC. My back catalogue is part of my retirement plan so the last thing I want is to be cut off from it by not being able to afford a subscription.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 03:52:14 AM
Without an architecture that is rich and generative, involving a virtual machine architecture that allows a broad spectrum of possibilities to be expressed, any such reconceptualization of photoshop is vulnerable to anyone who can do this.  

?

While I fully agree that a redesign at the core is necessary, for both LR and PS, I do believe it should also be user-centric. That is, it shouldn't be designed around flexibility just for the sake of flexibility or machine capabilities. The difference between PS as it used to be and graphic imaging these days is the "interpreted pipeline" because graphic card processing has become the norm. i.e. your graphics card contains a far more powerful processor than your computer does. But unfortunately "interpreted" processing still sucks for most of the functions that photographers like. (blur & sharpening techniques, which are also the basis for local contrast enhancements etc).

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jack Hogan on May 11, 2013, 03:52:53 AM
Excellent constructive thread Jeff, thank you.  Many good suggestions above.  I personally mainly go to Photoshop to access plug-ins (Topaz and Nik), Stitching, HDR, layers+operations, transforms, ease of selections, all content aware edits (including warp), liquify, text, ACE color space conversions, printing.

No 3D, no video, no bridge.

A big selling point for me would be real time metadata based storage/processing: record clicks and strokes, not a new TIFF every major adjustment.  It's what allows Capture NX2 to keep complex, any-time re-editable file sizes for a D600 to 30MB, for instance, while the equivalent version in photoshop with a couple of layers is 300MB.

I think such a most excellent piece of new software should however be easily integrated with several leading raw converters' workflow, not just Lightroom's, which many of us do not use or like (what's LR's raw conversion market share?)

Cheers,
Jack
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 04:00:06 AM
What about this:

Do we generally want and think in terms of 1 image with adjustments?

Or do we want and think about a composition with objects (images + text) containing adjustments?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: lhodaniel on May 11, 2013, 04:11:30 AM
KISS principle: Keep PS Standard. It's already developed. Perpetual license as before, or $10/month subscription. But (and I think this should apply to all the CC stuff), after 12/18/24 months you get to opt out with the current version at that time. My cell phone contract binds me for 24 months, but then I go month to month and can keep that phone. Subscribing for 1-2 years and being left with nothing does not fly.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tho_mas on May 11, 2013, 04:37:16 AM
You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?
yes, right. As far as layers go I do use "blend if" options a lot… so this particular functionality should be preserved. Also all the layer blending modes (luminance, color … etc.) and channels and masks.

Editable keyboard shortcuts and a customizable workspace are extremely important for me personally.
Too, I am finding the color management options in LR too limited. I need "convert to profile" (with perceptual and rel.col with and without BPC) and "assign profile". I also do need softproofing with an option to deactivate paper simulation (but an option to activate "black ink" simulation). So the full blown Photoshop CSxy softproofing options are important for me.

Photoshop CSxy Plugins should be compatible.
Cloning/healing/retouching is very important for me.

I do use Photomerge. Type, Video, 3D can go. History could be simplified to, say, 20 undo steps. Bridge can go as well as the Blur gallery, Puppet Warp and Liquify. ACR can go.

Support of the PSB file format would be mandatory as well as safe as PDF (with options).

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on May 11, 2013, 04:38:20 AM
Jeff, I think that is precisely what's needed.

My specific suggestion? Content-aware fill.

Jeremy

Perhaps the Content Aware Fill could be enhanced to accommodate "plugin maps" (supplied in CAF libraries with an option to add user-definable maps and learning algorithms) and "advanced parameters" for various types of images.
Open it to add-on developers who could add value by providing their own "sub-plugins"
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ian Westcough on May 11, 2013, 04:51:23 AM
I cannot express how pleased I am that you have ventured to start this thread Jeff!

I have been using LR since its inception and think it's the best software of it's type. The last few days for me, as for many others, have been a little turbulent.
Having now calmed down from my initial knee-jerk reactions I am settled on continuing with LR5 for the time being. I have investigated the alternatives and for me, Aperture (which I have) lacks core features which I would require, Capture One seems a good option but would require another financial outlay.

I do not use PS (though I have CS3 for Pc, but I'm now using Mac). I have purchased Pixelmator but this lacks 16 bit editing which I would prefer.

It has long been my opinion that LR should include an "Edit" module for those pixel-edits not available parametrically. The stock reply to such a suggestion has always been that "there is Ps for that". My argument to this is that the Book, Web and Slideshow modules (which I have no use for, along with Maps) could be catered for by external applications.

Wether or not such pixel-edits took place within LR or were a smooth round-trip to a plug-in would not really matter to me. What I would like to be able to do is HDR merge, Panorama stitching and some relatively simple compositing, such as replacing skies in landscape shots.

Quite obviously these would require layers, masking, selection tools, refine edge etc, Quick mask, brushes, cloning and content aware fill and such like.
Support for 16 bit, channels; a good deal of this you covered pretty accurately in your initial post.

I would not need all those fancy filters, video, 3D, warping and graphic art related features though Type might prove useful.

My vision would be a sort of grown-up Elements aimed at those of us who are interested in attaining a "professional" level of quality even though photography may not be a part of our income.

A package including Lr and such a module/plugin would be my ideal work tool.

Bearing in mind that I do not like the idea of renting software, I would subscribe to a cloud version if there were to be some sort of mechanism to de-activate the cloud link and thus retain a perpetual license after an acceptable period should my circumstances change and the subscription become unaffordable. I think perhaps for many it is the thought of this which causes them to reject the cloud model.

Thanks for the opportunity to air these thoughts, Jeff.  A bold move on your part considering the terse reaction I've had to such propositions.
Hope something of this nature comes off relatively soon.

regards

Ian
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tony Jay on May 11, 2013, 05:01:03 AM
I do not have any new suggestions to add to the list.
I would however like to express my support for the intent of this thread as articulated by Jeff Schewe.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 11, 2013, 05:13:43 AM
?

While I fully agree that a redesign at the core is necessary, for both LR and PS, I do believe it should also be user-centric. That is, it shouldn't be designed around flexibility just for the sake of flexibility or machine capabilities. The difference between PS as it used to be and graphic imaging these days is the "interpreted pipeline" because graphic card processing has become the norm. i.e. your graphics card contains a far more powerful processor than your computer does. But unfortunately "interpreted" processing still sucks for most of the functions that photographers like. (blur & sharpening techniques, which are also the basis for local contrast enhancements etc).

You made some interesting points, but they actually didn't relate to what what I posted.  

I'm talking about software architecture, and specifically, the foundational elements of it.  This does not impose much in the way of user interface constraints, and opens up some powerful possibilities.  You can see these ideas at work today.  Nuke uses a dataflow architecture and is used every day in commercial production, including major motion pictures and high-end commercials.  GEGL is being developed along the same lines.  

If all one does is ask users of photoshop what they want, the scope of their imagination is limited to things that are almost like photoshop, an outdated architecture that is collapsing under the weight of its "improvements."
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 05:24:58 AM
If all one does is ask users of photoshop what they want, the scope of their imagination is limited to things that are almost like photoshop, an outdated architecture that is collapsing under the weight of its "improvements."

Which is why I am more interested in discovering the core set of tasks photographers need to accomplish rather than asking what Photoshop features are needed re se.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 11, 2013, 05:37:49 AM
Which is why I am more interested in discovering the core set of tasks photographers need to accomplish rather than asking what Photoshop features are needed re se.

More on the mark.  Again, though, look at Nuke to see what a truly generative architecture has done for stimulating the imaginations of creative producers and videographers.  With a tool like that, it's possible to seamlessly composite live images with 3D CGI models, making full use of recorded camera movements, all in video.  Image data can be split off, decomposed, and used as control inputs for generating masks on the fly, as well as being used simultaneously for image rendering.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 06:46:55 AM
More on the mark.  Again, though, look at Nuke to see what a truly generative architecture has done for stimulating the imaginations of creative producers and videographers.  With a tool like that, it's possible to seamlessly composite live images with 3D CGI models, making full use of recorded camera movements, all in video.  Image data can be split off, decomposed, and used as control inputs for generating masks on the fly, as well as being used simultaneously for image rendering.

Not trying to be dismissive, just wondering out loud: isn't there a significant difference between the number of pixels being processed? Again, the question is meant for photographers, and not videographers. Or is the convergence forcing us to rethink that paradigm as well?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 07:01:54 AM
What about this:

Do we generally want and think in terms of 1 image with adjustments?

Or do we want and think about a composition with objects (images + text) containing adjustments?

I would like to repeat the question:

Do LR users generally prefer 1 image with adjustments, or do they also think about the potential final composition?

Note that HDR, or stacks, can also be thought of as a composition. When using HDR, do people:
- want RAW stacks, and a single  RAW conversion?
- want several RAW conversions and then combine the converted images to a stack?
- don't care as long as the result is as expected?

idem for panorama "stacks"?

What about adjustment layers, do you want adjustment layers because it is equivalent to parameter adjustments?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 11, 2013, 07:07:49 AM
The reason I ask is this:

You can think of LR as some closed parametrized black-box in which you can conceive a photoshop-pixel-module,

or you can think of a photoshop image editor for which a RAW converter is a module.

If we really think about our needs, which would we prefer? (If DAM is separated entirely).



Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: davidedric on May 11, 2013, 07:32:03 AM
As a brand Newbie, directed here from another forum, just wanted to add that a "Lightroom Pro", preferably with a perpetual licence, of course, would suit me just fine.   I'll leave it to those better qualified to say what it might contain.

In effect, it is kind of the way that I work now, doing most of my editing in LR4 and handing off to PSE (not Ps), for some stuff.   Of course it would be lovely to have something like the content aware healing brush operating parametrically.

FWIW my plan for now is to upgrade to LR5 when it comes, to upgrade PSE to whatever version is around later this summer, get on with shooting and PPing, and see what happens.

Dave
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 08:57:06 AM
Jeff,

After reading through the many interesting and useful insights on this thread, I thought it perhaps worthwhile stepping back a bit to consider the matter from the perspective of general principles, for example:

(1) The current episode with Adobe is a telling illustration of why competition in markets is important. A great deal of abuse can be leveraged on the strength of incumbency without actually breaking laws, and competition is really the only effective tool we have to constrain it. So if a group of highly intelligent and well-healed people are conjuring-up the idea of expanding choice in the market place, I think this is long overdue and deserves wholehearted support from all members of the imaging community who care about such matters.

(2) We have been educated - in good part by folks such as the late Bruce Fraser, yourself, others, of the major advantages of parametric editing. Ever since the introduction of LR1, the progress of LR has been to push the "boundaries of the possible" in respect of the things one can do with images parametrically. We know this is an evolutionary process that has occupied the talents of the best mathematical, programming and design minds in the imaging business, and I for one have no knowledge or reason to believe that humankind has necessarily reached the wall in respect of this evolution.

(3) So in light of (2) above, as general guidance on the overall technological thrust of a new initiative, I would like to see it focus primarily on parametric functionality, combined with modules that can convert the image to pixels and perform pixel-based editing for those things that people consider essential and cannot be done (yet) in a parametric manner. Then, as the new application progresses, part of its "design motivation" would be to gradually eat-through those pixel-editing requirements by incrementally doing more and more parametrically.

(4) You will doubtless recall that the genesis of LR was to create an application for photographers that would shed the PS baggage photographers don't really need, and be a "simple" bare-bones photo editing application. Well, Mark Hamburg said he may have failed when he was called upon to commend us to Martin's excellent 600 page manual on the basic and creative use of LR! But of course he didn't fail. It was brilliant and still is. There is actually nothing in LR that I don't use, and by now my trips to Photoshop are truly very limited. The incentive for me to upgrade Photoshop whether on subscription or not is close to zilch. So the bar that needs to be exceeded by those creating a new application is "LR 5 and some added stuff that rounds it out". Many good ideas have been posted above on what some of those things should be.

(5) On the functional/commercial aspect of it, I think some general principles of the commercial and technical arrangements would need to be established up-front, well communicated to the potential client base, and then respected in the implementation as rigorously and for as long as circumstances permit, because TRUST is going to be a very essential core value in the success of a fledgling enterprise. I frankly don't have any druthers about whether the marketing basis would be by subscription or perpetual license, but the one fundamental aspect of it that must be respected is that if it goes the subscription route, at the end of a contracted subscription period the subscriber will have the right, even if for an added fee, to obtain a permanent license key to the last version he/she used at the end of their subscription, in order to preserve all the access and editing capability they had up to that point, so that all the work they did on those images would not be at the mercy of a process and future cost path beyond their control. This is the core sticking point with the current Adobe scheme, hence a new company marketing a new application just needs to be smart about this.

(6) Sorry - one more point - learn from the more egregious aspects of Adobe's license agreement for CC, how NOT to deal with people.

Cheers,

Mark
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gordon Buck on May 11, 2013, 09:19:20 AM
Thomas Knoll designed Photoshop over 27 years ago ...

Many thanks, Jeff.  What a good idea and thread!

It seems to me that, things being the way they are in the corporate world, all sorts of agreements and permissions are necessary between Thomas and Adobe.  Therefore, the "win-win" agreement is probably a photographer's plug-in to LR.  I like the idea as it makes sense from a corporate point of view as well as expediency.  I bet it happens.

Can a "plug-in" accept other plug-ins?

I'd like to see the new program available as both a LR plug-in and standalone version.  The LR plug-in would probably be offered first and then evolve to a standalone as well.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 09:43:27 AM
Jeff,

After reading through the many interesting and useful insights on this thread, I thought it perhaps worthwhile stepping back a bit to consider the matter from the perspective of general principles, for example:

(remainder  deleted to save space)

Mark

Mark, what a wonderful, well thought out post.

John
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 09:45:38 AM
Thanks John.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: KevinMcD on May 11, 2013, 09:47:35 AM
This is great thread to discover.  I will say that for photographers who shoot people for magazines or commercial work, the Liquify tool is a great tool to give clients photos they want.  So I will put a vote in to include a Liquify tool.  
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on May 11, 2013, 10:01:37 AM
I would like to see the rendering pipeline opened up for third party support.  I want a photo application that is not dependent on a few developers with limited resources, where we have to campaign for years for specific functionality.  If it has value then someone will invent it.  Maybe an integrated pixel editor is the step required to make this a reality.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rand47 on May 11, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
John's compilation really fits my needs perfectly:

1.  Cloning/Retouching
2.  Stitching (which would include layering?)
3.  Stacking (focus stacking)
4.  HDR Merge
5.  Creative Sharpening/Image Detailing
6.  Several mentions of the warp/transform tools
7.  Several mentions of masking/selection tools
8.  Compositing
.....there were several printing related desires, but someone else throw those in.

Rand
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: mdijb on May 11, 2013, 11:13:32 AM
The ideas here are very good but what i see as the problem is that why would ADOBE not do a LR PRO, what they are now doing to Photoshop.  Putting all our eggs in the LR basket, to have Adobe do the licensing thing again just prolongs the agony.

MDIJB
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 11:37:54 AM
The ideas here are very good but what i see as the problem is that why would ADOBE not do a LR PRO, what they are now doing to Photoshop.  Putting all our eggs in the LR basket, to have Adobe do the licensing thing again just prolongs the agony.

MDIJB

This would all be dealt-with in Reply #70 above.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ed B on May 11, 2013, 11:57:05 AM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here yet. I don't really know a lot about how software works but I am wondering if this new project will be compatible with "older" PS files that have layers? What would happen if you opened a layered psd that included some parameter that this new plugin/program does/does not have?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: BartvanderWolf on May 11, 2013, 12:01:28 PM
This would all be dealt-with in Reply #70 above.

Hi Mark,

You've made some good comments, but they may fall on deaf ears.

Before any effort can reach any level of achievability, the broken trust issue is blocking a lot of potential progress. I for one, do not suffer from the Stockholm syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome). I've stopped my activity of developing a couple of Plug-ins that I just began with. I'm seriously pissed off, not only for myself but also because of the negative effects it will have on the spin-off industry as a whole (plug-ins, tutorials, books, education, etc.).

I'm looking for some seriously credible (re)action before forking over more of my money.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kingscurate on May 11, 2013, 12:17:16 PM
As yet i have read through two pages of replies, but while i thought on, would add this. Rather than go from LR to a PS type app, incorporate it in lr next to the develop module. Seems the logical step to me, as it is the next stage of the process.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 12:45:00 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here yet. I don't really know a lot about how software works but I am wondering if this new project will be compatible with "older" PS files that have layers? What would happen if you opened a layered psd that included some parameter that this new plugin/program does/does not have?

The way it works now is that if you import a layered TIFF or PSD into LR, a flattened version comes into LR because LR cannot handle layers (not permanently flattening the original file which remains unaffected) and preserves the edits currently in the file. I would have to assume that any new application dealing with a combination of raw and rendered image files would be flexible enough to do likewise.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
The way it works now is that if you import a layered TIFF or PSD into LR, a flattened version comes into LR because LR cannot handle layers (not permanently flattening the original file which remains unaffected) and preserves the edits currently in the file. I would have to assume that any new application dealing with a combination of raw and rendered image files would be flexible enough to do likewise.

Mark, I am not sure if this is just with LR.

I did some tests last night.  Took a number of layeredTIFF, with no final flattened layer at top.  Save-as TIFF, zipped.  Both Irfanview and Qimage opened then and view was as if they were flattened....i.e. preserves the edits (that have 'eyeballs' on)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rasterdogs on May 11, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
I've just finished watching Tom Hogarty on the Scott Kelby grid demo'ing the concept of LR like features running on an iPad.
Also looked at the 2013 Adobe presentation to NAPP. I've also seen technology demonstrated of various complex applications running (quite quickly) on
powerful web servers on a range of devices running various OS's.

Mobile computing is a major inflection point in the technology world.

With the CC announcement Adobe is 'preparing the battleground'.  I fully expect that there  are more and bigger shoes to drop in the intermediate future.
In my view CC is just the beginning of where Adobe is going and just a hint of where the future may lead.
They (Winston Hendrickson) have acknowledged that they expected some controversy.  I suspect they chose to bite the bullet now in order to move on into
the future.

If they stick with pricing that many photographers find excessive and can't answer the concerns about what happens when/if folks discontinue  subscriptions I suspect some, certainly me,
will remain 'stuck' with the past paradigms.

In Julliane Kost's portion of the Adobe presentation she uses the example of the transition from film to digital in photography as an analogy for the changes coming to computing technology in the cloud and the impact on media creation.

Tom Hogarty seems open to trying to understand what photographers consider a fair pricing model as things evolve.

So with regards to LR Pro or LR with Pixel Wrangling it will most likely need to be architected to be able to support/evolve fit with the 'Cloud computing' paradigm.

If the future of LR  should suffer the same egregious pricing as the current CS model I'll stay here in the past.

There are days I regret selling my film cameras.  Good old 'creative destruction', somedays it's more than one can stand.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 01:19:01 PM
Mark, I am not sure if this is just with LR.

I did some tests last night.  Took a number of layeredTIFF, with no final flattened layer at top.  Save-as TIFF, zipped.  Both Irfanview and Qimage opened then and view was as if they were flattened....i.e. preserves the edits (that have 'eyeballs' on)

Good to know. I haven't used the other applications you mention.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 01:54:59 PM
While I am quite excited about this, I have a question.

If this direction is to be implemented, what type of timeline are we looking at. 

John
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on May 11, 2013, 02:08:44 PM
Just add the following to LR...

*Ability to stitch RAW files*

Layers, with independent sets of all the LR controls assignable to each layer.

Masks, both paintable and gradation.

Killer selection tools

Make the Arrow tool drag an RGB printout with it.

Introduce a resizable tool sort like a selection tool, with a drag-along thumbnail right above that would show the histogram of only the selected area.

etc.

PS: Hey boys and girls, lets put down all our wildest wishes here to nip potential software patents in the bud!  Prior art, etc.  Future small scale developers will thank you for it.




Bill, unfortunately patent laws are changing as we speak...they are heading towards 1st to file rather than 1st first to disclose.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ed B on May 11, 2013, 02:13:52 PM
The way it works now is that if you import a layered TIFF or PSD into LR, a flattened version comes into LR because LR cannot handle layers (not permanently flattening the original file which remains unaffected) and preserves the edits currently in the file. I would have to assume that any new application dealing with a combination of raw and rendered image files would be flexible enough to do likewise.

At a minimum, probably yes. One big issue with CC is losing the ability to access the layers if you stop subscribing. What I wonder is if the existing files layers can be made editable in this new app?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Pogo33 on May 11, 2013, 02:35:03 PM
I have been thinking of this topic for a bit and the issue I see is that there are different workflows for different people. In reading the comments in this thread, I get the impression this topic assumes a LR front end. However, being quite a committed LR person, I have been relatively surprised lately by the number of people who either have a total Photoshop workflow (ACR via Bridge and then into Photoshop) or a non Adobe raw converter (Capture One, DXO, Aperture, etc) initially and then into Photoshop. A couple of examples; the people at Photoique http://www.photique.com.au (http://www.photique.com.au) have both a Photoshop centric workflow as well as one based on Capture One. A good web site with some nice tutorials. Another example is Ming Thein http://blog.mingthein.com (http://blog.mingthein.com) again with a Photoshop centric workflow. I am sure there are a lot of others out there.

Secondly, there are a number of photographers that believe in taking there work beyond imagery and into the realm of artistic creation. For these, Photoshop is their primary tool and the raw processor, including LR is only the basic start. I am sure that all of us know of or have seen these individual's works. To realistically come up with a workable replacement for Photoshop, it would seem to me that both of these strains would need to be explored.

So, while I applaud the effort to come up with a solution that works both for Adobe and for Photographers, both by Jeff Schewe and Scott Kelby, I really think the answer lies with working out some compromise in a route to ownership. The only other solution is the option mentioned by Mark Segal and illustrates "why competition in markets is important."
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 11, 2013, 02:43:09 PM
Abandoned LR since my switch to C1/Nikon's Capture NX2 last year.  Normally, I shoot very flat image and do very minimal in RAW converters to get a very flat base image if it's flat in the first place, don't do any sharpening/noise reduction at this stage. Photoshop does most heavy-lifting. Recently, my workflow has changed from Photoshop to GIMP though I am still learning GIMP. Seems like I won't miss Photoshop much as I had expected.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 11, 2013, 02:54:05 PM
Secondly, there are a number of photographers that believe in taking there work beyond imagery and into the realm of artistic creation. For these, Photoshop is their primary tool and the raw processor, including LR is only the basic start. I am sure that all of us know of or have seen these individual's works. To realistically come up with a workable replacement for Photoshop, it would seem to me that both of these strains would need to be explored.

Exactly.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ButchM on May 11, 2013, 03:53:01 PM

If you don't want to play what if...that's fine, but I warned everybody that I would take a really hard line here...if you want to piss&moan™ about big bad Adobe, you go right ahead, but but not in this thread bud. There are plenty of other threads that have already been polluted...this one won't be. I'll report you to the moderators and you will either be banned or your posts deleted...and if you think I don't have that power and influence with Mike & Chris, I guess you are new here (with three posts to your name) but I'm deadly serious...either pitch in and contribute or go away...you have been warned.

First, I do wish to apologize for my comments earlier in this thread it wasn't the most appropriate place to do it. I am doing so freely, not because you think I am cowering in the corner paralyzed in fear. I well aware how much influence you have here, that influence doesn't concern me.

That said ... Any new type of solution along the lines you have suggested that I would even remotely consider using in place of my current version of Ps would need to include:

1. Layers with layer styles, masks, groups, Text, etc. Just as it is in Ps now ... or better.

2. Actions ... again, just as it is now in Ps.

3. Automate ... I wouldn't want to give up PK Sharpener for creative and output sharpening.

4. Quick Selection tool and Refine Selection.

4. Brushes as we know them in Ps.

5. Content Aware Fill and Healing Brush.

6. The Liquify Filter.

7. All the above in 16 bit support as well.

8. CMYK conversion

Those would cover 95% of what I accomplish in my daily tasks now.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 04:04:53 PM
...I am more interested in discovering the core set of tasks photographers need to accomplish rather than asking what Photoshop features are needed [per] se.

Jeff, I have a couple of thoughts to start out with.

1) Right now, there are many opportunities for photographers to deal with constructing a single image from multiple sources. HDR at different exposures, averaging for noise reduction, focus stacking, shifted and panned panos all come to mind. I know of no way to conveniently deal with these situations without a lot of jumping around between apps and figuring out what to do with the intermediate files, especially if you want to do more than one of these things to create your final image. It would be very nice if image processing software did more to help.

2) Lr's image processing pipeline is a black box, the inner workings of which are not visible to the user. There is no easy way to compare two or more similar ways to do something, aside from creating virtual copies and comparing them, which doesn't work well in some circumstances. It would be desirable to have the equivalent of Photoshop's layers eyeball for all operations.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: dds on May 11, 2013, 04:05:38 PM
This is a good thread. But I am (another) photographer who likes a Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow. A pumped-up Lightroom is not my dream program. Basically, I would prefer to continue using Photoshop as I have been, with a perpetual license, so I control my own future. I would pay more for it if I had to. If that option is no longer possible, I will probably have to learn Gimp or Photoline.

Why? Well, I use lots of selections, and selection-based adjustment layers on TIFF files. I prefer to do black and white conversions using a layer in Photoshop, which allows me to tweak those conversions in coordination with my other adjustment layers (like curves). I prefer to do my final sharpening and noise reduction using Photoshop plugins.

I do not like database/metadata storage of my image changes--I want them saved in my files themselves. I cringe to think of how many things in the digital world can corrupt or obsolete a whole database of all my work, backed up or not. I like Collections, but fundamentally I prefer to organize my files using date and subject folders.

Lightroom seems designed to save time for processing large numbers of images. I'm not in a hurry. I rarely do big photo shoots that require minor processing. I spend a long time on each file that I select to process and print, and usually end up revisiting that file many times. I'm not worried about disk space. What I prize is stability, conservation of data, smoothness, and fine flexible control.

I could be happy with a leaner version of Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I do not need Puppet Warp, HDR Toning, Liquify, Oil Paint, Adaptive WA, Video, most of what's in Render. I only need a simple text tool. I would also be okay with a lean program that allows more exotic features to be purchased as add-ons.

If Lightroom gained fine selection tools and adjustment layers, and kept its perpetual license, I'd probably have to take another look at it. But I'd rather not have to. Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 04:28:37 PM
How to deal with re-editability (is that even a word?) in a pixel editor?

The Ps paradigm is layers, and that's good as far as it goes, but it does have drawbacks, especially file size. If we keep that paradigm, then we need to figure out a way to make the smart objects functionality universal, even to third-party add-ons.

Another paradigm is to create an edit list, and store the original file and the edit list. Changing the image after the fact would involve editing the edit list. One problem with that is coming up with a user interface that non-programmers can manage. Another problem is the possibility of the user creating a big mess by removing an intermediate step. Lr avoids this last at the cost of loss of transparency and third party interfaces; they can't open up their image processing pipeline without losing the ability for the various modules under the covers to talk to each other and keep the user from creating a situation in which invisible intermediate actions cause visible problems.

Jim

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 04:58:17 PM
2) Lr's image processing pipeline is a black box, the inner workings of which are not visible to the user. There is no easy way to compare two or more similar ways to do something, aside from creating virtual copies and comparing them, which doesn't work well in some circumstances. It would be desirable to have the equivalent of Photoshop's layers eyeball for all operations.

That's what I use LR/ACR Snapshots for...and you can even use snapshots in the before/after mode. It does get a bit tedious when you want to make changes to multiple snapshots at one time but I'll make the tweek on one then make a temporary preset using only the subsetting I want to propagate to the other snapshots. You can also use snapshots for adding new iterations to VCs...when you add a snapshot to a VC, it is also added to the mast image.

Quote
1) Right now, there are many opportunities for photographers to deal with constructing a single image from multiple sources. HDR at different exposures, averaging for noise reduction, focus stacking, shifted and panned panos all come to mind. I know of no way to conveniently deal with these situations without a lot of jumping around between apps and figuring out what to do with the intermediate files, especially if you want to do more than one of these things to create your final image. It would be very nice if image processing software did more to help.

Yep, for sure...although you can see that the concept of an external editor in Lightroom can accomplish a lot efficiently. The Photomatix plug-in is an example. Yes, you have to go from LR to Photomatix and setup the HDR image, but that same 32-bit image is then brought back into LR to LR tone mapping. I could envision that process all taking place within a module inside of LR. Same deal for stitching and focus brackeing. Same deal possibly for head swaps or sky replacements.

It would also be useful to do these sort of tasks in an automated manner...same you have 10 sets of 3-5 shot brackets that all needed the same base HDR treatment, it would be useful to tag the exposure sets and have the 32-bit files auto generated and brought back into LR for tone processing.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 05:02:58 PM
That's what I use LR/ACR Snapshots for...and you can even use snapshots in the before/after mode. It does get a bit tedious when you want to make changes to multiple snapshots at one time but I'll make the tweek on one then make a temporary preset using only the subsetting I want to propagate to the other snapshots. You can also use snapshots for adding new iterations to VCs...when you add a snapshot to a VC, it is also added to the mast image.

Good idea, Jeff.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 05:03:07 PM
I'm seriously pissed off, not only for myself but also because of the negative effects it will have on the spin-off industry as a whole (plug-ins, tutorials, books, education, etc.).

And you have every right to express that anger–elsewhere.

I've asked people to concentrate on what features and functionality a replacement for Photoshop would need to have is it were to be redesigned from scratch.

If you want to discuss the industry impact on the spin-off industry I would be happy to engage if you start your own topic about it. But that discussion is off topic here.

Please, start your own topic....as a plug-in developer and author myself, I have some concerns myself and it would be a worthy discussion.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 05:13:52 PM
It would also be useful to do these sort of tasks in an automated manner...same you have 10 sets of 3-5 shot brackets that all needed the same base HDR treatment, it would be useful to tag the exposure sets and have the 32-bit files auto generated and brought back into LR for tone processing.

And have Lr know, and make it obvious to the user, which raw files generated which 32-bit untonemapped files, and which of those files were the source of each of the tonemapped variations. And be able to go back at any point in the chain and make a change and have it propagate forward from there automagically as a set of alternates. Take a single exposure out of a HDR processed stack, or add one in, and have a brand-new toonemapped image appear. Same with a pano. Same with a HDR/pano.

We're dreaming here, right?

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 05:19:22 PM
Another paradigm is to create an edit list, and store the original file and the edit list. Changing the image after the fact would involve editing the edit list. One problem with that is coming up with a user interface that non-programmers can manage.

Have you ever used Live Picture? LP was ground breaking for it's time in that you placed images (in a FITs file format) into an LP project file and the onscreen presentations were essentially proxies (although Kai Krause always bristled at that term). You could put a bunch of images into LP, composite, mask, rotate, resize, distort, blend, retouch (which was kinda limited but arguably better that LR's).

And, it didn't matter if the placed images were 4MB, 40MB or 400MB in size...working inside of LP was immediate and fluid and fast. You could rotate a 400MB image in real time–which considering it was running an a Mac Quadra 950 with 64MBs of ram was amazing...

The other interesting aspect of LR was that if two remote workers had the same FIT files for the LP image, the LP file itself was small. Not as tiny as a .xmp file, but a couple of MBs. That smaller file could be exchanged back and forth and two people could be working together over the phone and work out the final image.

Then once finished, you would take the LP file, the FITs files and render a build image. Since all the work done inside of LP was resolution independent, you could scale a build large or small for final output. The final rendered files could be 8-bit or 16-bit (which in the days of Photoshop 3.0 were impossible to do.

Alas, the former Apple CEO John Scully took over Live Picture and turned it away from imaging to an internet technology and it went bust. The assets of LP are owned by some Canadian company.

But, the concept combining a parametric edit with a pixel base edit decision list could be interesting...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 05:21:09 PM
It would also be useful to do these sort of tasks in an automated manner...same you have 10 sets of 3-5 shot brackets that all needed the same base HDR treatment, it would be useful to tag the exposure sets and have the 32-bit files auto generated and brought back into LR for tone processing.

That brings up the idea of more batch operations in general. In making the Staccato (http://www.kasson.com/galleries/staccato.php) series, I created thousands of 8 to 30-image composites. Wouldn't it have been nice if I could have made some stacks in Lr, told Lr to have Ps create layers for each image in each stack and save each stack's worth of layers as a .psd file. Then I could go to bed and it would be done in the morning.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 11, 2013, 05:25:28 PM
Have you ever used Live Picture?

Yes, I have, but only at trade show demos. Some thought that the need for a program like that would go away when computers got fast enough that working on a big image wasn't "double-click and go for coffee", but the idea of changing the edit list makes it still appealing.

And now computers are fast enough that the rendering won't take forever.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 05:34:17 PM
We're dreaming here, right?

Yep...but, per aspera ad astra (or a rough translation, through aspirations, to the stars)

There's some stuff I know that I can't say...but let me tease with this...this thread will be a treasure trove for some enterprising engineers or two to mine the gems that photographers need. This thread wasn't a conspiracy, but completely serendipitous...and there's no fixed time frame (that I'm aware of) but a strong desire to keep advancing the art. The only hint I can give, is they are very, very bright boys (and girls).

:~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 11, 2013, 06:23:28 PM
Here's a feature I haven't seen mentioned yet:

Tabs.  Or multiple image windows.  There has to be some mechanism for us to have more than one image open and "in progress" at a time.

I'm also gonna re-mention that Bridge and ACR are integral parts of lots of people's workflows, so dropping them or forcing people to use ACR via Lightroom is probably not wise.  My own workflow is Bridge > ACR [> TIFF > Zerene Stacker] > Photoshop > PSD > final output.  I don't want to start in LR, I don't want to finish in LR, and I don't want to jump back and forth between LR and PS because LR can do X but PS can't.  That last one is kinda important: once I have an image in Photoshop I don't the distraction of switching programs and editing styles simply because Uprights is in LR so Perspective correction isn't available in Photoshop.

There are also lots of people who don't use LR, ACR, or any other raw processor.  Handicapping them would be wrong.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Joe S on May 11, 2013, 06:36:57 PM
This is a good thread. But I am (another) photographer who likes a Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow. A pumped-up Lightroom is not my dream program. Basically, I would prefer to continue using Photoshop as I have been, with a perpetual license, so I control my own future. I would pay more for it if I had to. If that option is no longer possible, I will probably have to learn Gimp or Photoline.

Why? Well, I use lots of selections, and selection-based adjustment layers on TIFF files. I prefer to do black and white conversions using a layer in Photoshop, which allows me to tweak those conversions in coordination with my other adjustment layers (like curves). I prefer to do my final sharpening and noise reduction using Photoshop plugins.

I do not like database/metadata storage of my image changes--I want them saved in my files themselves. I cringe to think of how many things in the digital world can corrupt or obsolete a whole database of all my work, backed up or not. I like Collections, but fundamentally I prefer to organize my files using date and subject folders.

Lightroom seems designed to save time for processing large numbers of images. I'm not in a hurry. I rarely do big photo shoots that require minor processing. I spend a long time on each file that I select to process and print, and usually end up revisiting that file many times. I'm not worried about disk space. What I prize is stability, conservation of data, smoothness, and fine flexible control.

I could be happy with a leaner version of Bridge/ACR/Photoshop.


I agree and hope that consideration will be given to this option...perhaps a pumped up version of photoshop elements would work for all.    Adobe might even view this as exposing new customers to a basic version of photoshop and getting some of them to move to a more complex (and expensive) program down the road.

It is interesting that adobe doesn't regard photoshop as a program for photographers.   The word photoshop has even become a commonly used verb.  Most of the world thinks of photoshop as a program for photographs even if adobe doesn't.    I would think that hanging on to and continuing to add to that legacy has to have value to a corporation.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: David Sutton on May 11, 2013, 06:45:12 PM
I am getting a little off topic, but I want to say how happy I have been with Lightroom's marketing method. If I go to Adobe.com to buy it I get put through to Adobe NZ or somewhere, and pay very roughly a similar price to the US one with the exchange rate factored in. Or I can wait for Adobe to offer a downloadable special, and I also get that reduced price here. Or I can buy a hard copy from an overseas shop, or wait for a once or twice yearly sale in the US and get it then.
I hope a PS replacement would follow a similar model. This is a important for a widespread take-up of the software. Lots of folks can't afford to pay the sort money the full PS cost, but can afford plug-ins, lessons, books and workshops over time. Every so often I run free LR workshops for the photo society I belong to, and it has been a surprise to see how many people come along, think it over for six months, wait another six months for a special, and then buy and use the software. Then religiously upgrade every time a new version comes out.
I have nothing against Gimp or PaintShop Pro or whatever, but I think folks need to have access to the industry standard if they want to. Having a standard at a manageable price lifts the game for everybody and pushes us all along.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 06:45:52 PM
Here's a feature I haven't seen mentioned yet:

Tabs.  Or multiple image windows.  There has to be some mechanism for us to have more than one image open and "in progress" at a time.

I'm also gonna re-mention that Bridge and ACR are integral parts of lots of people's workflows, so dropping them or forcing people to use ACR via Lightroom is probably not wise.  My own workflow is Bridge > ACR [> TIFF > Zerene Stacker] > Photoshop > PSD > final output.  I don't want to start in LR, I don't want to finish in LR, and I don't want to jump back and forth between LR and PS because LR can do X but PS can't.  That last one is kinda important: once I have an image in Photoshop I don't the distraction of switching programs and editing styles simply because Uprights is in LR so Perspective correction isn't available in Photoshop.

There are also lots of people who don't use LR, ACR, or any other raw processor.  Handicapping them would be wrong.

OK, let's unpack this a bit. First, the Develop engines of LR and ACR are essentially the same thing - by design. Second, sending an image to PS for edits that can't be done in LR and then finishing it in LR, say for printing or web gallery creation is seamless, because LR will create a virtual copy of the edits you did in Photoshop, on top of which you can do anything else you want in LR. Just to say, the whole business of moving around between parametric and pixel-based editing has become pretty smooth and flexible, and in future it could most likely become more so. Hence the fear-factor of adapting one's workflow to the relative merits of these applications should dissipate. I suspect that's part of the idea.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on May 11, 2013, 07:00:53 PM
I would like an intuitive way to adjust the lighting in a scene.  For example, turn a drab, flat lighting into strong side light with the right color and shading.  I can do this now in photoshop but it is a ton of work.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 11, 2013, 07:08:26 PM
OK, let's unpack this a bit. First, the Develop engines of LR and ACR are essentially the same thing - by design. Second, sending an image to PS for edits that can't be done in LR and then finishing it in LR, say for printing or web gallery creation is seamless, because LR will create a virtual copy of the edits you did in Photoshop, on top of which you can do anything else you want in LR. Just to say, the whole business of moving around between parametric and pixel-based editing has become pretty smooth and flexible, and in future it could most likely become more so. Hence the fear-factor of adapting one's workflow to the relative merits of these applications should dissipate. I suspect that's part of the idea.

I am aware that ACR is the core of LR.  It doesn't change the fact that I don't want the Lightroom interface.  Or the catalog.  Or the fact that switching from one program to another is not seamless.  Going from parametric editing to pixel editing can be seamless (you can do it in Photoshop--adjustment layers and brushes, for isntance), but hopping from program to program is not.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Michael Schoenfeld on May 11, 2013, 07:21:48 PM
Live Picture..... ah, I remember it well.

xRes was another swing at that same basic paradigm. We as photographers trying to scratch out a living, got over their demise. I am perfectly happy to use the software Adobe CC provides, find a new Adobe/Knoll/Chan pixel editor "lite" for everything not parametric/Lightroom, or, find a "plan B" if needed. I realized yesterday that Lynda.com costs me monthly ($25) for replacing a constant need to purchase books/learning that become outdated fast. Nobody seems to get upset at that. Yes, I still bought the last two books you authored Jeff - worth every penny.

I am also happy to report that after 3 days of testing, Mr. Reichmann appears to be spot on with his description of Adobe's CC authorize/de-authorize plan.
My laptop is always going to be authorized; and any of the five other machines I use can be authorized/de-authorized at will - very simple, and no hitches in my testing so far.
Think about it. If for some weird reason I was in a client's office, without my laptop, but with a card reader, I could set up PS CC on their machine and authorize it to my account, do whatever work I needed to do, and then de-authorize their machine. That's pretty cool.
Jeff, kudos to you for moving this conversation forward in a constructive way. My respect.
Oddly, I must add that three days before Adobe's announcement, I was seriously thinking about my CS4 to CS6 Version of After Effects - I was trying to figure out which two machines I would authorize when this came about. Now it will run on ALL of my machines - very cool. And, I was looking for a replacement for iWeb (don't laugh, I built my website all by my little self with it, and I didn't even break a sweat), and I have to say Muse looks pretty damn good - it's design centric, without any coding required. Don't have to use Flash unless you want to either.

Michael Schoenfeld
www.michaelschoenfeld.com
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
Live Picture..... ah, I remember it well.

xRes was another swing at that same basic paradigm. We as photographers trying to scratch out a living, got over their demise.

At one time I was beta testing Live Picture, xRes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromedia_xRes) and Photoshop all at the same time...and each company knew I was testing the other's software. I never broke my NDA to any of them–obviously I could have but then the company I broke it to wouldn't have been able to trust me not to do the same thing to the others. But, it did put me in the unique position of knowing pretty much everything the others were doing. It also made my informed opinions pretty useful :~)

LP was really something special but never got developed properly. When the price was dropped from $3,499 to $299 to $99 the desire to commit dev resources floundered and it died on the vine.

Kai Krause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Krause) of MetaCreation was also working on a project code named Amazon that incorporated the concept of different rooms in an enclosing structure (software mind you) that would be task based...one of Kai's UI designers was Phil Clevenger. Phil worked on several apps that would have been part of the the Amazon framework like Soap.

(http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/shadowland/soap-splash.jpg)
Soap splash screen 1998.

(http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/shadowland/Soup-ui.jpg)
The desktop view of the browser.

So, when Mark Hamburg started working on Lightroom (aka Shadowland) Mark went hunting for Phil to have Phil do the LR UI. Here's the backstory in Lightroom (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/). And yes, Phil went dark with the LR UI :~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 08:16:17 PM
OK, let's unpack this a bit. First, the Develop engines of LR and ACR are essentially the same thing - by design. Second, sending an image to PS for edits that can't be done in LR and then finishing it in LR, say for printing or web gallery creation is seamless, because LR will create a virtual copy of the edits you did in Photoshop, on top of which you can do anything else you want in LR. Just to say, the whole business of moving around between parametric and pixel-based editing has become pretty smooth and flexible, and in future it could most likely become more so. Hence the fear-factor of adapting one's workflow to the relative merits of these applications should dissipate. I suspect that's part of the idea.

Mark,

I am sure you know what is going on...and understand where you were heading, but I was a bit confuse by your use of the term "virtual copy" for the edits done in Photoshop.

When saving the PS work, it shows up as a TIF in my catalog (actually store in my folder organization).  Subsequent LR edits, including virtual copies if you create them, are stored in the catalog.  At your option, the LR edit metadata can be stored in the TIF (including the VC info)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Michael Schoenfeld on May 11, 2013, 08:21:49 PM
The closest I've come to "three at once" was working for all three behemoth healthcare orgs in the intermountain west at the same time (still kinda do actually) - I  have to figure out how to keep each client's look and feel "different", and better than their competitions. Makes me crazy but I love it.
Sure would love to unwind some stories with you over a pint or two.

I bought LP when it was $299. I also miss Kai's stuff - one brilliant dude.

Michael Schoenfeld
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
.........  Going from parametric editing to pixel editing can be seamless................., but hopping from program to program is not.

Well "obik", I do this often enough that I just don't agree with you on that point, but the fact that users such as yourself find it painful is important data for any group who may be working on new ideas to know about. It could be useful to describe the specific respects in which the present workflow options appear troublesome to you.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 08:34:55 PM
Mark,

I am sure you know what is going on...and understand where you were heading, but I was a bit confuse by your use of the term "virtual copy" for the edits done in Photoshop.

When saving the PS work, it shows up as a TIF in my catalog (actually store in my folder organization).  Subsequent LR edits, including virtual copies if you create them, are stored in the catalog.  At your option, the LR edit metadata can be stored in the TIF (including the VC info)

Correct, I was thinking more of the new thumbnail you get in Lightroom just after you trigger "Edit in......." > "Edit a copy with LR adjustments". You then get transported directly into PS. Do whatever you need to do there, and as soon as you save the image and revert to LR, you are taken immediately into the NEW image in the LR catalog to continue working on it, and all those edits are stored in the metadata. The new file has the name "Edit" in it by default so we know what we're dealing with. All in all pretty cool functionality.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 11, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Well "obik", I do this often enough that I just don't agree with you on that point, but the fact that users such as yourself find it painful is important data for any group who may be working on new ideas to know about. It could be useful to describe the specific respects in which the present workflow options appear troublesome to you.

Mark, I'm glad the LR>PS and back dance works for you, but my statement about it not being seamless is factual, whether you agree with it or not.

Unless the changeover is invisible and requires no effort beyond what changing tools does, it's not seamless.  Going from PS to LR changes your UI and your toolset, and even tools that do the same thing in LR and PS behave differently in each program.  Additionally, you lose the ability to see and edit what you've done in PS unless you go back to PS.  Changing from a brush to an adjustment layer and back in PS is seamless.  Changing from a brushed adjustment to a global adjustment and back in LR (or ACR) is also seamless.  Changing from PS to LR/ACR and back is not.

edit: And that probably came off more argumentative than it should've.  Sorry.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 11, 2013, 09:00:29 PM
Correct, I was thinking more of the new thumbnail you get in Lightroom just after you trigger "Edit in......." > "Edit a copy with LR adjustments". You then get transported directly into PS. Do whatever you need to do there, and as soon as you save the image and revert to LR, you are taken immediately into the NEW image in the LR catalog to continue working on it, and all those edits are stored in the metadata. The new file has the name "Edit" in it by default so we know what we're dealing with. All in all pretty cool functionality.

I wondered about that thumbnail, but never spent time to figure out.

Pure assumption at this point....when one edits a copy with "LR adjustments", I assume (based on you preferences) a TIFF is actually create, stored in your folder, then opened in PS (or other LR friendly app)....then when saved from PS, PS overwrites the original copy.  

If you open in PS and use ACR to render...i.e. either the LR and ACR versions are the same or you selected 'open anyway', no TIFF is created.  It is only created when PS saves it

I just did some quick tests.  Assume they were correct, this confirmed what I said above.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 11, 2013, 09:20:32 PM
Mark, I'm glad the LR>PS and back dance works for you, but my statement about it not being seamless is factual, whether you agree with it or not.

Unless the changeover is invisible and requires no effort beyond what changing tools does, it's not seamless.  Going from PS to LR changes your UI and your toolset, and even tools that do the same thing in LR and PS behave differently in each program.  Additionally, you lose the ability to see and edit what you've done in PS unless you go back to PS.  Changing from a brush to an adjustment layer and back in PS is seamless.  Changing from a brushed adjustment to a global adjustment and back in LR (or ACR) is also seamless.  Changing from PS to LR/ACR and back is not.

edit: And that probably came off more argumentative than it should've.  Sorry.

No it's fine - all in the interest of understanding; so this boils down essentially to how one defines "seamlessness", which in turn relates to one's expectations. Good to see where you are coming from.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rick Popham on May 11, 2013, 10:13:28 PM
I love this.  Jeff, this thread is like a clean wind blowing away all the smog.  Thanks, man.

Like many others here, I'm mostly using LR these days.  But this is what I go to Photoshop for:

Precise cloning/healing
Adjustment layers (using masks and brushes to apply them as needed)
Selection tools
Stitching
Stacking
HDR
Text
Plug ins 
LAB
Compositing 

I'm sure there are some that have slipped my mind, but other posters have probably covered them.  Ed B. brought up compatibility with our existing layered PSD files -- that would be great.

Jeff, I remember you mentioning that the Photoshop team had "Lightroom Envy".  Now it looks like they may want to act on it.  I can hardly wait to see what they come up with.
Thanks again.



Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tuthill on May 11, 2013, 10:15:50 PM
No it's fine - all in the interest of understanding; so this boils down essentially to how one defines "seamlessness", which in turn relates to one's expectations. Good to see where you are coming from.

I agree with the OP and would like to see the process made more seamless by utilizing a new module within Lightroom.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 11, 2013, 10:27:40 PM
But, the concept combining a parametric edit with a pixel base edit decision list could be interesting...

No kidding.  Sounds like the best of both worlds.  Bring it on.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: KevinMcD on May 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Unless the changeover is invisible and requires no effort beyond what changing tools does, it's not seamless.  Going from PS to LR changes your UI and your toolset, and even tools that do the same thing in LR and PS behave differently in each program.  Additionally, you lose the ability to see and edit what you've done in PS unless you go back to PS.  Changing from a brush to an adjustment layer and back in PS is seamless.  Changing from a brushed adjustment to a global adjustment and back in LR (or ACR) is also seamless.  Changing from PS to LR/ACR and back is not.

edit: And that probably came off more argumentative than it should've.  Sorry.

I agree with Obik's thinking on this as well.  For this reason I would also start my workflow with ACR and move onto Photoshop.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rasterdogs on May 11, 2013, 11:27:32 PM
I agree with the OP and would like to see the process made more seamless by utilizing a new module within Lightroom.

I'm in this boat too. 
The varying concepts illustrate how varying all of our workflows are.

From my point of view I'm imagining LR as the 'foundation' for the added functions.

I'm also convinced that the 'proxy' approach will be important in the intermediate future.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 11, 2013, 11:59:32 PM
I'm also convinced that the 'proxy' approach will be important in the intermediate future.

Along those lines, one of the new LR5 features are called Smart Previews (which is marketing BS for Proxy DNGs) that allow you to build Smart Previews and work on proxies of the original while on the road. Once you go back to your studio workstation, those adjustments can be synced back to your original LR catalog of your original images.

This is really just the tip of the spear...more functionality to come in the future.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 12, 2013, 12:02:20 AM
If it were to exist as another module in Lr, how do you do that cleanly?  The RAW will have to be converted to a tiff (or something) I suppose just by clicking the module at the top of the screen?  I see the potential for a lot of miscues with that (clicking module by mistake, having MANY images selected, etc. ). That is assuming Lr is laid out much as it is currently. I think I would prefer a more direct action before I create any TIFF files from RAW. I'd rather explicitly make that choice. I suppose you could have the module enabled only upon the selection of a suitable format for pixel editing, but I also believe you are back to two steps to get there.... One to create the file, one to access the editor.  Other than interface I don't see how that improves over the current method of using the context menu.

The current UI for Lr is a basic menu bar at the top with what you see dependent upon that choice.  In many ways it operates as a tab control although visually different. From a technical standpoint there isn't a huge difference between that and opening a new pop up window, which makes more sense to me.  I WANT it to do something a little different when I go to pixel based editing.  Then again that's the perspective from someone who uses Lr as a main editor with Ps utilized as an add on.

If my workflow was currently ACR/Ps I'd probably just stay with Exactly that workflow. Why change to a piece of software that from a feature standpoint would be less capable than what you are already using?. For someone with a primarily Lr workflow things like bridge and ACR redundant and basically...not needed.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 12:14:40 AM
If it were to exist as another module in Lr, how do you do that cleanly?  The RAW will have to be converted to a tiff (or something) I suppose just by clicking the module at the top of the screen?

At this point, I wouldn't be overly concerned...we're blue skying now. If/when it would happen I suspect that there would be a specific series of steps that would need to be done to go from parametric to pixel editing. But it could/should all be able to be done inside of LR proper without having to do an Edit In command-go to the pixel editor than have to go back to LR.

Whether this is a different module or a semi-modal state that allows all the features needed for pixel editing, I don't know yet. That the fun of this blue sky dreaming...you aren't really constrained by anything :~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 12, 2013, 12:22:09 AM
At this point, I wouldn't be overly concerned...we're blue skying now. If/when it would happen I suspect that there would be a specific series of steps that would need to be done to go from parametric to pixel editing. But it could/should all be able to be done inside of LR proper without having to do an Edit In command-go to the pixel editor than have to go back to LR.

Whether this is a different module or a semi-modal state that allows all the features needed for pixel editing, I don't know yet. That the fun of this blue sky dreaming...you aren't really constrained by anything :~)

I know, and I'm not particularly concerned.  It's just that, well...  I've developed software, and things like I posed above are some of the issues you have to contend with.  It has to be easy and intuitive but..as much as possible idiot proof.   I've spent hours thinking of all the ways someone might "do the wrong thing"  at a critical step in a process...  And early on thought "NO one would actually do that" only to find out, yes they well as well as some things you wouldn't have dreamed of...then look at you accusingly and ask why you let them. :). I guess the thought process is habit.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 12, 2013, 12:31:13 AM
And while we're blue skying, this is how I'd like to deal with layers, smart objects, and smart transforms.

Smart filters and transformations that behave like clipped layers (each with their own mask), smart objects that unfurl like folders do with clipped layers beneath them, blending information visible and changeable next to every layer (or as a little flyout if there's not enough room), and highlighting to indicate that the layers within the smart object have been rendered out and cannot be modified without having to re-render the smart object.

(http://dementlieu.com/users/obik/fpics/ui.jpg)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 12:36:32 AM
And while we're blue skying, this is how I'd like to deal with layers, smart objects, and smart transforms.

Ignoring for a moment the how, can you give me the what & why? If you could end up with what you want, is the how all that important? Yes, you would have to learn how to do things in a new manner, is that an unmovable barrier?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 12, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
Ignoring for a moment the how, can you give me the what & why? If you could end up with what you want, is the how all that important? Yes, you would have to learn how to do things in a new manner, is that an unmovable barrier?

I thought we were all throwing out ideas for what we'd like to see in a Photoshop replacement.  That is exactly what I'd like to see.  Sensible, hierarchical, and instantly eye-ball readable handling of layers (or whatever the alternative is), adjustment layers (or whatever the alternative is), smart objects (or whatever the alternative is), and blending options (or whatever the alternative is).

It would've taken me hundreds of words to articulate the kind of instantly readable simplicity I want.  A picture was faster.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 01:05:19 AM
I thought we were all throwing out ideas for what we'd like to see in a Photoshop replacement.  That is exactly what I'd like to see.  Sensible, hierarchical, and instantly eye-ball readable handling of layers (or whatever the alternative is), adjustment layers (or whatever the alternative is), smart objects (or whatever the alternative is), and blending options (or whatever the alternative is).

It would've taken me hundreds of words to articulate the kind of instantly readable simplicity I want.  A picture was faster.

But everything you've mentioned is based upon a Photoshop layers paradigm...what I'm asking is what do you want to accomplish and why?

Forget for a moment you've ever used Photoshop and you don't know what a layer or adjustment layer is...but presume you could use a some sort of selection or a mask.

What is the intended result of you final layer stack (it would be useful to show a before/after image.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on May 12, 2013, 01:07:53 AM
I thought we were all throwing out ideas for what we'd like to see in a Photoshop replacement.  That is exactly what I'd like to see.  Sensible, hierarchical, and instantly eye-ball readable handling of layers (or whatever the alternative is), adjustment layers (or whatever the alternative is), smart objects (or whatever the alternative is), and blending options (or whatever the alternative is).

It would've taken me hundreds of words to articulate the kind of instantly readable simplicity I want.  A picture was faster.

Maybe faster to make. But slower to comprehend.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 12, 2013, 01:22:10 AM
But everything you've mentioned is based upon a Photoshop layers paradigm...what I'm asking is what do you want to accomplish and why?

It's not layer dependent.  I just used layers because screenshots of the CS6 layer pallet was the easiest way to sketch it out.  We need a way to visualize our adjustments, layers, and masks, and how they relate to each other...and my sketch is the kind of simple and instantly readable thing I want.  The exact same thing could be done with a node and path or flowchart style visualization, and probably with any other visualization scheme you can come up with.

Quote
Forget for a moment you've ever used Photoshop and you don't know what a layer or adjustment layer is...but presume you could use a some sort of selection or a mask.

How do I see the object the mask is attached to?  How do I see the object the mask is revealing?  How do I see the mask itself?  How do I see all these things at once?

Quote
What is the intended result of you final layer stack (it would be useful to show a before/after image.

It honestly doesn't matter, but that set of layers is a 32 bit hand-blended HDR with exposure adjustments (that sky bands like crazy if you even touch it in 16 bit mode) converted to 16 bits, then sharpened and the foreground given a contrast boost with a curve.  If you really want a before and after, I'll supply it, though I'm not sure A) what it will contribute to the thread and B) why my sketch has prompted this testy exchange in the first place.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 12, 2013, 01:23:47 AM
Maybe faster to make. But slower to comprehend.

Possibly, for which I'll happily take the blame.  I just figured a picture with a sentence or two of explanation would be less ambiguous than a paragraph or two about how I think objects relationships should be shown.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 01:28:19 AM
If you really want a before and after, I'll supply it, though I'm not sure A) what it will contribute to the thread and B) why my sketch has prompted this testy exchange in the first place.

What I'm trying to understand is what you started with and what you ended up with and why...and if you thought my response was "testy" it wasn't. Sorry if you thought that but if you reread what I asked, I would have a hard time understanding why you think I'm being testy. Make no mistake, I can be testy, but this wasn't me trying to be testy.

:~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: obik on May 12, 2013, 01:31:23 AM
What I'm trying to understand is what you started with and what you ended up with and why...and if you thought my response was "testy" it wasn't. Sorry if you thought that but if you reread what I asked, I would have a hard time understanding why you think I'm being testy. Make no mistake, I can be testy, but this wasn't me trying to be testy.

:~)

Sorry, it's easy to read false emotion into what people write, and I just got the feeling you were entering Schewebacca mode.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: wolfnowl on May 12, 2013, 01:47:52 AM
Wow.  I've been away for a couple of days and just read all 7 pages of this thread.  I see a lot of overlap with what people are asking for, and I agree with the majority of it as far as what I'd want/need.  A 'Lightroom Pro' would be a great idea. I'd buy it.

I mentioned this in another thread elsewhere yesterday, but when the M8 came out people quickly realized there were moiré issues.  Leica went 'Oops' and did their best to offer a solution.  It wasn't perfect but it was something, and the M9 was better, but that quick response showed a level of integrity and dedication to their customers.  So thanks, Jeff for starting this thread, and all those who have contributed to it, and to Eric, Thomas and whomever might be involved in creating such a product.

Mike.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 02:24:07 AM
So thanks, Jeff for starting this thread, and all those who have contributed to it, and to Eric, Thomas and whomever might be involved in creating such a product.

Just to be clear, this is a blue sky dream session...there are no guarantees anything will come of this. The main reason I thought this thread would be useful is because it's at this time that photographers are looking at their needs and wants and trying to decide whether or not to adopt this new model or go looking for a different direction. So, if enough photographers decide to jump ship, somebody (be it Thomas & Eric or others) will expand to fill the gaps.

In terms of bootstrapping a whole new pixel editing app will, of course be a time consuming, difficult proposition...but I suspect somebody will be there to take up the slack.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Wayland on May 12, 2013, 02:38:05 AM
Can I throw another perspective into the melting pot?

I work a lot with museums and there is a long term concern with archivists that digital output from photography could well become the "lost generation" in the future.

Quite apart from the dangers of millions of images residing on hard drives that may not be readable in the future, a huge problem exists in finding a truely archival image format.

DNG was a step forward for Raw files and in theory TIFF should be the same for edited files but the current state of affairs is the TIFFs written from Photoshop seem to embed a PSD within them that is not fully supported by other software.

This will be a huge problem in the future.

Imagine if the world no longer had the ability to look at the pictures of Fox Talbot, Ansel Adams or Diane Arbus et. al. just because nobody could open their files.

I want a program that preserves all my data, including my working methods, in a form that is easily transportable even beyond the life cycle of photographers and software companies.

You asked for blue sky...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: JRSmit on May 12, 2013, 03:56:07 AM
Impressive, i had no opportunity to respond any sooner, but Jeff, good action! Most of the functional needs are covered, from my pojnt of view more than i personally need, but if i take into account the functional needs of  participants of my lightroom courses, or photogs i happen to know, it (more than) covers it. Including a few additional functionality in LR itself such as those mentioned by Mark Segal. One thing i would add is that its user interface should follow the concept of the lr user interface. This is one of those features of LR is that it is consistent across the modules within LR, and one accustomed is a real strength. Quite a few participants have decided to stop using PS as their primary photo development tool and use LR instead as it is more appropriate for photo's and more time efficient especially when dealing with (large) series of images. But then discovering on certain occasions that they miss a particular function that is present in PS. So in essence a pixelmodule seamlessly integrated into the LR concept, which can be purchased separately.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: s4e on May 12, 2013, 05:04:55 AM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).
This is a very good idea Jeff  ::) With this concept you can as you suggest skip functionallity that is allready well covered in LR. You can also design the user interface so it's easier to understand then today with two very different UI concepts like we have to day... Skip ARC of course - no need to duplicate this.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 08:27:03 AM

DNG was a step forward for Raw files and in theory TIFF should be the same for edited files but the current state of affairs is the TIFFs written from Photoshop seem to embed a PSD within them that is not fully supported by other software.



I am not sure what you were saying about PSD embeded in TIFFs.  Could you explain more?  And how this effects us?

I did some tests with layered TIFFs saved from Photoshop.  The TIFFs were zipped.  The reason for the test was to see if I also would need to save flattened TIFFs for future access to my end product.

Initially I tried Irfanview and Qimage Ultimate.  Qimage for printing, Irfanview a viewer.  Both had no problem.

I later tried Faststone Viewer.  It failed to open them.  I tried unzipped and LZW compressed, which both opened with Faststone.  I found out via Google that this was probably the result of Faststone using an older version of TIFF viewing....which, I guess, could esily be updated.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 09:21:29 AM
Just to be clear, this is a blue sky dream session...there are no guarantees anything will come of this. The main reason I thought this thread would be useful is because it's at this time that photographers are looking at their needs and wants and trying to decide whether or not to adopt this new model or go looking for a different direction. So, if enough photographers decide to jump ship, somebody (be it Thomas & Eric or others) will expand to fill the gaps.

In terms of bootstrapping a whole new pixel editing app will, of course be a time consuming, difficult proposition...but I suspect somebody will be there to take up the slack.

I have been muling over concerns, many of which you allude to here....which is why I asked about "timeline" in an earlier, unanswered, post.

This AM, I was planning to open a new thread to address this, but since you have brought it up here, I will post my thoughts and concerns.  At your request, I will be glad to move it to a separate thread.

I have already praised this thread.  It shows us that there ARE people in Adobe who care about photographers....but, ya know....we knew that....we have all have had dealings (limited granted) with Thomas and Eric and know what they are like.

We have also seen that "Type A" personalities can, if they want, keep the dialog reasonable and controlled(something I had already decided was needed by me and plan to continue in my personal posts).

THE PROBLEM is that, for now, this does really not change anything.  As Jeff says, it is 'Blue sky".

There is no promise or commitment that Adobe will approve or fund this well intentioned work effort.

This effort will no help us to make our own personal decisions on how we deal with CC....it's pricing and the risks of eventual/possible loss of use of the code.

If I remember correctly, statements have been made in print and interviews where LR function was going to move more toward CC, including release of new function to the LR CC version, which may not be updated in the perpetually licensed version.

I mention all this not to be disruptive.  I would love for this thread to result in an ongoing, committed, funded Adobe work effort.  If Adobe does approve it, let's be honest, it will not be here quickly....it will take years to implement...just like the  paradigm changing Lightroom took years.

If Adobe decides to support this project, they could better retain their existing customers by creating a "Photographer Package" today, with a direction statement on how it would be changed over time.

The initial 'package' could be a bundling of Photoshop CC and Lightroom "CC".  There should be a 'Statement of Direction" for the work effort concepts coming out of this thread....this gives a strong feeling of the corporations support and commitment, but with out any specific legal remedies if it does not complete as stated (IBM did this many times).

Further, Adobe should work out a CC offering, for photographers, which will alleviate fears of future loss of whatever code they were using at the time.  My thoughts would be that after 'X' months of subscription of the combined PS/LR bundle, the subscriber could stop, but continue using it, but with no future upgrades. The term of 'X' would be for current users of PS CS3-CS6.  Others would be 'X' + 'Y' months.

The "deal" could include a caveat, that over time...when 'Lightroom PRO' becomes a working reality, the PS/LR package will be discontinued....and replaced with just LR Pro (which will have grown within the package over years).  Those wishing to continue use of PS CC (because they want function, such as graphics/upgrades) will be able to convert to the "regular" PS CC offering.

Anyway, just my thoughts on ways to retain customers and assist the "blue sky" effort to succeed, which would be win-win for us all.

John
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Wayland on May 12, 2013, 09:38:33 AM
I am not sure what you were saying about PSD embeded in TIFFs.  Could you explain more?  And how this effects us?

I did some tests with layered TIFFs saved from Photoshop.  The TIFFs were zipped.  The reason for the test was to see if I also would need to save flattened TIFFs for future access to my end product.

Initially I tried Irfanview and Qimage Ultimate.  Qimage for printing, Irfanview a viewer.  Both had no problem.

I later tried Faststone Viewer.  It failed to open them.  I tried unzipped and LZW compressed, which both opened with Faststone.  I found out via Google that this was probably the result of Faststone using an older version of TIFF viewing....which, I guess, could esily be updated.

I don't want to bog down this thread but here is the answer to an enquiry I made on the Photoline Forum:

Quote from: Gerhard Huber
Quote from: Wayland
I have a couple of questions which I will ask as my exploration continues but possibly the most important for me is, wether are there any plans to improve the level of support for layered TIFFs in the near future?
PhotoLine has full support for layerd TIFFs.
What you mean, I think, is Photoshop-TIFF support. It doesn't save layered TIFFs, but includes a full PSD inside the TIFF.
We don't support this at the moment.

Gerhard


The upshot is that Photoline will open a PS layered TIFF as a flattened image only. This seems to be the case with other programs I have tried as well. Although you can still access your final image, all your careful production work, for example creating detailed masks that you may have wanted to use again, is lost.

A layered TIFF as written by Photoshop is not as archival as I once believed.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 12, 2013, 09:44:39 AM
Can I throw another perspective into the melting pot?

I work a lot with museums and there is a long term concern with archivists that digital output from photography could well become the "lost generation" in the future.

Quite apart from the dangers of millions of images residing on hard drives that may not be readable in the future, a huge problem exists in finding a truely archival image format.

DNG was a step forward for Raw files and in theory TIFF should be the same for edited files but the current state of affairs is the TIFFs written from Photoshop seem to embed a PSD within them that is not fully supported by other software.

This will be a huge problem in the future.

Imagine if the world no longer had the ability to look at the pictures of Fox Talbot, Ansel Adams or Diane Arbus et. al. just because nobody could open their files.

I want a program that preserves all my data, including my working methods, in a form that is easily transportable even beyond the life cycle of photographers and software companies.

You asked for blue sky...

Gary, to me the issue you are raising is not blue-sky - it is a very practical matter that Adobe has brought to the fore with the new licensing policy. The generic issue is who owns the proprietary file formats and will we always have access to the software that can open them. The advantage of TIFF is that eventhough Adobe owns it, it is essentially "open-source" for all practical purposes and many applications can use it, so one is not beholden to one company's policies over which one has no control. So I think any new software being designed must include the capability to render into TIFF, but preferably as well to use a raw format that truly is open, along with a reader, the license for which is perpetual so that the license holder will never be at the mercy of a corporate policy change when it comes to opening their raw files.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 10:08:50 AM
I don't want to bog down this thread but here is the answer to an enquiry I made on the Photoline Forum:
PhotoLine has full support for layerd TIFFs.
What you mean, I think, is Photoshop-TIFF support. It doesn't save layered TIFFs, but includes a full PSD inside the TIFF.
We don't support this at the moment.

Gerhard

The upshot is that Photoline will open a PS layered TIFF as a flattened image only. This seems to be the case with other programs I have tried as well. Although you can still access your final image, all your careful production work, for example creating detailed masks that you may have wanted to use again, is lost.

A layered TIFF as written by Photoshop is not as archival as I once believed.

OK....now I understand..

I was talking about the layered TIFF being able to be view/printed as a flattened TIFF....which most (updated) software can to.

You were talking about being able to view and manipulate the layers....which you and Photoline called "PSD". 

I see the reality in this new world that the best we will get is the fattened view (even if unflatted, layered file).  Adobe owns (or has purchased the rights to ) the algorithms used in the layers.  I do not see them being available to outside software creators.

This, I think, is the crux of the concern with PS CC.  The potential loss of ability to revisit our work-in-progress, which created the final image, and be able to easily reinterpret it.  Our only choice is to attempt to modify the flattened TIFF, which we all know is usually not successful.  Or, completely restart with the RAW. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: dchew on May 12, 2013, 10:38:25 AM
I would be a big fan of the "LR plug-in" approach.  If I envision future LR's that continue to add incremental features like better selections, text additions, masking and (maybe) layers, then the only real hole to fill is image blending.  Stitching for panos (Photoshop-like) and focus blending (Helicon Focus-like).

Hehe:  Adobe, just go and license Helicon Focus like you did with Pixel Genius, then add to it Photoshop's stitching capability as a LR plug-in.

Dave

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 12, 2013, 11:17:51 AM
Quite apart from the dangers of millions of images residing on hard drives that may not be readable in the future, a huge problem exists in finding a truely archival image format.

Trust me, I'm not being flippant here.  This long-term storage problem is already addressed by Epson, Canon and HP.  So far, the only truly archival backup is a print. If it's only machine readable, not human readable, then at some time in the future that data is vulnerable to loss.  I'm sure many of us have data that's inaccessible because of the storage medium, not the file structure.  Got any data on Zip disks?  Bernoulli drives?  Tape? Floppies?  A possible option would be some kind of a desktop film recorder, but I'm not holding my breath for that.



Back to the problem at hand:

I'd love to see a more user-configurable interface.  The colour choices available within LR are a good first step, as are "workspaces" but since all of us use software in different ways, It'd be good if we could have lots of control of both workflow and on-screen appearance of the software.

Which leads me to add a nice-to-have (but not must-have) to my list for a Simplified Pixel Editor for Photographers.  Scripting and Actions.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: RetSurfer on May 12, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
I hope you don’t mind a hobbyist adding something here.

First, thank you Jeff for starting this thread.  As for me there were aspects to the new CC that appealed to me, namely additions to the programs as the creative team came up with them instead of waiting the 18 to 24 months upgrade cycle, also the “sync” ability to different platforms.

I’m a businessman who is about to pull the trigger on implementing Office 365 throughout my company. As such, I see similarities with what Adobe is doing. Being able to be live on my work station, home computer, tablet and phone is pushing me into the 21st century, at least that’s the way I perceive it.

I know the above analogy is different because mainly Office 365 is geared toward a collaborative workflow but I do see possibilities for a photographer on location using a tablet to edit the parameters of a shoot live instead of remembering later what the scene looked like when downloading to the main workstation. Or the ability of a pro when presenting his work to make small edits on his tablet at the presentation and it is synced when he gets back to his workstation.

Hopefully this is not too far off this topic but I do see the cloud as the future of all computing.

Mark
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 12, 2013, 11:36:03 AM
Oh, I just remembered something else I'ld like in the "Blue Sky" Photoshop.

All or most of the tools mentioned that would normally be accessed in the menu bar be placed in an uncluttered narrow vertical/horizontal palette list similar to ACR/LR UI. It's already done with some PS filters but the dialog boxes and listing arrangements waste a lot of UI real estate. See below the screenshot of CS3 PS "Reticulation" filter dialog box just as an example on how not to design a dialog box.

And make the dialog boxes that open when clicking on the name within the listing be of reasonable size kind of along the lines of Levels and Smart Sharpen.

Oh...And you can get rid of all those filter choices listed in that Reticulation screengrab.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 12, 2013, 12:07:22 PM
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=78240.0;attach=81026;image)

Wasted space? Oh No! What if you need to zoom in to see the effects?

You can collapse the filter panel if you need more space. No?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 12, 2013, 01:09:02 PM
First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces. One thing I like about it is that the fact that I'm going into Photoshop makes it clear to me that I am about to start editing pixels. To me it is vitally impotant to know exactly when I am editing parametrically and when I'm editing pixels. Thus, I prefer the idea of a sort of "Photoshop Light" that is separate but easy to get into and back from, to the addition of a new module to LR (unless the new module forces some conspicuous visible change, like a purple border around the screen with the legend "Editing Pixels" in yellow!)

Eric M.


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 12, 2013, 01:16:06 PM
First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces.

Eric M.


+1, as I do it daily with no issues.

That said, in a new application configuration, to the extent it can be further improved to take account of various peoples' issues with it, so much the better. I have no programming expertise whatsoever but I would imagine that if one were starting at the drawing board, either an omnibus application or two inter-related ones pose the same kind of factors that would need to be addressed.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 12, 2013, 01:36:43 PM
First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces. One thing I like about it is that the fact that I'm going into Photoshop makes it clear to me that I am about to start editing pixels. To me it is vitally impotant to know exactly when I am editing parametrically and when I'm editing pixels. Thus, I prefer the idea of a sort of "Photoshop Light" that is separate but easy to get into and back from, to the addition of a new module to LR (unless the new module forces some conspicuous visible change, like a purple border around the screen with the legend "Editing Pixels" in yellow!)

Eric M.




I agree, and this was I tried to express in my post yesterday evening. The switch to pixel editing should be very clear and explicit.  More so than just switching panels in Lr in my opinion.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: sma shooter on May 12, 2013, 01:44:19 PM
Jeff, many thanks for originating this thread. I have been impressed by the thoughtful and specific replies. I agree with many suggestions, and would probably never have thought of many more. My only request is that the Photoshop Type tool NOT be deleted from your proposed Photoshop for Photographers. I have found it very useful to combine photos and type in PS for contact sheets, promotional materials, and other documents, and I would hate to see it disappear. Thanks!

Jim Quinn
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: s4e on May 12, 2013, 02:07:09 PM
Start with the basic and improve in the comming version to make sure you can offer something not to far ahead. Keep link to Photoshop from LR as an option because you it's not possible to offer everything in this plugin.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 12, 2013, 02:13:26 PM
Gulag, the whole point of this thread is to create a version of Photoshop that is used by photographers, not photo illustrationists which is what you showed in your use of that "style" of filter. You still have to rummage through that nested dropdown filter menu system to find it.

Get rid of the Filter menu way of accessing tools is my main gist here. It's a clunky way of quickly getting to the tool a photographer needs. I can't even remember where specific filters are located or their name and their effect much less visualize in my mind how it will improve the image.

I'm for decreasing all the "options" clutter and simplify the UI implementing a simple, yet small floating dialog box interface that can be collapsed vertically or horizontally and/or moved around easily.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 12, 2013, 02:21:45 PM
Gulag, the whole point of this thread is to create a version of Photoshop that is used by photographers, not photo illustrationists which is what you showed in your use of that "style" of filter. You still have to rummage through that nested dropdown filter menu system to find it.

Get rid of the Filter menu way of accessing tools is my main gist here. It's a clunky way of quickly getting to the tool a photographer needs. I can't even remember where specific filters are located or their name and their effect much less visualize in my mind how it will improve the image.

I'm for decreasing all the "options" clutter and simplify the UI implementing a simple, yet small floating dialog box interface that can be collapsed vertically or horizontally and/or moved around easily.

It seems to me there are at least two types of photographers, one calls himself technician, the other artist.Don't you think each type needs his own kind of Photoshop interface and tool set? One Size Fits All?

Besides, the current Photoshop's interface and menu system are highly customizable. If one doesn't want to see any menu item that he doesn't use, he can simply turn its visibility off. He can also assign keyboard shortcut to any menu item for speedier workflow if he's not mouse person.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 12, 2013, 02:29:33 PM
It seems to me there are at least two types of photographers, one calls himself technician, the other artist.Don't you think each type needs his own kind of Photoshop interface and tool set? One Size Fits All?

Doesn't Elements have a bunch of those graphical effects filters?

In fact now that I thought of Elements, I don't see why Elements couldn't be tweaked by adding the features mentioned in this thread and include the full version of ACR and a stripped down and simplified type Bridge image browser with keywording and EXIF embedding and "Image Processor..." for quick downsizing and converting to sRGB for web uploading.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 12, 2013, 02:39:04 PM
Quote
Besides, the current Photoshop's interface and menu system are highly customizable. If one doesn't want to see any menu item that he doesn't use, he can simply turn its visibility off. He can also assign keyboard shortcut to any menu item for speedier workflow if he's not mouse person.

Again, TOO MUCH CLUTTERED OPTIONS AND CUSTOMIZATION features that can get erased with a "Reset Preferences To Default" routine OR corrupted.

That kind of GUI options clutter turns photo editing into a game boy video experience with all these keyboard action shortcut routines to turn that on, that off, hit the tab/shift, tab/control for this and that. It just makes photo editing a nerve wracking experience trying to remember all that CRAP!

It's a photo, not an arts and crafts project! Use Corel for that.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: NikoJorj on May 12, 2013, 03:23:20 PM
LR is really, really close now except the progressive sharpening routine, which needs pixels to blend into itself if you catch the drift.

With a better masking capability, all the dodging/burning and sculpting could be done in Lightroom. Clarity is midtone contrast, but with a fixed 100 pixel radius, so LR Pro would need the ability to modify the base radius locally.
I don't know if I add much to the discussion stating that but I'd add another vote for just adding a few things to LR - mainly compositiong (panorama*, HDR, focus stacking, and may be elements removal à la "Statistics").
These are the only reason I fired PS in the past year, I think. I personally don't use much pixel editing, partly because I do it worse than parametric ones, partly due to the file size and time penalty involved.

* for panorama stitching, please at least add a module to interactively choose perspective and projection before actual stitching to the photomerge routines! A toll to add control points as in more full-featured stitchers as Hugin or PTGui would be nice, but is less necessary.



BTW, how is it that this progressive sharpening routine can't be parametrically replicated? I'd think that all is needed is a convoluted (but fixed) point spread function for the blur mask?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
I’m a businessman who is about to pull the trigger on implementing Office 365 throughout my company. As such, I see similarities with what Adobe is doing. Being able to be live on my work station, home computer, tablet and phone is pushing me into the 21st century, at least that’s the way I perceive it.

Availability might be an issue. (http://www.kasson.com/bleeding_edge/?p=438)

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 03:58:18 PM
I had to send a fellow photographer a layered .psd file today that ran to almost half a GB. It got me thinking about the way I'd like to see an edit-list centric pixel editor work.

1) work with a full-res version of the image, not a small proxy so you can zoom in as tightly as you want.
2) continue the layers paradigm, with the order of operations visible to the user.
3) save the base image in the file
4) save the final image in the file
5) save the edit list in the file, and/or in a separate file.
6) optionally, save all the intermediate layers as smart objects to make the file (maybe) faster to open.
7) optionally, discard the intermediate layers when saving the file (archive mode). They can be constructed later from the edit list, if desired.
eight) have the container application, like Lr, convert files to archive form according to rules (age, size, stars, etc) generated by the user.
9) have the container application keep track of the files that led to the image, if the base layer is not a single raw file.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 12, 2013, 04:05:18 PM
BTW, how is it that this progressive sharpening routine can't be parametrically replicated? I'd think that all is needed is a convoluted (but fixed) point spread function for the blur mask?

If you follow the logic of progressive sharpening, you would see that each step in the progression depends on the previous results. So, as you work from high amount/low radius to lower amount/high radius the final result is an accumulated result. That's what would make is more difficult to do just in parameters. Not impossible, but definitely more difficult.

That's really the dividing line between parametric and pixel editing. Pixel editing can be done with parameters such as using Adjustment Layers or Smart Filters in Photoshop. Parametric editing can do a lot of edits but if the edits get too complicated–such as adding spot healing, adjustment brush, noise reduction on top of lens corrections or distortion correction, the parametric editor gets bogged down.

So, at some point it's more efficient to simply move out of the parametric realm and into the pixel edit realm. That move should be seamless and integrated. Right now, it's not. Take for example the ability to open an image from Lightroom with Open as a Smart Object in Photoshop. The image in Photoshop retains parametric editing possibilities using the SO version of ACR. But any changes to the raw image inside of Photoshop are essentially lost to the original raw image still in Lightroom.

Also, at this point, to edit the raw parameters in the SO, you need to go into the SO ACR. What if editing the raw SO could be done back in the LR Develop module? That way you still have parametric editing to the original while building pixel editing on top.

Yes, if you change the underlying parameters, any rasterized pixel data gets disconnected...but all this is stuff that can be worked on to simplify and streamline the process. Look at all the things you can already do to a raw SO in Photoshop...You can use Color Range and the other Photoshop centric selection tools, you can use Smart Filters–done on top of the raw SO which means changing the raw parameters get auto updated to the Smart Filter. You have access to the channels, you can make paths. You can composite multiple raw SOs using layer masks. You can do a lot of stuff without having to rasterize the raw SO.

Yes, at the point you want to do things like extensive retouching, you have to get to and manipulate the actual pixels which requires rasterizing...but that's a problem in workflow that could be worked on to streamline and improve. You already have that problem working with Photoshop pixel layers anyway...I work around that by doing an option merged visible. But yes, that does break the chain.

These are all things that could be worked on.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Wayland on May 12, 2013, 04:09:56 PM
Very sensible ideas Jim.

Trust me, I'm not being flippant here.  This long-term storage problem is already addressed by Epson, Canon and HP.  So far, the only truly archival backup is a print. If it's only machine readable, not human readable, then at some time in the future that data is vulnerable to loss.  I'm sure many of us have data that's inaccessible because of the storage medium, not the file structure.  Got any data on Zip disks?  Bernoulli drives?  Tape? Floppies?  A possible option would be some kind of a desktop film recorder, but I'm not holding my breath for that.<Snip

Carrying data forward from technology to technology is not all that difficult, it just needs you to remain systematic. I also have machines in storage that can read original data going right back to 5¼ inch floppies if required although the oldest active storage media I currently have is DVD. Everything else has been migrated forward.

For my current work I have two machines that will not be updated beyond the current OS so CS6 should remain able to keep my back catalogue accessible for the foreseeable future. I also collect critical spares from friends as they upgrade their equipment. I won't be touching CC with a long bargepole though.

In terms of this "blue sky project" It would be good to see a program that could write files in a truly open and widely supported format as this is potentially a clean slate moment.

A time to do things as they should be, not just as they happen to have been done in the past. A challenge perhaps but "they are very, very bright boys (and girls)"
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 04:14:32 PM
If you follow the logic of progressive sharpening, you would see that each step in the progression depends on the previous results. So, as you work from high amount/low radius to lower amount/high radius the final result is an accumulated result. That's what would make is more difficult to do just in parameters. Not impossible, but definitely more difficult.

Jeff,

Thresholding and other fanciness excluded, passing a filter kernal over an image is a linear operation. Thus, with the exception of roundoff errors due to limited precision, the order of operations is not significant. Indeed, a single kernal can be generated which will perform the same work as a progression of kernals applied sequentially.

There are nonlinear filters available in Ps, but your example is unsharp masking, which is linear.

The above is just a quibble. I agree totally with the rest of your post, and think it is important.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 04:26:41 PM
I had to send a fellow photographer a layered .psd file today that ran to almost half a GB. It got me thinking about the way I'd like to see an edit-list centric pixel editor work.

If file size weren't so important, the way it is in Ps today, all intermediate operations could be performed in high-precision floating point. Indeed, if the source color space were monitor-based, so we had a model-based color space conversion algorithm available to us, they could be performed in a common color space a la Lr. That would eliminate the confusing way that different color shifts occur when performing the same operation on images in different color spaces.

There would have to be an easy way for the photographer to check for intermediate operation clipping.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 04:32:55 PM
Let's make sure we don't lose one thing. With Ps, it's easy to turn off all processing. You can bring a color-managed image into Ps and the colors are right. With Lr, not so much. If it thinks the image is scene-referenced, it applies a set of default changes, and, in the case of 32-bit floating point TIFFs, there seems to be no way to turn that off.

Any new pixel editor should, by default, not change colors.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Dan Glynhampton on May 12, 2013, 04:45:20 PM
There are really only a couple of things in the past year that have required me to pass an image from LR for some pixel editing:

1.  Cloning out distractions that are beyond the spot healing brush capabilities. Although LR5 looks to be moving in the right direction with the spot healing brush I'm sure there will still be occasions when it will be necessary to make a round trip to PS/PSE.

2. In chapter 5 of Jeff's The Digital Negative he identifies that one of the things he does in PS is "Blue Edge Fix", where complementary colours tend to blend into white along edges. I've encountered this a few times myself and it's a tedious job to clone them out, so it would be great to see that addressed in the "blue sky" application. (Although it occurs to me that it might be possible to fix that with similar techniques to the chromatic aberration controls introduced in LR 4.0/4.1, now that would be cool.)

Whilst those two things would get my top votes, there are some excellent suggestions in this thread that I'm sure I would find a use for if they were ever to be implemented  :)

Dan
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on May 12, 2013, 05:31:30 PM

2. In chapter 5 of Jeff's The Digital Negative he identifies that one of the things he does in PS is "Blue Edge Fix", where complementary colours tend to blend into white along edges. I've encountered this a few times myself and it's a tedious job to clone them out, so it would be great to see that addressed in the "blue sky" application. (Although it occurs to me that it might be possible to fix that with similar techniques to the chromatic aberration controls introduced in LR 4.0/4.1, now that would be cool.)

That would be extremely cool.  I notice similar artifacts resulting from radical BW conversions.  Dark skies frequently generate a white boundary along the horizon.  If this can be addressed by the same technique as CA removal in LR, I'd be stoked.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 12, 2013, 06:16:29 PM
Again, TOO MUCH CLUTTERED OPTIONS AND CUSTOMIZATION features that can get erased with a "Reset Preferences To Default" routine OR corrupted.

That kind of GUI options clutter turns photo editing into a game boy video experience with all these keyboard action shortcut routines to turn that on, that off, hit the tab/shift, tab/control for this and that. It just makes photo editing a nerve wracking experience trying to remember all that CRAP!
 

That doesn't sound like a power user, at least to my ears. It's each user's call, after all, whether or not to become a so-called Power User. By the way, the interface workspace and menu customizations can be saved in descriptive names of your choice. They can be recalled even if you reset back to default, or moved to different machines.  


It's a photo, not an arts and crafts project! Use Corel for that.

Now I can understand where you stand philosophically with photography. To some, photographer is a technician/machine operator,  and photography itself is just a matter of truthful reproduction/recording of what the machine views, which can be particularly so in product commercial photography for consumer products. But, to some others, that might not be the ultimate goal. Whether or not one wants to adopt Photoshop or something else for post production is up to each individual to decide.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: GeraldB on May 12, 2013, 06:16:46 PM
Great topic Jeff, time for renewal and transformation.

My workflow requests in order of priority

1 - local adjustments aka adjustment layers and masks
2 - removal of stuff I don't want aka cloning, the more content aware the better
3 - compositing aka selection
4 - Shaping the image aka warping, liquify, cropping etc
5 - Access to 3rd party plugins e.g. topaz, nik ...
6 - Blur/sharpen/noise (some of these I use 3rd party plugins)
7 - Text

I always start in Lightroom with global adjustiments, and end in lightroom for printing or web upload.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on May 12, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
I am curious as to what part of photoshop CS6 any would want to give up?  Is it the functionality or the UI?  I just took a reminder tour through CS6 and the only things I found that I do not use on occasion are the slice tool, vector masks, video layers, some filters, pixel aspect ratio and some text warping.  However, I can see most of these been useful to some photographers.

I'm not seeing much functionality I would want to give up, so I'm thinking more along the lines of a seamless integration of parametric and pixel editing as described by Jeff.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 08:12:18 PM
...the only things I found that I do not use on occasion are the slice tool, vector masks, video layers, some filters, pixel aspect ratio and some text warping.

I could give all those up, too, but we might disagree on which filters are superfluous. I use mostly blurring and sharpening. I never warp text.

I'd like everything to work on 32-bit floating point files and layers, but I know that's gonna take time. 32b FP is where 16-bit integer support was many years ago.

Jim

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 12, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
Any new pixel editor should, by default, not change colors.

Including, when changing from one color space to another with a different white point with the "absolute" box checked, not saying, "He couldn't possibly have meant that; I'll do what he meant."

This isn't so much about utility, it's about who's in charge, the user or the program.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: wolfnowl on May 12, 2013, 08:55:38 PM
Just to be clear, this is a blue sky dream session...there are no guarantees anything will come of this. <snip>
In terms of bootstrapping a whole new pixel editing app will, of course be a time consuming, difficult proposition...but I suspect somebody will be there to take up the slack.

I appreciate that fact.  At the same time, such 'blue sky' thinking led to Lightroom, led to the Hy6 camera and others.  Blue sky thinking led to the formation of Kickstarter/ indiegogo, etc.

So my appreciations stand!  ;D

Mike.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 12, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
I don't know guys (and ladies).  I've just finished "catching up" with this thread, was out of town for most of the weekend.  A lot of what I'm seeing is well... Photoshop.  Seems if you compiled everything someone has mentioned you would essentially have the same piece of software that exists now...maybe it would be cleaner, perhaps work in a different way, but would still essentially be Photoshop for all practical purposes.  If that's the case, I ask again.. why not use what's there now?

That is not suggesting that I don't believe this thread or the brainstorming session doesn't have merit.  I think it has a LOT of merit.  Before this thread was started I stated as much.  There exists I believe, a huge market for a piece of software, in whatever form.. that does the basic things that photographers use Photoshop for now.  More lightweight than Photoshop, almost certainly cheaper than Photoshop, and with a little luck.. accomplishes those particular tasks more efficiently. 

Photoshop is a huge investment for many people (financially), especially hobbyists.  I myself resisted the Photoshop "plunge" for many years.  I just didn't see the bang for the buck value for those few things I use it for...despite being able to afford it easily enough.  Assuming some group of people (Adobe or not) picks up this project and runs with it and then builds in everything any "photographer" could possibly want to do.. it seems to me you end up right where we are now, and you miss a significant part of the market because it ends up being very expensive....just like Photoshop.

Consider the success of Lightroom and ask, why has it been successful?  One, it does 98% of what a PHOTOGRAPHER needs to do, all in one package.  In fact if you look at photography in a traditional sense (think film days) I can't think of anything it can't do and it actually allows you to do much more with a digital image than you could have done using film only.  Two, it is AFFORDABLE for a much wider group of people in comparison to ACR/Ps.

I understand this is all blue sky and brainstorming, but still there has to be a limit, or a scope of what photographers really need where a pixel editor is concerned.  Where is that line, or balance, between what is being envisioned here and saying...well, you are still going to need Photoshop for that.  I know where it would be in my opinion, and I also know that is a much different line from what others feel.  If you consider the 2% that Lightroom is not capable of now (covering 98% of needs currently as an assumption), then design a product that covers 90% or more of that remaining 2%.... you have something that is both marketable from a capability standpoint, a pricing standpoint, and puts Lightroom significantly ahead of the competition when you consider the features of the overall package.

Sure, some of the people in this thread would STILL need Photoshop, but the majority would not.  The ones that still do, I suspect are the same people that prefer an ACR/Ps workflow anyway.

Now I will dodge the stones. :)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 13, 2013, 12:27:37 AM
Photoshop is a huge investment for many people (financially), especially hobbyists.  I myself resisted the Photoshop "plunge" for many years.  I just didn't see the bang for the buck value for those few things I use it for...despite being able to afford it easily enough.  Assuming some group of people (Adobe or not) picks up this project and runs with it and then builds in everything any "photographer" could possibly want to do.. it seems to me you end up right where we are now, and you miss a significant part of the market because it ends up being very expensive....just like Photoshop.

Sure, some of the people in this thread would STILL need Photoshop, but the majority would not.  The ones that still do, I suspect are the same people that prefer an ACR/Ps workflow anyway.


Photoshop CS2 can be downloaded for free from Adobe's website. I still use CS2 on my laptop, and I feel there aren't any features that are in CS6 can make CS2 useless to my needs. What I don't really understand is why there are so many don't want to learn it and just want to push buttons using some third-party plugins/filters/actions. IF one truly knows the power of Photoshop, he won't go back to LR unless he's a machine-gunner who shoots 8,000 images per event. LR or ACR is just a child's toy compared to those industry tools that are available in Photoshop.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Morris Taub on May 13, 2013, 12:49:21 AM
Thomas Knoll designed Photoshop over 27 years ago for a very different time and technology and user base well before digital cameras and printers. But, Photoshop evolved over the years to be everything for everybody...so, if Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?

If you were to imagine an app that would be more than Elements, but less than Photoshop in terms of functionality, exactly what do you think it would need to have as a minimum feature set?

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?

So, leaving those items in as assumptions, what else in Photoshop could you live without?


Personally would want all you list plus definitely smart objects, brushes, type, cmyk, history, and scripts. Color conversions very important. Ability to use plug-ins (third party). I'd be a happy camper.

So, are Thomas and Eric going to break out and start a new company?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 13, 2013, 12:49:44 AM
Photoshop CS2 can be downloaded for free from Adobe's website. I still use CS2 on my laptop, and I feel there aren't any features that are in CS6 can make CS2 useless to my needs. What I don't really understand is why there are so many don't want to learn it and just want to push buttons using some third-party plugins/filters/actions.

I'm aware that CS2 is available, but I'm apparently missing your point.  if something "new" is going to be developed, why make what is essentially a different version of Photoshop?  Some of the same capabilities certainly, primarily those that actual photographers go to Photoshop to perform.  Again I don't know where the line should be set most effectively, but I know if I were setting it for my personal use, what I would "keep" out of Photoshop would be very minimal really.  I just don't NEED the rest of those tools, and rarely use the ones that I do want.  I can do what I need to do in Lightroom, well over 99% of the time.  The only exceptions being stitching, HDR (which I only play with occasionally), cloning, and possibly some creative sharpening.

I would gladly pay for a piece of software that covered just those items.  I would gladly pay for a piece of software that covered those, as well as other basic needs many photographers use but I personally don't (I saw model photographers mentioning the use of liquefy for example).  If on the other hand, it is going to do almost everything Photoshop does now.. I think you have two issues.  One, it would compete with Photoshop, and two.. would give up some affordability.  In either of those cases... I might as well stay with Photoshop.

I have no point of reference regarding your other statement.  Are you implying that those using third party plug-ins are doing so because they don't want to learn Photoshop?  That may be true, I have no idea.  Perhaps you have personal experience that leads you to that belief, but it seems to be a pretty large and general assumption to me.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: daws on May 13, 2013, 12:50:29 AM
...A lot of what I'm seeing is well... Photoshop. Seems if you compiled everything someone has mentioned you would essentially have the same piece of software that exists now...maybe it would be cleaner, perhaps work in a different way, but would still essentially be Photoshop for all practical purposes.  If that's the case, I ask again.. why not use what's there now?

I very much want to. I have used Photoshop for 18 years, from v3.0 to CS6. Beyond that, sadly, Adobe's new business model makes it impossible for me to use future versions.

My hope is that by the time CS6 becomes impractical for me, the marketplace will have evolved non-Adobe applications which, individually or in combination with other non-Adobe applications, will accomplish sufficient of the functions suggested in this thread for me to purchase them.




Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 13, 2013, 12:55:20 AM
LR or ACR is just a child's toy compared to those industry tools that are available in Photoshop.


I just saw this statement, and have to say I totally disagree with it.  It MIGHT be true if you want to manipulate an image heavily, in fact I would say it is true in that instance.  If you are a PHOTOGRAPHER however, that generally wants what the camera sees as your image...then it doesn't apply.

I know how to use both, and have used both. I use Lightroom because it does the things I want to do...more efficiently.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 13, 2013, 12:57:04 AM
I very much want to. I have for 18 years, from v3.0 to CS6. Beyond that, sadly, Adobe's new business model makes  it impossible for me to use future versions of their products.

My hope is that by the time CS6 becomes impractical for me, the marketplace will have evolved applications which, individually or in combination with other applications, will accomplish sufficient of the functions suggested in this thread for me to purchase them.






I hear you on this issue, I'm not a fan of the new direction either.  I probably should have qualified what I said as being from a performance standpoint and not taking into account recent events.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Kirk Gittings on May 13, 2013, 01:39:26 AM
I just saw this statement, and have to say I totally disagree with it.  It MIGHT be true if you want to manipulate an image heavily, in fact I would say it is true in that instance.  If you are a PHOTOGRAPHER however, that generally wants what the camera sees as your image...then it doesn't apply.

I know how to use both, and have used both. I use Lightroom because it does the things I want to do...more efficiently.

This is a joke right? You are going to define what a PHOTOGRAPHER is for the rest of us? Who appointed you guru? Ever seen a straight print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise"? One of the most famous photographs in history-by your definition he's not a photographer because he manipulated the crap out of it. Ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann, a very important figure in the history of PHOTOGRAPHY?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: JRSmit on May 13, 2013, 02:21:04 AM
This is a joke right? You are going to define what a PHOTOGRAPHER is for the rest of us? Who appointed you guru? Ever seen a straight print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise"? One of the most famous photographs in history-by your definition he's not a photographer because he manipulated the crap out of it. Ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann, a very important figure in the history of PHOTOGRAPHY?
John may have worded it not to your liking. he however tried to differentiate between people that make illustrations and people that work on their photo to finalise it to something they aim for. As such he has a point. And yes ansel adams heavily manipulated the famous moonrise, and onthers, while printing from the negative. So does litterally  that is taking or making photos. by default because his camera does it, or on purpose because he develops it in his application of choice.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 13, 2013, 02:39:35 AM
Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).
I am not sure that I see the distinction between "pixel processing" and "parametric processing". Sure, I understand that Photoshop and Lightroom are different, and I understand that using integer pixel coordinates is somewhat differentl from using a normalized floatingpoint coordinate system. But what is the fundamental limit stopping Lightroom from doing whatever Photoshop does?

I would think that the biggest obstacle is UI clutter. If Lightroom is to do everything that Photoshop does, its GUI would probably become more complex. That would make it less appealing to me. The art seems to be to offer just the right features, in a sufficiently manageable package that it fits its target audience. By limiting itself to raw still photographers, Lightroom does not have to support 3-d animation or advanced fonts or whatever.

If that means moving more complex image editing into a plugin (or a "plugin"), then I am all for it.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 13, 2013, 03:11:33 AM
I am not sure that I see the distinction between "pixel processing" and "parametric processing".

I think this is a crucial distinction and if you don't understand, then that's an issue. To be clear, everything ACR/LR does is only an adjustment of the parameters for a particular control–you can go back into that control and alter it at any time. And, also important to understand, the order the user works in is irrelevant to the order that the parameters are processed.

Compare that to pixel edits where editing the pixels result in a different result after the correction. It implies edits are destructive (and they are unless you use Adjustment Layers). The more you edit pixels the more they fall apart because, well rounding errors and reductions in precision tend to accumulate...

So, bottom line: you want to stay parametric right up to the point where parametric breaks down because of too much parametric data and move into a pixel based edit–where more edits will generally result in less optimal results.

You must grok this...right? A raw file's scene refereed data .xmp settings can be changed ad infinitum (meaning forever) but an output scene referred file degenerates with edits & iterations...

Look at this way...for raw files, as time goes bye, raw processing seems to get better. From the standpoint of rendered image files, the more you edit, the less precise you images become. Will it obliterate you images making them useless? Nope, but is asked, I would say it steps on your image quality potential.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Pascoe on May 13, 2013, 04:27:46 AM
This is a joke right? You are going to define what a PHOTOGRAPHER is for the rest of us? Who appointed you guru? Ever seen a straight print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise"? One of the most famous photographs in history-by your definition he's not a photographer because he manipulated the crap out of it. Ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann, a very important figure in the history of PHOTOGRAPHY?

Kirk, I think you have to read the post as a response to another post, and not just in isolation.  John quite clearly states that he uses PS and LR, and that of course some photographs need Photoshop.  However the point is that PS was not designed for Photographers, and the vast majority of Photographs do not need a heavyweight like PS.  Of course SOME photographers use PS heavily, and I think John appreciates this.
One more thing, do we need to bring Ansel Adams into this?  I know of Godwins Law regarding how long it takes before the name Hitler appears in a thread.  Ansel seems to be in the same boat.  Don't get me wrong, he was actually my inspiration to start taking my photography seriously 30 years ago.  But without wanting to derail this thread, I think Ansel would could quite happily have done Moonrise in LR or perhaps PS Elements, and would not have needed CS6.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 13, 2013, 04:41:26 AM
I think this is a crucial distinction and if you don't understand, then that's an issue. To be clear, everything ACR/LR does is only an adjustment of the parameters for a particular control–you can go back into that control and alter it at any time. And, also important to understand, the order the user works in is irrelevant to the order that the parameters are processed.

Compare that to pixel edits where editing the pixels result in a different result after the correction. It implies edits are destructive (and they are unless you use Adjustment Layers). The more you edit pixels the more they fall apart because, well rounding errors and reductions in precision tend to accumulate...

So, bottom line: you want to stay parametric right up to the point where parametric breaks down because of too much parametric data and move into a pixel based edit–where more edits will generally result in less optimal results.

You must grok this...right? A raw file's scene refereed data .xmp settings can be changed ad infinitum (meaning forever) but an output scene referred file degenerates with edits & iterations...

Look at this way...for raw files, as time goes bye, raw processing seems to get better. From the standpoint of rendered image files, the more you edit, the less precise you images become. Will it obliterate you images making them useless? Nope, but is asked, I would say it steps on your image quality potential.
While I am aware of the benefits of parametric Lightroom-style editing, the benefits of pixel-based editing is not as apparent to me. A pixel is just a coordinate in a buffer. A parametric editor ought to be able to manipulate that pixel (by using the right coordinate) just as well as a pixel-based editor.

Of course there are practical implications (rendering speed, ease of which to insert 3rd party plugins) but that is what software developers are paid to do fix for us.

Are you certain that Knoll & friends would have chosen a pixel-based pipeline had they started out with "Photoshop" today?

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ronny Nilsen on May 13, 2013, 07:08:58 AM
What I would like in addition to the parametric editing i LR (that I think at this point is very good!) is the ability to have "layers" on top of the current LR/ACR engine where I can put additional editing commands. These could also be parametric, but I would like to be able to decide the sequence and to build upon the previous "layer". The edits that is available in these "layers" could be the same as those in the parametric LR engine in addition to all the stuff we love in PS, eg. Selective Color (that I use a lot).

Combined with the ability to do stitching an HDR merge I think this would be a very powerful tool

Let me try to give an example of how I think this workflow could work:

Adding a new "layer" or "step" could give you the option to:

No need to duplicate a mask if you want the same mask for several layer PS style. And all filters except pixel layers would still be parametric.

Basically I want the ability to build up the image layer by layer in my own sequence after I have done basic parametric editing in LR develop module.

Ronny
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: thierrylegros396 on May 13, 2013, 07:16:05 AM
Motion blur reduction
Noise reduction "Multi frame stacking"
HDR with good alignment tool and easy to obtain "realistic results"
Lens correction
Stiching
Cloning
Multiple WB possibility
Easy to use color picker
Perfect integration with LR, DXO Labs, and C1
Quick save preferences
Simple and quick layer menu

3D not necessary
Video as an option to keep main program fast !!!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: John Cothron on May 13, 2013, 07:57:30 AM
This is a joke right? You are going to define what a PHOTOGRAPHER is for the rest of us? Who appointed you guru? Ever seen a straight print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise"? One of the most famous photographs in history-by your definition he's not a photographer because he manipulated the crap out of it. Ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann, a very important figure in the history of PHOTOGRAPHY?

With all due respect Kirk, you are taking my comment somewhat out of context.  As others have stated (thanks) I was trying to illustrate the difference between a piece of software such as Lightroom, and another such as Photoshop,  as well as respond to a statement calling Lightroom a "child's toy" which I strongly disagree with.  Look, I fully realize that people use these pieces of software for a very wide variety of things.  This thread however, is about "new Photoshop for photographers".  The point I've been trying to make is that if this "new" one is all things to everyone, you end up with Photoshop..AGAIN. 

IF we want a new product, and we realistically hope/expect a group of developers to pick up the idea and run with it.. then by definition it needs to be marketable or there would be no incentive for them to do so, right?  As such it needs a place in the market that fits between the two major programs we have now... Lightroom, and Photoshop (for the sake of argument).

If you want to take the Brooklyn Bridge and position it between two mountain tops in another image, I'd say photoshop is the tool for it.  If you want to take an image from the camera, do basic development work, perhaps some dodging/burning, maybe clone out a highway sign..  that could be something this "new" software could do quite well.... and still fit in the open area between Lightroom and Photoshop, and be marketable.  Oversimplified, but I hope this more clearly illustrates what I'm trying to convey.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: HSakols on May 13, 2013, 08:54:49 AM
Jeff
Thank you. 

I just want to work in layers and have all the usual curve options. I want to make selections as separate layers.  I want solid selection tools.  I do like having the option of using Bridge - just to have as a reader.   
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: NikoJorj on May 13, 2013, 09:01:02 AM
While I am aware of the benefits of parametric Lightroom-style editing, the benefits of pixel-based editing is not as apparent to me. A pixel is just a coordinate in a buffer. A parametric editor ought to be able to manipulate that pixel (by using the right coordinate) just as well as a pixel-based editor.

Of course there are practical implications (rendering speed, ease of which to insert 3rd party plugins)  [...]
I just can't agree more, conceptually : with Moore's law boosting the computation power further and further, the long-term future of image processing seems clearly more parametric than pixel-based.

However, if one considers tomorrow from a more pragmatic point of view, I understand from Jeff that there may be still some place for pixel editing.
Having a tool more tailored for photographers, and more affordable than Photoshop CC, would certainly be nice ; but I'd rather see more features added to LR first (compositing), especially as long as one can keep PS CS6 in sync with LR5 with forthcoming ACR 7 updates.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 13, 2013, 09:16:31 AM
I may have mentioned this further above, but few wish lists have included it, so I'll say it again. One of the main things for which I revert to PS in an otherwise predominantly LR workflow is transforms - in particular skew correction, because I make many in city photos when traveling. I can't put "Upright" in LR5-beta through its paces myself because Adobe has decided in its wisdom not to support OSX 10.6.8. for this release, notwithstanding the very large numbers of Mac users (I understand) who remain on 10.6.8. for one or more good reasons. That said, an ability to perform manual skew corrections of each image dimension independently is important (at least to me). Warp sometimes helps too, though not sure how easy that would be to do parametrically, so for this perhaps the pixel-based editing would remain the solution.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 13, 2013, 09:17:42 AM
Interesting idea for a topic Jeff and Scott Kelby did a similar thing on his Grid Show this week after his talk on CC.
The issue here with the idea of Photoshop for Photographers is that each user of PS will have their own individual way of using the programme. For a specific example, Scott Kelby dismissed as completely pointless many tools I personally find very useful as a photographer and was as guilty of the me, me, me way of approaching how software should be designed as many people in forums seem to be. i.e. anything that the complainer does not use is bloatware, without considering that to many other people this 'bloatware' is an essential tool.
Quite a few commentators watching the show mentioned that Scott + Matt obviously knew very little about software design as some of their glib suggestions to tweak PS would in reality be very hard to engineer and not in fact make things simpler.

Having looked at this thread and the variety of features requested, I do not see not see much point in anything other than something like the traditional split of PS and PS Extended, as the extended version had features that generally speaking were fairly specific to skillsets outside of photography such as 3D, medical, video, etc.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 10:03:21 AM
Compare that to pixel edits where editing the pixels result in a different result after the correction. It implies edits are destructive (and they are unless you use Adjustment Layers). The more you edit pixels the more they fall apart because, well rounding errors and reductions in precision tend to accumulate...

So, bottom line: you want to stay parametric right up to the point where parametric breaks down because of too much parametric data and move into a pixel based edit–where more edits will generally result in less optimal results.

Jeff, I don't see the pixel processing paradigm as limited to using a particular precision for intermediate calculations, a point I alluded to in Reply #167. Therefore, I don't believe the pixel paradigm has to produce less optimal results.

Am I missing something? Is there a reason Ps can't ever use 32 or 64 bit floating point for intermediate calculations with 16 bit unsigned integer base images?

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: thierrylegros396 on May 13, 2013, 10:26:54 AM
Having a tool more tailored for photographers, and more affordable than Photoshop CC, would certainly be nice ; but I'd rather see more features added to LR first (compositing), especially as long as one can keep PS CS6 in sync with LR5 with forthcoming ACR 7 updates.

But it has never been Adobe's way.

They always wanted to keep Photoshop esential for some tasks.

That's why LR doesn't have some interesting tools.

But perhaps the initiative of Jeff (and the reaction of a lot of people to the "cloud only version") will push Adobe to propose a special Photoshop for Photographs.

That's what I hope !

Thierry
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 13, 2013, 10:30:43 AM
But it has never been Adobe's way.

They always wanted to keep Photoshop esential for some tasks.

That's why LR doesn't have some interesting tools.

But perhaps the initiative of Jeff (and the reaction of a lot of people to the "cloud only version") will push Adobe to propose a special Photoshop for Photographs.

That's what I hope !

Thierry

I don't believe that conspiracy theories constitute an accurate guide to explaining any of this. There are numerous other more convincing reasons related to design intent, technical and practical factors that differentiate one application for the other. For the purposes of this thread it will be more prospective to focus on the latter.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 10:32:35 AM
Jeff, I don't see the pixel processing paradigm as limited to using a particular precision for intermediate calculations, a point I alluded to in Reply #167. Therefore, I don't believe the pixel paradigm has to produce less optimal results.

Jeff, let me work through an example to make sure that what I'm saying is clear. More than occasionally, but not often, I find that it's not practical to do what I want to do in Ps. For that image processing, I write Matlab code. I start out with images in 16-bit TIFF files, so when they come into Matlab, they are 16-bit gamma-compressed unsigned integers. Because I'm lazy and I want to get the most out of my time spent programming, I immediately convert them to 64-bit linear floating point representation. That way I don't have to worry about overflow or underflow, or the loss in precision that can occur when, for, example, subtracting one large number from another to yield a small number.

I use objects, some times one with several methods, sometimes many. I think of the objects as analogous to layers: they take an image, group of images, or part of am image in, do something to it, and leave something for the next object. The methods are parameterized, so I don't have to start all over to tweak the algorithms, but, that can't be dispositive, because with smart objects I can tweak layer settings in Ps. The order of operations is rigidly defined by the flow of the programming.

I think of what I'm doing as pixel processing.

Am I wrong?

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: walter.sk on May 13, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
This is a joke right? You are going to define what a PHOTOGRAPHER is for the rest of us? Who appointed you guru? Ever seen a straight print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise"? One of the most famous photographs in history-by your definition he's not a photographer because he manipulated the crap out of it. Ever heard of Jerry Uelsmann, a very important figure in the history of PHOTOGRAPHY?
+1
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 13, 2013, 10:56:58 AM
Jeff, let me work through an example to make sure that what I'm saying is clear. More than occasionally, but not often, I find that it's not practical to do what I want to do in Ps. For that image processing, I write Matlab code. I start out with images in 16-bit TIFF files, so when they come into Matlab, they are 16-bit gamma-compressed unsigned integers. Because I'm lazy and I want to get the most out of my time spent programming, I immediately convert them to 64-bit linear floating point representation. That way I don't have to worry about overflow or underflow, or the loss in precision that can occur when, for, example, subtracting one large number from another to yield a small number.

I use objects, some times one with several methods, sometimes many. I think of the objects as analogous to layers: they take an image, group of images, or part of am image in, do something to it, and leave something for the next object. The methods are parameterized, so I don't have to start all over to tweak the algorithms, but, that can't be dispositive, because with smart objects I can tweak layer settings in Ps. The order of operations is rigidly defined by the flow of the programming.

I think of what I'm doing as pixel processing.

Am I wrong?

Jim
MATLAB is a perfect example of an expressive scripting language capable of expressing any imaginable image processing operation. Since the native datatype in MATLAB is double-precision floats, that is the obvious choice for processing in MATLAB (other datatypes is possible, but less neat).

So in principle, both Lightroom and Photoshop could (I guess) be reduced to fancy, snappy, interactive GUI front-ends (something that MATLAB blows at) that has as output a set of MATLAB (or MATLAB-like) instructions that can be interpreted by MATLAB (or the open-source Octave) to transform an image. Chances are large that (many of) the Adobe R&D image processing people use MATLAB in order to do prototyping of new algorithms. I guess that most algorithms are fundamentally discrete approximations to continous ideal behaviour, although table-lookups and the like can also be done.

So why is this a bad idea for a product? It would probably be painfully slow, doing generic vector/matrix calls to a double-precision library is never going to be as fast as (potentially) hand-coded SSE/AVX vectorized intrinsics/assembler/Intel libraries for integer 8/16-bit datatypes where the implementer knows just how much error can be tolerated.


Funda

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: keithrsmith on May 13, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
One question that needs to be thought about is  "What would Adobe do if a new "Photoshop" appeared"

I think they would quickly rush out an "Enhanced Elements" with the important things that are missing added ( see this thread for suggestions)
16 bit , all adjustment layers, all colour spaces, etc. and sell it at an attractive price which would effectively kill of the competition.

I believe that the main mistake Adobe has made in this whole Cloud issue is to not have a stand alone Photoshop.  This is the one app out of the whole suite that seems to be causing the most issues - the main one that i can see being the the fear of not being able to revisit psd files created by the latest greatest version, once your subscription has lapsed.
It is also the app that many part time, and amateur uses have and for which there is no easy alternative.  For almost all of the other apps - video , audio,...  there are viable alternatives, and the market is predominantly professional, plus it is IMO much less likely that old projects will be revisited in the way that old PSD's may be.

Lets hope Adobe see sense and reinstate a perpetual licence photoshop - an enhanced elements will do.

Keith
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 11:19:05 AM
So why is this a bad idea for a product? It would probably be painfully slow, doing generic vector/matrix calls to a double-precision library is never going to be as fast as (potentially) hand-coded SSE/AVX vectorized intrinsics/assembler/Intel libraries for integer 8/16-bit datatypes where the implementer knows just how much error can be tolerated.

I was using the example as a way to crystallize the discussion, not as a concrete product proposal, but, thanks for bring practicality into the picture.

I don't think doing intermediate calcs in FP (maybe not DP FP, but FP) is necessarily impractical. We are seeing a proliferation of DSP-derived processors on graphics adapters. Many of those processors support FP, and there is a trend to make the results of calculations available to programs running in the main processors. Indeed, you can buy add-in cards that do DSP-like processing that have no connection to a display; they're expensive and power hogs, but that should change. Image processing is relatively easily parallelized.

Doubling or quadrupling the precision of representation will cause image processing programs to want more memory, but that's getting cheaper all the time. (I somewhat sheepishly admit to buying a machine with 256 GB of RAM for Matlab image processing.)

Another thing about the intermediate image processing that could ameliorate its inherently slower speed than custom-tweaked code: a lot can be done in the background. In order for a program to feel crisp to the user, all that's necessary is to update the screen fast. The number of pixels on the screen is in general fewer than the number in the file, so there's less processing to keep the screen up to date than to render the whole file. Just in case the user decides to zoom in, the complete image should be computed in the background. This also avoids an explicit rendering step, which could be an annoyance for the user.

All this background/foreground stuff makes life harder for the programmers. On the other hand, think of the time they'll save not tweaking code.

Blue sky, right?

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 11:24:48 AM
It would probably be painfully slow, doing generic vector/matrix calls to a double-precision library is never going to be as fast as (potentially) hand-coded SSE/AVX vectorized intrinsics/assembler/Intel libraries for integer 8/16-bit datatypes where the implementer knows just how much error can be tolerated.

The thing that Jeff said that started me on this way of thinking was -- paraphrasing -- you don't want to do in a pixel processor what you can do in a parametric processor partially because of limited precision in the pixel processor causing potential damage to the image.  That implies that the implementer doesn't always know just how much error can be tolerated.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ronald Nyein Zaw Tan on May 13, 2013, 12:29:24 PM
As a portraitist specializing in men's fashion and beauty photography, I need the Liquefy and the Puppet Warp. I use Calculations and Apply Image to manipulate luminosity masks and use them creatively to address tonalities and shape in my photographs of men. I need Gaussian Blur and the High-Pass Filter. I could live without the Custom Filter and the "Deconvolution Sharpening." Come to think of it, depending on what kind of an image I am working, I use the tools and commands in Photoshop. The Content-Aware tools in CS6 saved me time in texture repairing and background repairs on a few occasions.

Get rid of the video and 3D and 8-Bit filters (I cannot use them anyway).

It is OK, if this version of Photoshop does not come bundled with ACR. I don't use ACR. For RAW processing, I am using PhaseONE CaptureONE PRO 7.1.1.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 13, 2013, 12:34:41 PM
Problem is not so much the precision of the rendering pipeline, problem is stacking.

Especially if one of the steps in the stack involves blur in one way or another (think USM, local contrast enhancement, etc). In an interpreted pipe-line this would not only increase sampling requirements disproportionally and exponentially, but it disrupts the parallelism of the graphics cards internals. Additionally, some of the newer sharpening techniques rely on iteration. If you want to implement those types of functions it becomes progressively problematic if the entire pipeline is interpreted.

Secondly, what you want to determine also is the effect the user expects to see when they change some previous step.
If they use a parametric brush on some particular location in the image, and they decide to turn on lenscorrections, or apply a  perspective correction, then what should the position (and form) of the brush do? And what about if you stack images for panorama stitching and the user does the same?

Note how simple misunderstandings can occur:
If I ask you to "blend" image A and B, do you interpret that as:
1. start with A and blend B on top (not commutative),

or do you interpret that as:
2. create a mix of A and B (commutative).

What about if A and/or B have masks?


And finally, the size requirements for a photoshop image are usually significantly different than what our graphics cards currently are based on. Even if hardware will improve and become cheaper etc, you should still expect a 10 year time frame if at all, because the graphics cards are based on certain output requirements for gaming, video, and medical imaging. Well, I suppose password hacking could be added, but I'm not sure how that will affect the imaging capabilities of graphic cards.

But, any workflow that allows one to go back to previous steps could be called "parametric", and as such, as long as the expectations of the user are reasonable when deciding to redo a previous step, the application could be entirely "parametric". And a final result could be rendered based on recomputing the entire chain.





Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Ralph Eisenberg on May 13, 2013, 01:32:40 PM
Until the current version of ACR, my primary Raw converter had been Capture One (although I have owned all versions of Lightroom, which I sometimes use for printing). With the release of ACR 7, this has changed, so that I now generally make my conversions via Bridge, with the image opening as a smart object in PS CS6. (As an aside, I followed the upgrade cycles without skipping). I then have done secondary editing in PS, appreciating the ability to return to ACR to tweak my image when necessary. I would follow most of the suggestions made above for an image editor, but as is clear, I would hope for some kind of capability which did not rely on Lightroom, unless it would be possible to view images without the need to import them into a Lightroom catalogue. I make use of adjustment layers (and some blending modes) and the ability to make local corrections painting on masks. I'm very pleased with the sharpening and noise reduction tools in ACR, and with ACR in general, although I do miss some features of Capture One Pro for viewing and selecting Raw images. I certainly appreciate the fact that the Curves tool in ACR works just as it does in PS. The Healing Brush tool, Spot Healing Brush, and content-aware capabilities are very useful to me. For portrait retouching the Liquify filter has been a help. Of course, having the printing and soft-proofing capabilities of Lightroom in this image editor would be a plus, but I have most often gotten by with doing this in PS.
Thanks to Jeff Schewe for starting this thread, and naturally to Michael Reichmann (whose health I hope is improving) for the web site and much more that make this possible.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Robert55 on May 13, 2013, 01:39:23 PM
I don't know if I add much to the discussion stating that but I'd add another vote for just adding a few things to LR - mainly compositiong (panorama*, HDR, focus stacking, and may be elements removal à la "Statistics").
These are the only reason I fired PS in the past year, I think. I personally don't use much pixel editing, partly because I do it worse than parametric ones, partly due to the file size and time penalty involved.

* for panorama stitching, please at least add a module to interactively choose perspective and projection before actual stitching to the photomerge routines! A toll to add control points as in more full-featured stitchers as Hugin or PTGui would be nice, but is less necessary.
?
For me, these are the things I only go to PS to nowadays. I'd also like something I'll call 'color stacking', for situations where part of your image has a warm and another a cool color temp [like a mountain valley partially in shadow].
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rasterdogs on May 13, 2013, 01:49:08 PM
I was using the example as a way to crystallize the discussion, not as a concrete product proposal, but, thanks for bring practicality into the picture.

I don't think doing intermediate calcs in FP (maybe not DP FP, but FP) is necessarily impractical. We are seeing a proliferation of DSP-derived processors on graphics adapters. Many of those processors support FP, and there is a trend to make the results of calculations available to programs running in the main processors. Indeed, you can buy add-in cards that do DSP-like processing that have no connection to a display; they're expensive and power hogs, but that should change. Image processing is relatively easily parallelized.

Doubling or quadrupling the precision of representation will cause image processing programs to want more memory, but that's getting cheaper all the time. (I somewhat sheepishly admit to buying a machine with 256 GB of RAM for Matlab image processing.)

Another thing about the intermediate image processing that could ameliorate its inherently slower speed than custom-tweaked code: a lot can be done in the background. In order for a program to feel crisp to the user, all that's necessary is to update the screen fast. The number of pixels on the screen is in general fewer than the number in the file, so there's less processing to keep the screen up to date than to render the whole file. Just in case the user decides to zoom in, the complete image should be computed in the background. This also avoids an explicit rendering step, which could be an annoyance for the user.

All this background/foreground stuff makes life harder for the programmers. On the other hand, think of the time they'll save not tweaking code.

Blue sky, right?

Jim

Does this mean I'd need more powerful hardware?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: D Fosse on May 13, 2013, 01:52:13 PM
Just chiming in to say I'd buy this thing unseen within 30 minutes of announcement.

I agree with everything said so far... ;D
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kirkt on May 13, 2013, 01:56:03 PM
I would like to see a "new" version of "photoshop" substantially change the workflow paradigm, whatever the resulting toolset is.  Specifically, I think we, as image processing folks, tend to work on an image sequentially - whatever that sequence is.  Open raw image > make adjustments > send to Photoshop > apply adjustment layers with masks > reduce image size > output sharpen, etc.

Whatever.  The idea is, there is a sequence to the workflow and, often, portions of that sequence require revisiting, revision, branching into a new variation, etc.

I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.  I would have no problem working on a "smart preview" version of an image, from raw conversion, all the way to output sharpening at final resolution, with the ability to render portions of it all along the node chain to see a 100% res sample to check my work.  Once my node chain is set up and I like the preview of the resulting changes, I could render a full-res version.  This is pretty standard for many render/modeling applications and video/compositing.  There is no reason why 2d image workflow has to be any different.

I think that 2D image workflow could benefit from this approach as well because it would promote variation - just create a branch off of the workflow and develop it separately.  It would ease automation - you can visualize your process and simply add an input node as a directory of images in front of your established chain of nodes to batch process images.  It could leverage the nascent "Smart Preview" raw technology that appears to be developing for the Cloud sync and smart device editing workflow.  THis node-based workflow fully preserves the "non-destructive" aspect of editing - the node-based edits are "parametric" until you finally commit to rendering them as full-res output - the original image is untouched, even if you chose to make pixel-based changes - this could be a node where a rendered proxy is part of the workflow, etc..  You could add output nodes along the way to render draft images of the stages of the edits, instead of having to save sequential PSDs to potentially have to revisit and revise.  The entire creative process is archived and editable - you could have template node structures for commonly used tasks, or commonly shot lighting conditions, looks, etc.  You could even save that entire node chain as ... you guessed it, a node, for use in other more complex chains - this would be like an action, but more flexible.

Of course, I would hope people could write their own nodes and third-party developers could write all sorts of "plug-ins" (nodes) or adapt currently existing products into a node-based form.  I see Lightroom as a node in this paradigm.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned in this thread, I know I am not inventing anything new here.  However, if there is to be a new photoshop, or yet-to-be-named image editor, I think a new workflow approach is in order and would save huge amounts of time and effort in the image processing workflow.

best - thanks jeff for starting this thread - I appreciate the chance to participate.

kirk
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: gerryrobinson on May 13, 2013, 02:02:02 PM
Jeff
Great thread!
For me I round trip from LR to Photoshop for the following:
compositing
merge to pano
focus stacking
cloning /healing (content aware)
actions
adjustments via layer masks
sculpting
progressive sharpening

Would love to see stuff like this worked into LR's workflow as seamlessly as possible.
A lot of the cameras out there,(especially the ones newer than my 20D) shoot video.
I think video support like CS6 has would be welcome.
If I could just open up LR, work on a image and not have noticed I'd roundtripped anywhere
that would be my Ideal workflow.
Gerry
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: s4e on May 13, 2013, 03:10:13 PM
I would like to see a "new" version of "photoshop" substantially change the workflow paradigm, whatever the resulting toolset is.  Specifically, I think we, as image processing folks, tend to work on an image sequentially - whatever that sequence is.  Open raw image > make adjustments > send to Photoshop > apply adjustment layers with masks > reduce image size > output sharpen, etc.

Whatever.  The idea is, there is a sequence to the workflow and, often, portions of that sequence require revisiting, revision, branching into a new variation, etc.

I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.  I would have no problem working on a "smart preview" version of an image, from raw conversion, all the way to output sharpening at final resolution, with the ability to render portions of it all along the node chain to see a 100% res sample to check my work.  Once my node chain is set up and I like the preview of the resulting changes, I could render a full-res version.  This is pretty standard for many render/modeling applications and video/compositing.  There is no reason why 2d image workflow has to be any different.

I think that 2D image workflow could benefit from this approach as well because it would promote variation - just create a branch off of the workflow and develop it separately.  It would ease automation - you can visualize your process and simply add an input node as a directory of images in front of your established chain of nodes to batch process images.  It could leverage the nascent "Smart Preview" raw technology that appears to be developing for the Cloud sync and smart device editing workflow.  THis node-based workflow fully preserves the "non-destructive" aspect of editing - the node-based edits are "parametric" until you finally commit to rendering them as full-res output - the original image is untouched, even if you chose to make pixel-based changes - this could be a node where a rendered proxy is part of the workflow, etc..  You could add output nodes along the way to render draft images of the stages of the edits, instead of having to save sequential PSDs to potentially have to revisit and revise.  The entire creative process is archived and editable - you could have template node structures for commonly used tasks, or commonly shot lighting conditions, looks, etc.  You could even save that entire node chain as ... you guessed it, a node, for use in other more complex chains - this would be like an action, but more flexible.

Of course, I would hope people could write their own nodes and third-party developers could write all sorts of "plug-ins" (nodes) or adapt currently existing products into a node-based form.  I see Lightroom as a node in this paradigm.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned in this thread, I know I am not inventing anything new here.  However, if there is to be a new photoshop, or yet-to-be-named image editor, I think a new workflow approach is in order and would save huge amounts of time and effort in the image processing workflow.

best - thanks jeff for starting this thread - I appreciate the chance to participate.

kirk
Very interesting ideas Kirk!

I too very much support the idea of keep the parametric model and combine it with use of "smart preview" to make performance acceptable.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: MarkM on May 13, 2013, 03:23:16 PM
I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.

Yes, me too! It would be really interesting to see what would happen if somebody like The Foundry (http://www.thefoundry.co.uk) decided to compete in this space. It is one of the few companies that could enter with a product that everyone (including Adobe) would have to take seriously. Considering the node-based workflow in high-end products like Nuke that they have already developed, I would think an image editor would be a pretty natural fit. Having said that, I could imagine that their management may not be particularly interested in selling a product to the mid and lower end of the industry where customer support becomes death by a million cuts and prices have to be considerably lower.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 04:13:00 PM
Does this mean I'd need more powerful hardware?

One of the delightful givens of the entire history of electronic computation has been exponential growth of absolute processing power, and exponential growth of processing power per inflation-adjusted dollar. Trees don't grow to the sky, and I suppose that this can't continue forever. In fact, there has been some mild slowing over time. The doubling period initially cited by Gordon Moore in his Electronics article was a year, then amended to 18 months, and now thought by some to be two years.

However, although clock rates have stopped increasing because of power dissipation considerations (I remember a conference presenter in 1968 saying, "Contrary to popular opinion, the computer of the future will not be the size of a room; it will be the size of a light bulb -- and it will glow just as brightly." He was assuming advances in materials science that haven't come to pass yet.), transistor counts just keep right on climbing as the number of processors on a chip multiply.

The VP Manufacturing of Convergent Technologies, a 1980s company that drowned in the wake of the introduction of the IBM PC (they were selling an incompatible 8086-based computer at the time), used to have a motto on his wall: "Believe in  miracles? We count on them." I feel the same way about increasing processing power.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 13, 2013, 04:18:06 PM
I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.  

Nicely said, Kirk.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 13, 2013, 04:34:19 PM
I would like to see a "new" version of "photoshop" substantially change the workflow paradigm, whatever the resulting toolset is.  Specifically, I think we, as image processing folks, tend to work on an image sequentially - whatever that sequence is.  Open raw image > make adjustments > send to Photoshop > apply adjustment layers with masks > reduce image size > output sharpen, etc.

Whatever.  The idea is, there is a sequence to the workflow and, often, portions of that sequence require revisiting, revision, branching into a new variation, etc.

I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.  I would have no problem working on a "smart preview" version of an image, from raw conversion, all the way to output sharpening at final resolution, with the ability to render portions of it all along the node chain to see a 100% res sample to check my work.  Once my node chain is set up and I like the preview of the resulting changes, I could render a full-res version.  This is pretty standard for many render/modeling applications and video/compositing.  There is no reason why 2d image workflow has to be any different.

I think that 2D image workflow could benefit from this approach as well because it would promote variation - just create a branch off of the workflow and develop it separately.  It would ease automation - you can visualize your process and simply add an input node as a directory of images in front of your established chain of nodes to batch process images.  It could leverage the nascent "Smart Preview" raw technology that appears to be developing for the Cloud sync and smart device editing workflow.  THis node-based workflow fully preserves the "non-destructive" aspect of editing - the node-based edits are "parametric" until you finally commit to rendering them as full-res output - the original image is untouched, even if you chose to make pixel-based changes - this could be a node where a rendered proxy is part of the workflow, etc..  You could add output nodes along the way to render draft images of the stages of the edits, instead of having to save sequential PSDs to potentially have to revisit and revise.  The entire creative process is archived and editable - you could have template node structures for commonly used tasks, or commonly shot lighting conditions, looks, etc.  You could even save that entire node chain as ... you guessed it, a node, for use in other more complex chains - this would be like an action, but more flexible.

Of course, I would hope people could write their own nodes and third-party developers could write all sorts of "plug-ins" (nodes) or adapt currently existing products into a node-based form.  I see Lightroom as a node in this paradigm.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned in this thread, I know I am not inventing anything new here.  However, if there is to be a new photoshop, or yet-to-be-named image editor, I think a new workflow approach is in order and would save huge amounts of time and effort in the image processing workflow.

best - thanks jeff for starting this thread - I appreciate the chance to participate.

kirk

Yes, though I wrote this earlier in the thread, it's nice to see someone else pick up on this and elaborate.  It would be the key advance in architecture and workflow that this tool needs.  Using a dataflow architecture, you can implement most any request made here.  Not only that, but you can also provide different top-level user interfaces to suit the needs of different users.  It'd be a win all around.  Eric Chan, reminder to PM me.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: MHMG on May 13, 2013, 05:22:53 PM
+1 to Jeff Schewe's remarks about Live Picture (LP). Way ahead of it's time (including soft proofing), and with features that still haven't been duplicated by other image editing programs, for example, a brush tool behavior that PS and LR still don't have as an option (as far as I have been able to figure out). Brush size was fixed relative to screen/window size so that when you zoomed in on an image, the brush size stayed the same...i.e, just like a real brush in hand, not a virtual brush stuck to the size of a set number of image pixels which change size on screen as image magnification is changed. Also, there was no visual on-screen distinction between viewing an image at odd magnifications versus evenly divisible units of pixel count (i.e. 25%, 50%, 100%, etc) as there still is today in both PS and LR4. I could inspect for image output sharpness at any desired magnification. This feature undoubtedly had to do with the interpolation processing of the pyramid file structure (remember the HP/Kodak Flashpix format initiative based on the IVUE pyramid file format structure used in LP?) as well as a superb anti-aliasing screen-draw algorithm present in the LP software.
 
My personal recollection of that era is perhaps a bit foggy now, but LP'a exclusive use of the "layers" metaphor (like cartoon animation cell overlays) and non destructive editing gave it a photographer's "darkroom dodging and burning" feel to it that PS simply didn't have, in large part because personal computer hardware wasn't capable enough at the time to give PS any real-time fluidity when working with big image files. So times have changed for better and for worse, but I still personally view LP as the cleanest and most elegant software I've ever used on a computer, bar none. Any programming teams wanting to produce a new image editor would do well to grab some old MAC hardware and take some time to play with the final version  LP version 2.6. Pity that LP got managed by bean counters and marketing 'experts" into an untimely death.

As others have already stated, the current version of LR and PS are very mature, and whether by corporate marketing decree, or by simple software evolutionary cycles, I still need PS for layers and mask sophistication that LR doesn't possess at this time. I can't do everything I need to do in LR. Part of this has to do with my active interest in fine art printmaking.  A wedding or sports photographer, for example, who needs to deliver high quality files, and lots of them, to the client is going to be thrilled with LR.  But someone wanting to sculpt a single image to the very highest print standard (that's my goal) still needs PS to accomplish this very personal and somewhat obsessive/compulsive level of finesse!

Speaking of blue sky stuff, I can't think of an easier and thus better metaphor for "layers and masks".  Why do we need to throw out this concept simply because it has been around for a long time in the imaging industry? It is brilliant, so IMHO, any truly competent image editor needs to have it. I'm aware of OnOne Perfect layers, but LR without layers and mask sophistication on a par with PS makes it incomplete and insufficient for my needs. Its absence in LR is the only reason I have to keep returning to PS. While on the subject of "tried and true" image editing features like layers and masks , I can think of a parallel debate going on currently with computer OS software designers. It has to do with "files and folders".  Many OS designers now say the files and folders concept is an antiquated metaphor and confusing to the young generation of smart phone users.  New mobile OS's for smartphones and tablets are increasingly being designed by software teams that feel we should dispense with this time honored analogy to paper filing cabinets for records management. Seriously? The files and folders paradigm works, and it ported very well to digital records management. Why throw it away and hide where our files are kept so that each individual application has to outsmart us to find our files? Stupid, stupid, stupid. This movement to do away with the files and folders concept will cause all sorts of file migration (and migraine) headaches for digital librarians and archivists in the near future. Hence,  a personal plea to all the software engineers following this thread.... KEEP both The "boringly conventional" files/folders and layers/masks concepts solidly in place on whatever new image editing software program you choose to give us.

Lastly, I'd like to see to small but refined updates to both PS and LR. I'd like a more robust info tool pallette that allows us to see LAB and LCH values not only for source file being edited but for destination file as well and , delta E, and delta AB values between the source and destination. PS still can't do that. It can give CMYK "proof" values but not LAB or LCH for the destination profile, only LAB values for the source image data. And we need much much better metadata viewers and editors. A floating palette than can be customized to show/hide metadata fields of our own choosing and with metadata editing right on that palette. PS and LR, indeed just about all software on the market today, are simply awful on metadata organization and viewing. Plenty of room for improvement there.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 13, 2013, 06:03:29 PM
Speaking of blue sky stuff, I can't think of an easier and thus better metaphor for "layers and masks".  Why do we need to throw out this concept simply because it has been around for a long time in the imaging industry? It is brilliant, so IMHO, any truly competent image editor needs to have it.

It's not a question of throwing out this metaphor.  In my mind, it's a question of having this metaphor built as one possibility among many on top of a generalized architecture (dataflow).  Photoshop layers should not be the ground abstraction, it should be in an upper-level abstraction.  I think you'll see in the long run there are many better ways to go that are also "layerlike" but don't follow slavishly from the original photoshop implementation.  The original implementation is an ongoing hack.  ["Apply image?..."groups"?...."smart objects"?  Ad hoc blend modes?   It's pretty far from brilliant in today's software design curriculum.]  You can do much better without throwing out the things you like about it.  You can even have a "compatibility module" for those who want to preserve their historical files.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on May 13, 2013, 06:53:58 PM
While on the subject of "tried and true" image editing features like layers and masks , I can think of a parallel debate going on currently with computer OS software designers. It has to do with "files and folders".  Many OS designers now say the files and folders concept is an antiquated metaphor and confusing to the young generation of smart phone users.  New mobile OS's for smartphones and tablets are increasingly being designed by software teams that feel we should dispense with this time honored analogy to paper filing cabinets for records management. Seriously? The files and folders paradigm works, and it ported very well to digital records management. Why throw it away and hide where our files are kept so that each individual application has to outsmart us to find our files? Stupid, stupid, stupid. This movement to do away with the files and folders concept will cause all sorts of file migration (and migraine) headaches for digital librarians and archivists in the near future. Hence,  a personal plea to all the software engineers following this thread.... KEEP both The "boringly conventional" files/folders and layers/masks concepts solidly in place on whatever new image editing software program you choose to give us.


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

if I remember correctly, the original Lightroom beta (alpha?) did not use the physical folder/files structure we have now.  Don't remember exactly what it was, but many complained about it t the Adobe team, smartly, changed it.

John
Title: Re: Sv: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Torbjörn Tapani on May 13, 2013, 08:45:16 PM
Good lens correction. Mustasch type distortions, deconvolution of motion blur, CA, Coma, sharpness maps to even out edge sharpness or field curvature, or correcting nervous bokeh, oval highlights, flare /veiling removal etc. Stuff characteristic of lenses that can be anticipated.

Selecting sets of images and creating stitches and/or stacks still editable as RAW like for smart objects, removing objects, random noise, dark frame subtractions and the like. Stitches could be spherical panos or whatever. Combination of lens corrections, stitch and stack maybe could produce a Brenizer bokeh pano still editable as RAW (even spherical hah that would be awesome).

While we're at it could a focus bracketed stack maybe have live DoF control for tilt/shift effects. Lytro lite. Focus peaking to see where we place fake focus or to apply correct amounts of sharpening.

Frequency based retouching tools, like a live apply image with a slider for radius and quick way of viewing high/low pass but it's just done on the fly. Like a pair of channels with a bias between them. Then a retouching brush with options for content aware, texture, tone, clone, not eleventy different ones. Were you to sample a swatch it's just a brush.
Title: Re: Sv: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 13, 2013, 09:35:51 PM
Good lens correction. Mustasch type distortions, deconvolution of motion blur, CA, Coma, sharpness maps to even out edge sharpness or field curvature, or correcting nervous bokeh, oval highlights, flare /veiling removal etc. Stuff characteristic of lenses that can be anticipated.

Selecting sets of images and creating stitches and/or stacks still editable as RAW like for smart objects, removing objects, random noise, dark frame subtractions and the like. Stitches could be spherical panos or whatever. Combination of lens corrections, stitch and stack maybe could produce a Brenizer bokeh pano still editable as RAW (even spherical hah that would be awesome).

While we're at it could a focus bracketed stack maybe have live DoF control for tilt/shift effects. Lytro lite. Focus peaking to see where we place fake focus or to apply correct amounts of sharpening.

Frequency based retouching tools, like a live apply image with a slider for radius and quick way of viewing high/low pass but it's just done on the fly. Like a pair of channels with a bias between them. Then a retouching brush with options for content aware, texture, tone, clone, not eleventy different ones. Were you to sample a swatch it's just a brush.

My uneducated curiosity is whether or not your print will command seven or eight figure a pop if all those items on your wishlist come true in the next release. in the meantime,

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/8723274827_1c2594c667_c.jpg)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: plugsnpixels on May 14, 2013, 02:16:55 AM
This is a noble effort and I've been through exercises like this before (with another graphics/imaging/vector app), and what I learned was every person desires a different feature set because everyone's work is a bit different. We ended up thinking that a modular approach might work best, where you have the core app and install advanced modules of interest (not plug-ins, they would still be gravy) as time goes on. The modules could be from the same developer or third parties.

Another thing that came to mind when reading this thread was, aren't any other existing apps sufficient for photographers specifically? Or are they more geared toward creative post-processing than utility work?

It seems to me that adding additional functionality to Lightroom is the best way to go forward quickly, assuming it will remain subscription-free and its developers are given latitude to make it the best it can be for this specific purpose.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 14, 2013, 02:17:28 AM
Problem is not so much the precision of the rendering pipeline, problem is stacking.

Especially if one of the steps in the stack involves blur in one way or another (think USM, local contrast enhancement, etc). In an interpreted pipe-line this would not only increase sampling requirements disproportionally and exponentially, but it disrupts the parallelism of the graphics cards internals. Additionally, some of the newer sharpening techniques rely on iteration. If you want to implement those types of functions it becomes progressively problematic if the entire pipeline is interpreted.
There are GPU implementations of stuff like blurring that seems to exploit the hardware quite well.

If you have a pipeline of N jobs, each divisible into M (partially overlapping input or output) threads, this might or might not map well into a given GPU hardware. I don't think that the precense ofsharpening means that GPU is out of the question.

Doing stuff on the GPU seems to be difficult, error-prone, and a significant percentage of applications seems to not map well into current GPUs (meaning that the power consumption and price of a GPU does not defend using it)
Quote
Secondly, what you want to determine also is the effect the user expects to see when they change some previous step.
If they use a parametric brush on some particular location in the image, and they decide to turn on lenscorrections, or apply a  perspective correction, then what should the position (and form) of the brush do? And what about if you stack images for panorama stitching and the user does the same?

Note how simple misunderstandings can occur:
If I ask you to "blend" image A and B, do you interpret that as:
1. start with A and blend B on top (not commutative),

or do you interpret that as:
2. create a mix of A and B (commutative).

What about if A and/or B have masks?
A good point.

I guess that Lightroom solves this the "easy" way by having a fixed pipeline.

A Photoshop substitute might have to be more flexible. I still think that it is possible to have a "default" pipeline (Lightroom-esque), and to be able to move components around in the pipeline. Perhaps a "linear" mode would be possible (in which edits are applied in the same order that they are tweaked by the user).
Quote
And finally, the size requirements for a photoshop image are usually significantly different than what our graphics cards currently are based on. Even if hardware will improve and become cheaper etc, you should still expect a 10 year time frame if at all, because the graphics cards are based on certain output requirements for gaming, video, and medical imaging. Well, I suppose password hacking could be added, but I'm not sure how that will affect the imaging capabilities of graphic cards.
Current graphics cards have >1GB of memory, I dont think that buffer storage is the issue. Rather, the (in) flexibility of the processing hardware, the state of the implementation languages, the debugability and the testing matrix caused by significantly different hardware on the market seems like obstacles.
Quote
But, any workflow that allows one to go back to previous steps could be called "parametric", and as such, as long as the expectations of the user are reasonable when deciding to redo a previous step, the application could be entirely "parametric". And a final result could be rendered based on recomputing the entire chain.
The problem you hinted at would still be a problem? If I did sharpening as step#2, then choose to "redo" sharpening as step#274, where in the re-rendered pipeline should the sharpening be applied?

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 14, 2013, 02:20:59 AM
The thing that Jeff said that started me on this way of thinking was -- paraphrasing -- you don't want to do in a pixel processor what you can do in a parametric processor partially because of limited precision in the pixel processor causing potential damage to the image.  That implies that the implementer doesn't always know just how much error can be tolerated.

Jim
It is probably simpler to calculate visibility thresholds in a fixed pipeline than in a non-fixed pipeline.

Or perhaps photoshop is simply limited by prior architecture decisions and the need for speed?

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 14, 2013, 02:30:36 AM
Another thing that came to mind when reading this thread was, aren't any other existing apps sufficient for photographers specifically? Or are they more geared toward creative post-processing than utility work?

Not really...Adobe and Photoshop has had a really long run of being best of bread–which has pretty much dried up any competition. I downloaded GIMP and Pixelmator to test them out...yep, both will do some interesting things, nope, neither are a replacement for Photoshop. Seriously, Photoshop's position in the industry has, minimized the 3rd party development. Could the Photoshop CC decision change things? Yep...but don't count on substantial changes really quickly.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 14, 2013, 02:30:56 AM
I was using the example as a way to crystallize the discussion, not as a concrete product proposal, but, thanks for bring practicality into the picture.
I guess that I saw that.
Quote
I don't think doing intermediate calcs in FP (maybe not DP FP, but FP) is necessarily impractical. We are seeing a proliferation of DSP-derived processors on graphics adapters. Many of those processors support FP, and there is a trend to make the results of calculations available to programs running in the main processors. Indeed, you can buy add-in cards that do DSP-like processing that have no connection to a display; they're expensive and power hogs, but that should change. Image processing is relatively easily parallelized.
Doing single-precision fp on the cpu is somewhat simpler than doing fixed-point on the cpu. But slower. If the vector "pump" is 128 bits (SSE) or 256 bits (AVX) a fair guess would be that 32-bit sp float would be 1/4 the speed of 16-bit integer. Now, this is not entirely true because not all vector arithmetic is done one a single cycle, and one floating-point operation may map to >1 fixed-point operation. But I think that it is accurate enough for this discussion.

So would 0.25x speed be worth it for having 32-bit float instead of 16-bit integer?
Quote
Another thing about the intermediate image processing that could ameliorate its inherently slower speed than custom-tweaked code: a lot can be done in the background. In order for a program to feel crisp to the user, all that's necessary is to update the screen fast. The number of pixels on the screen is in general fewer than the number in the file, so there's less processing to keep the screen up to date than to render the whole file. Just in case the user decides to zoom in, the complete image should be computed in the background. This also avoids an explicit rendering step, which could be an annoyance for the user.

All this background/foreground stuff makes life harder for the programmers. On the other hand, think of the time they'll save not tweaking code.
I (and you?) tend to focus on the processing pipeline, the image processing mathematics and such. This tends to make up a surprising small percentage of the people, resources and codelines in a commercially successful application. There are umpteen factors that affect peoples happiness with a product.

There is well-defined theory that makes (many) image processing-tasks into satisfying "riddles" that appeals to me, while still (usually) ultimately judged by our vision. I don't think there is anything like that in user-interaction, marketing, QA and all of the other activities that goes into a product like Photoshop (I don't claim to know)?

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Wayland on May 14, 2013, 02:49:59 AM
Not really...Adobe and Photoshop has had a really long run of being best of bread–which has pretty much dried up any competition. I downloaded GIMP and Pixelmator to test them out...yep, both will do some interesting things, nope, neither are a replacement for Photoshop. Seriously, Photoshop's position in the industry has, minimized the 3rd party development. Could the Photoshop CC decision change things? Yep...but don't count on substantial changes really quickly.

Photoline deserves a good look at though. Given a couple of years more development along the lines it has now and I think it could be a very viable replacement.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: thoricourt on May 14, 2013, 03:25:07 AM
Since we are in blue sky country, as a companion application to LR, I would like to have/do the following:

must haves
-----------
ACR integrated & updated regularly
Bridge keyword/metadata setup
adjustment layers (current list is OK + WB)
smart objects for ALL filters, including HDR tone-mapping
ALL filters for 16bit
16 & 32 bit
Sharpen on steroids (as a minimum unsharp mask, smart sharpen, camera shake)
source/creative/output sharpening (à la PK Sharpener)
Blur
Noise reduction
Layers: all existing layer functions, styles
ACR adjustments as layers
channels
mask tweaking (refine edge style)
crop, crop overlays
lens correction: wide angle adaptation, CA, etc.
blending: panorama, hdr, stacking for DOF & NR
gradients (linear, radial)
type
brush with current functionality
tone adjustment: levels, curves
color adjustment: hue, saturation, color picker, color match, color conversion
cloning, spotting and healing tools + content-aware, content aware move
eraser
filters: gaussian blur, liquify, dust & scratches, median, high pass, warp, apply image
all existing selection tools + quick mask, luminosity (à la Lobster)
pen/path
color management, soft proofing
printing
save as to formats ensuring files can be read in 50 years time (e.g. layered or flattened tiff)
actions, batch processing
info, histogram
third party plug-ins compatibility
history
user defined number of undos
preferences save
user defined actions, brushes, etc saved in one location and importable in application updates
tablet integration
mini-bridge or some sort of browser
64bit & multicore
perpetual license
equivalent price as in the US

nice to haves but not required
------------------------------
Bridge
Filter gallery
read video only to extract image
Puppet warp
editable keyboard shortcuts
all brush parameters as currently implemented
choice of user interface color scheme

shouldn't have
----------------
3D
video
face recognition

It is "funny" that we have LR and PS, and we still are defining a third application. Seems to me a waste of time and energy since we have already two tools that more or less pleased everyone...before CC.
But hey since Jeff asked, I am more than grateful & happy to have my say.

Good day to you all!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: plugsnpixels on May 14, 2013, 03:40:27 AM
Yes, PhotoLine would be one of the top contenders. But for years users have been trying to impress upon the developers the need for a decent GUI, standardizing of tool and menu labeling and a website overhaul with better tutorials. Without these few take it seriously enough to even try it.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 14, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
There are GPU implementations of stuff like blurring that seems to exploit the hardware quite well.

"seems" being the operative word. There are implementations based on the lower resolution versions in a mipmap, but that doesn't scale and align properly. A good example of such bad blurring can be found in Apple's Core Image.

Perhaps a "linear" mode would be possible (in which edits are applied in the same order that they are tweaked by the user).

Yes, linear or nodal are both possible, as long as there is a reasonable expectation as to what happens when returning to previous or earlier edits. Some form of caching is going to be required.

Current graphics cards have >1GB of memory, I dont think that buffer storage is the issue. Rather, the (in) flexibility of the processing hardware, the state of the implementation languages, the debugability and the testing matrix caused by significantly different hardware on the market seems like obstacles.

Yes, to all of your points, but as for storage: if you turn a 80 Mpx MFDB file into a 32bit floating point rep with 4 components,
what do you get? And then you need to also store all kinds of crap of the processing pipeline, intermediate caching of results, etc…
And then you want to create a panorama stitch with HDR with maybe 16 of those files…

The problem you hinted at would still be a problem? If I did sharpening as step#2, then choose to "redo" sharpening as step#274, where in the re-rendered pipeline should the sharpening be applied?

Yes, but there can be a clear difference between "re-editing" an existing adjustment, and "adding" a new adjustment. However, I am not much of a proponent of flexibility for the sake of flexibility. It is not particularly useful to keep stacking sharpening upon sharpening, and then have the user complain about the result.

Implement a clear set of processing steps to guarantee optimal results,
and implement reasonable flexibility to guarantee creativity.

I personally believe that LR doesn't currently find the right balance between the two, and adding pixel editing could force this to be re-designed, without entirely having to start from scratch.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 14, 2013, 03:53:21 AM
I personally believe that LR doesn't currently find the right balance between the two, and adding pixel editing could force this to be re-designed, without entirely having to start from scratch.
I would really like a (if need be pixel-level) plugin that really plugged into the LR processing chain, as opposed to exporting/reimporting. I.e. When I adjust the exposure compensation slider in Lightroom, the raw file would be re-processed on the fly with LR blocks, then the external plugin, then final LR blocks. Ideally, the external editor would only generate a set of LR-compatible scripts (MATLAB, Python, OpenCL, whatever) that would run equally well on anyone elses LR installation (or LR version 11).

Of course, this could lead to me having to redo plugin settings (such as applying spatial warping in front of a pixel-operation), but that would be on an as-needed basis.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: plugsnpixels on May 14, 2013, 03:56:57 AM
Oscar, I just realized that was you! I have a couple of your old plug-ins (http://plugsandpixels.com/converttobw.html) listed on my site. Glad to see you're back! Let's list the new apps. You too Schewe!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 14, 2013, 04:00:18 AM
"seems" being the operative word. There are implementations based on the lower resolution versions in a mipmap, but that doesn't scale and align properly. A good example of such bad blurring can be found in Apple's Core Image.
Are you saying that there are no high-quality, reasonable efficient (overlapping i/o) image processing algorithms running on GPUs? I looked into this a few years back, and expected there to have been some progress.
Quote
Yes, to all of your points, but as for storage: if you turn a 80 Mpx MFDB file into a 32bit floating point rep with 4 components,
what do you get? And then you need to also store all kinds of crap of the processing pipeline, intermediate caching of results, etc…
And then you want to create a panorama stitch with HDR with maybe 16 of those files…
*It seems that 5-6 GB is available right now.
*If you are working on massive projects, could not the software work on sensible tiles, dumping intermediate results to system memory?
*Perhaps users stitching multiple 80 MP MFDB images would be willing to purchase several GPUs?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/personal-supercomputing.html

GPUs are no doubt being hyped, and many customers have unreasonable expectations ("why does not Adobe rewrite Photoshop in CUDA, then it would be 100x faster"). But I am hoping that something good will come out of it. Perhaps the unification of CPU and GPU (first physically, then memory access, then instructions) will make it easier to re-use hw resources made for games and such in graphics and other dsp applications.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 14, 2013, 04:15:17 AM
Oscar, I just realized that was you!

Yes, it is me  8)

Thanks.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 14, 2013, 04:27:42 AM
GPUs are no doubt being hyped, and many customers have unreasonable expectations

My computer does a thermal shutdown when I try to play SimCity 5 on anything but the lowest quality setting.   :(
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 14, 2013, 04:42:14 AM
Are you saying that there are no high-quality, reasonable efficient (overlapping i/o) image processing algorithms running on GPUs? I looked into this a few years back, and expected there to have been some progress.

I wouldn't be qualified to answer.

The few examples I have seen are either doing blur incorrectly and/or are caching results.

Clearly, progress is going fast, and video resolutions are getting higher, and quality demands and expectations in our industry are getting lower, so eventually it will all merge. But if the card is doing caching logic, the application might as well control or copy that behaviour in some meaningful, user-centric way.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: opgr on May 14, 2013, 04:43:54 AM
My computer does a thermal shutdown when I try to play SimCity 5 on anything but the lowest quality setting.   :(

Generating bitcoins without your consent...
Title: Re: Sv: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: NikoJorj on May 14, 2013, 05:14:14 AM
But it has never been Adobe's way.

They always wanted to keep Photoshop esential for some tasks.
You mean, there are neither localized corrections nor softproofing for real in LR? That's all made up bu Kubrick in a Hollywood studio?  ;D


I think a node-based workflow, where one can piece together these operations in a logical flow, and revisit, rearrange, preview and create variations, with a real-time preview of any and all node outputs, would be a nice paradigm shift.  I would have no problem working on a "smart preview" version of an image, from raw conversion, all the way to output sharpening at final resolution, with the ability to render portions of it all along the node chain to see a 100% res sample to check my work.
Bringing some parametric goodness to pixel editing : that would rock!


Good lens correction. Mustasch type distortions, deconvolution of motion blur, CA, Coma, sharpness maps to even out edge sharpness or field curvature, or correcting nervous bokeh, oval highlights, flare /veiling removal etc. Stuff characteristic of lenses that can be anticipated.
Focus-related issues might be tougher to implement (at least without bracketing) but yes, the deconvolution of lens/capture defects (diffraction seems quite easy and motion blur is on its way) seems a really interesting development too.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 14, 2013, 11:25:15 AM
For me, these are the things I only go to PS to nowadays. I'd also like something I'll call 'color stacking', for situations where part of your image has a warm and another a cool color temp [like a mountain valley partially in shadow].
Why not use gradients/brush with colour temp adjustment in LR? If you are trying to modify specific areas of colour temperature that is.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 14, 2013, 11:52:56 AM
Speaking of blue sky stuff, I can't think of an easier and thus better metaphor for "layers and masks".  Why do we need to throw out this concept simply because it has been around for a long time in the imaging industry? It is brilliant, so IMHO, any truly competent image editor needs to have it. I'm aware of OnOne Perfect layers, but LR without layers and mask sophistication on a par with PS makes it incomplete and insufficient for my needs. Its absence in LR is the only reason I have to keep returning to PS. While on the subject of "tried and true" image editing features like layers and masks , I can think of a parallel debate going on currently with computer OS software designers. It has to do with "files and folders".  Many OS designers now say the files and folders concept is an antiquated metaphor and confusing to the young generation of smart phone users.  New mobile OS's for smartphones and tablets are increasingly being designed by software teams that feel we should dispense with this time honored analogy to paper filing cabinets for records management. Seriously? The files and folders paradigm works, and it ported very well to digital records management. Why throw it away and hide where our files are kept so that each individual application has to outsmart us to find our files? Stupid, stupid, stupid. This movement to do away with the files and folders concept will cause all sorts of file migration (and migraine) headaches for digital librarians and archivists in the near future. Hence,  a personal plea to all the software engineers following this thread.... KEEP both the "boringly conventional" files/folders and layers/masks concepts solidly in place on whatever new image editing software program you choose to give us.
Absolutely. Some ideas get adopted and copied because they are actually very good.
What one needs to be aware of of is when you are trying to reinvent the wheel and when you actually coming up with a useful new paradigm. Being different purely for the sake of it isn't particularly clever and as Jeff mentioned above, somethings in LR were done that way as it developed and it wasn't better.
With regard to layers - in one sense LR already has adjustment layers as you can think of the various options in develop module as just that and then the masking of adjustment layers is done with brushes/gradients, with the masks containing the instructions instead, rather than the other way around. And brushes/gradients can also be used if you want to double/triple up on 'adjustment layers" effects.

And with particular regard to the move away from folders, the cynic in me tends to think it's not done to benefit the end user, but to make it very, very difficult to then leave the programme/OS that uses that system.
I prefer to use the folder paradigm for two reasons:
1: It works with humans.
2: It works with a variety of programmes, not just the programme which organised the files [or maybe other programmes by same manufacturer].

Obviously some people's folder structures are a bit rubbish, but as long as it makes sense to them...... ;)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 14, 2013, 12:21:20 PM
I (and you?) tend to focus on the processing pipeline, the image processing mathematics and such. This tends to make up a surprising small percentage of the people, resources and codelines in a commercially successful application. There are umpteen factors that affect peoples happiness with a product.

You're right. Still, the more I think about it., the more I think there's a lot to be gained by doing more in the background. Lr is pretty darned good at that, and Ps is at square two. We just got background saves in CS6. We still don't have background histogram calculations on 16-bit images; we have to click on the little icon for a recalc. We can't apply a filter, turn off that layer while it calculates, and work on another layer. We can't crop while a filter is running. Ps doesn't calculate as much of a filter it needs to update the display and do the rest in the background. We can't run a filter on one open image while we work on another.

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 14, 2013, 12:27:41 PM
Current graphics cards have >1GB of memory, I don't think that buffer storage is the issue.

Yes, the Nvidia Tesla cards (http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-servers.html) run between 5 and 8 GB of ECC RAM. $4.5K, 235 watts for the fastest one (http://www.sabrepc.com/p-3722-nvidia-900-22081-0030-000-tesla-k20x-kepler-gpu-passive.aspx?gclid=CLKHncS4lrcCFdCZ4AodOycAoQ).

And 1.3 teraflops! The mind reels. Of course, as you and others have pointed out, there's a lot more to processing power than adding up the individual core numbers.

[Oops, sorry. The 1.3 Tflops is for double precision fp. For single precision, the number is almost 4 Tflops.]

Jim
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjwithers on May 14, 2013, 03:07:19 PM
I may be one of the only people here that is really happy with Photoshop as-is.  I would like it if all the bugs got fixed though.
(the healing bug that looks like an oil slick when healing on a semi-opaque area of a layer, The fact that CS6 doesn't save all the time to servers, and a few others).
The Just Do It initiative was a good one where Adobe fixed, updated or tweaked many of the old tools that needed it.  There are still more that need attention.... (transform tool, paths, and MANY more...).
And of course performance issues can always be improved.

I am not a Lightroom user so I rely heavily on Bridge for file browsing.  I know many others that do the same.
I really dislike Lightroom because I am using any one of 5 different computers to work on in a given day accessing files on portable drives or from a server. Lightroom and the catalogs don't play nicely on a variety of different machines.   I thought Lightroom would be a great application but to be honest, I can work just as fast in Photoshop and rarely have a use for Lightroom.  It also bogs down my machine heavily...
And I need to layer ALL my images for one reason or another.

In Photoshop, I never use 3D.
But i have made animated gifs, I use type, I use about 20% of the filters, i've been known to vector-layer from time to time, i use paths and channels heavily, I'm always doing custom CMYK conversions...

I'd be afraid that some sort of Photoshop replacement would require learning a new language so to speak.  The tools in Photoshop have become second nature to most of us. 

-josh
(hello Jeff, i hope you are well in Chi-Town)


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 14, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
I'd be afraid that some sort of Photoshop replacement would require learning a new language so to speak.  The tools in Photoshop have become second nature to most of us. 

Hi Josh...good to see you here...

With regards to the above, I don't think you would be a candidate for a Photoshop alternative because, well, you need Photoshop and you fall into the category; professional digital imaging/retouching/prepress that needs the full Photoshop package. However, many digital photographers (pros, non-pros) do not. So, that's kinda the issue...people who use Lightroom only need a portion of Photoshop on a subset of images and don't need everything Photoshop has to offer. That's what we're trying to arrive at, what besides Lightroom would users need for the relatively few trips to Photoshop people need.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 14, 2013, 03:51:41 PM
I'd be afraid that some sort of Photoshop replacement would require learning a new language so to speak.  The tools in Photoshop have become second nature to most of us. 

The node-based (dataflow) architecture could provide a compatibility module for photoshop "classic".  I think for many reasons, this would be essential.  You can't steal all those customers without being able to process all their legacy files and giving them something they already know as a place to start.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjwithers on May 14, 2013, 05:59:35 PM
Hi Josh...good to see you here...

With regards to the above, I don't think you would be a candidate for a Photoshop alternative because, well, you need Photoshop and you fall into the category; professional digital imaging/retouching/prepress that needs the full Photoshop package. However, many digital photographers (pros, non-pros) do not. So, that's kinda the issue...people who use Lightroom only need a portion of Photoshop on a subset of images and don't need everything Photoshop has to offer. That's what we're trying to arrive at, what besides Lightroom would users need for the relatively few trips to Photoshop people need.

To me, that is probably a big reason that I do not use Lightroom.  It lacks so many 'basic' photoshop features that I end up just doing all my editing in Photoshop.

I have various rendering application uses pertaining to various shoots.  Typically at my 'day job' Photoshop is the only answer.

However, when I am shooting music festivals and need to process decent quantities of images that are all organized in folders (not simply organized within Lightroom), rated, keyworded, the images need a similar look, perhaps slight retouching, rendered into 3 different files sizes, with a watermark, custom naming convention, etc... 
I always think Lightroom is the app I need but I eventually start bogging down the machine (laptop) and get frustrated and move into Photoshop with a few actions built. 
I also need to transfer those RAW and rendered files later into a variety of locations and have all those adjustments/retouching accessible again (from any of those locations) and possibly editable in Photoshop at a later date.   



Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rdonson on May 15, 2013, 10:01:50 AM
I'm not going to repeat what seems like obvious choices for a Photoshop for Photographers that others have offered.  For me things may be a bit different.

First, I'm a devoted LR user.  I use the Nik collection in LR and PS and enjoy their approach to image editing as fast, easy and intuitive.  I also use Pixelmator.  It has a lot of base Photoshop features and other tricks I'd never expect to show up in Photoshop.  Its also $15 from the Mac App Store.

Two things that I use Photoshop come from LR.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rasterdogs on May 15, 2013, 11:21:00 AM
By Jove they've done it! 
These features are needed in any enhanced/new app for photos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HPTc79Qw2g4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HPTc79Qw2g4)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 15, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
By Jove they've done it! 
These features are needed in any enhanced/new app for photos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HPTc79Qw2g4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HPTc79Qw2g4)
Just think what Rounded Corners can do for your architectural shots!!!


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: s4e on May 15, 2013, 06:17:36 PM
Hi Josh...good to see you here...

With regards to the above, I don't think you would be a candidate for a Photoshop alternative because, well, you need Photoshop and you fall into the category; professional digital imaging/retouching/prepress that needs the full Photoshop package. However, many digital photographers (pros, non-pros) do not. So, that's kinda the issue...people who use Lightroom only need a portion of Photoshop on a subset of images and don't need everything Photoshop has to offer. That's what we're trying to arrive at, what besides Lightroom would users need for the relatively few trips to Photoshop people need.
Very much agree. People using a lot of Photoshop functionallity or prefering Photoshop instead of Lightroom allready have a good option. Or Adobe could just offer Photoshop light version with some functionallity removed. The big gap is for Lightroom users.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Gulag on May 15, 2013, 06:23:05 PM
Very much agree. People using a lot of Photoshop functionallity or prefering Photoshop instead of Lightroom allready have a good option. Or Adobe could just offer Photoshop light version with some functionallity removed. The big gap is for Lightroom users.

Photoshop CS2 is still a free download from Adobe's site. Is CS2 too shabby for most people's increasingly insatiable technical needs? Do they really think , for example, their work must require the floating-point 32-bit Color Picker in CS6's CC version? You have your own answers, of course.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/8739680228_306c74a8cd_b.jpg)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 15, 2013, 10:15:34 PM
Feeling the fear from all these discussions prodding me to upgrade to either CS6 or Lightroom, I decided to download the trial version of Lightroom 4 (LR 5 beta won't run on my current system) and I'm finding little gotcha's that haven't been mentioned here when "Edit in" is invoked for further editing in Photoshop.

Well it seems Lightroom writes a copy in the format (jpeg/tiff) of choice chosen in LR Preferences of the Raw image whenever THE RAW ENGINES OF PS's ACR AND LIGHTROOM DON'T MATCH!


This happened when I chose CS3 Photoshop with ACR 4.6 edited Raw so I could try out JUST TO SEE if further edits like sharpening and maybe HiPass midtone contrast layer could improve things and cancel out if I saw it didn't. I don't look forward to continuously deleting duplicates of Raws whenever I want to experiment a bit.


It doesn't happen when I choose CS5.1.


Might want to fix that on the "Blue Sky" Photoshop/Lightroom marriage.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 15, 2013, 11:03:58 PM
Well it seems Lightroom writes a copy in the format (jpeg/tiff) of choice chosen in LR Preferences of the Raw image whenever THE RAW ENGINES OF PS's ACR AND LIGHTROOM DON'T MATCH!


That's as expected and designed. If the LR/ACR engine don't match LR must first render the image, save it and then pass it off to Photoshop. That's the only way to process the LR settings. If ACR & LR match, LR can simply pass the image to ACR for rendering. That's the way it's been since the beginning and unlikely to be changed in the future.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 12:21:04 AM
That's as expected and designed. If the LR/ACR engine don't match LR must first render the image, save it and then pass it off to Photoshop. That's the only way to process the LR settings. If ACR & LR match, LR can simply pass the image to ACR for rendering. That's the way it's been since the beginning and unlikely to be changed in the future.

I understand that, Jeff. I just didn't know the result was an unwanted automatic duplication of the file.

But really I just wanted to point out how the current separate upgrade path scenario between (perpetual license) LR and the required companion pixel editor, PS (now a CC only upgrade), creates problems that can be remedied by combining a "Blue Sky" (perpetual license) Photoshop version with LR as a complete upgrade package similar to CS series of Bridge/ACR/PS.

Just thought these kinds of small issues between the two apps in their current state needed to be pointed out.

As an example just for clarity let's say those that stick with CS6 and don't go CC subscription for further upgrades to Photoshop (when upgrading LR that may have a newer Raw Engine) would now require CS6's ACR engine to be upgraded as well or else deal with the duplicated file scenario and any other potential workflow snags in the future with newer versions of LR.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rovanpera on May 16, 2013, 12:36:49 AM
Here is my current LR-PS-LR workflow:

I have divided the adjustments in LR into 2 categories.

1. Basic Corrections:

wb
basic tone
noise reduction
lens corrections
calibration

this gives me a clean starting point for further corrections,
and this is what I export to PS, either for doing all further corrections in PS, or doing some editing in PS and bringing the file back to LR.

Some of the basic corrections are already adjusted in my camera specific default settings.



2. Creative Corrections:

tone curve
clarity
sharpening
treatment
color
split toning
graduated filters
adjustment brushes
effects

These the creative adjustments. Most of my develop presets only apply Creative Corrections. I have subsets like custom curves, color treatments, vignettes, sharpening etc.

No Creative Corrections are adjusted in my camera specific default settings.


Here is the workflow for prepping an image in LR for editing in PS:


- Adjust raw image, Basic Corrections and Creative Corrections
- take snapshot of all settings
- zero creative settings (adjustment preset)
- export image as 16 bit psd and import it back to LR stacked with original
- apply snapshot to original raw
- copy all settings from original raw to edited psd
- zero basic settings in edited psd (adjustment preset)

now I can open the psd for editing in photoshop and after saving the Creative Corrections are automatically applied to the edited psd in Lightroom.

Problems with the workflow:

- lots of manual clicking, snapshots, copy/paste etc.
- the corrections look slightly different when applied to psd vs raw, notably the vignettes.
- I can only see the "flat" psd when working in PS, I get to see the Creative Corrections in LR after saving in PS. I would prefer to see the Creative Corrections applied real time while editing the psd in PS.
- Sometimes something goes wrong and LR resets the Creative Corrections on the psd after editing it in PS, it's good to have a snapshot of the settings in case this happens.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on May 16, 2013, 02:18:59 AM
Photoshop CS2 is still a free download from Adobe's site.
Legally it isn't 'free'. You should have an appropriate licence to install it.

It will be interesting to see what happens further down the line. Will they need to shut down other authentication servers and release further unlock codes for more recent software ?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 16, 2013, 02:42:20 AM
As an example just for clarity let's say those that stick with CS6 and don't go CC subscription for further upgrades to Photoshop (when upgrading LR that may have a newer Raw Engine) would now require CS6's ACR engine to be upgraded as well or else deal with the duplicated file scenario and any other potential workflow snags in the future with newer versions of LR.

While Photoshop CS6 will get ACR 8.x (which will be able to render LR5 settings as long as the version are matched up) yes, there's always a chance that being out of sync will cause the render in LR behavior...nature of the beast an it's been this way since the beginning of Lightroom. Being new means you need to learn the ropes...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rick Popham on May 16, 2013, 07:08:37 AM
I understand that, Jeff. I just didn't know the result was an unwanted automatic duplication of the file.

Is that really a problem?  After all, if you bring the image into Photoshop for adjustments you'll have to save the file anyway -- either as a tiff or a PSD -- in order to keep those changes.  Of course, it doesn't allow you to just back out of Photoshop if you don't like the changes without deleting that TIFF that LR created.

As Jeff said, we have the next little while for things to remain compatible.  If the "Blue Sky" product ever comes to pass, and it's integrated with LR, we probably won't have to worry about stuff like this.

I have a question about the ACR 8 update to CS6.   Granted it won't have the new features of the ACR CC version, but I take it LR 5 WILL have those features.  So will files generated by LR5, using those new features, open without issue in CS6?  
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Manoli on May 16, 2013, 08:41:43 AM

I have a question about the ACR 8 update to CS6.   Granted it won't have the new features of the ACR CC version, but I take it LR 5 WILL have those features.  So will files generated by LR5, using those new features, open without issue in CS6?  

If I've understood correctly, CS6 will be able to open them, read them, save them - but you won't be able to use or adjust the new ACR controls, e.g. radial gradients - not even as smart objects (SO).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 16, 2013, 11:10:30 AM
Photoshop CS2 is still a free download from Adobe's site. Is CS2 too shabby for most people's increasingly insatiable technical needs? Do they really think , for example, their work must require the floating-point 32-bit Color Picker in CS6's CC version? You have your own answers, of course.
I think it's simply a mistake to just look at headline features as that is like deciding how good a camera is by its megapixel count. ;)
Each version of PS is better/easier to use than the previous version in lots of little ways, many of which I [and very likely many others too] found to be more beneficial than some of the whizz-bang features.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 11:37:04 AM
While Photoshop CS6 will get ACR 8.x (which will be able to render LR5 settings as long as the version are matched up) yes, there's always a chance that being out of sync will cause the render in LR behavior...nature of the beast an it's been this way since the beginning of Lightroom. Being new means you need to learn the ropes...

What does my being new to Lightroom have anything to do with my pointing out the lack of future proofing Raw engine mismatches when newer Lightroom upgrades come up in the future that won't match CS6 Photoshop's Raw engine?

Are you just side stepping the issue by claiming I don't know what I'm doing? I think I know enough to realize what this has in store for those that stay with CS6 to avoid the CC subscription upgrade path for Photoshop. Don't you?

You seem to be dismissing the REAL issue here with upgrades and Raw engine mismatches calling it the "nature of the beast". Or are you just wiping your hands of it and this is your way of expressing it?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote
Is that really a problem?  After all, if you bring the image into Photoshop for adjustments you'll have to save the file anyway -- either as a tiff or a PSD -- in order to keep those changes.  Of course, it doesn't allow you to just back out of Photoshop if you don't like the changes without deleting that TIFF that LR created.

It is when you don't want to have to keep deleting images you don't want. The way I work in ACR CS3 after editing 3000 Raws is that I often open in Photoshop just to see if I can make improvements as well as print to my Epson inkjet without have to save a duplicate tiff. Saves on hard drive space, organization clutter and reduces potential hard drive fragmentation. The whole point of editing Raw is to save all non-distructive edits to xmp and not have to render a duplicate.

But that's not been my main point here. It's about Adobe offering the perpetual license Lightroom alternative for those that don't want to go the CC subscription route which Photoshop is a part of. When Lightroom is upgraded in the future, in what capacity is CS6 going to become incompatible with newer versions of Lightroom? There will really need to be a separate type Photoshop created that has a perpetual license update to it's Raw engine to avoid incompatibility with Lightroom.

That's my main point! Get it?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 11:59:44 AM
Oh, and just to add. I just bought the Lightroom 4 DVD-ROM off Amazon for $97.77 plus tax/free shipping. I finally get the PV2012 processor and improved sharpening/noise suppression and expanded HDR-ish tone slider algorithms without having to upgrade to CS6. And I get to work in 64 bit processing and open in CS5 without the duplicate file creation even though the LR dialog box warning told me the two Raw engines were different.

See, Adobe's not so bad.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 16, 2013, 03:51:26 PM
What does my being new to Lightroom have anything to do with my pointing out the lack of future proofing Raw engine mismatches when newer Lightroom upgrades come up in the future that won't match CS6 Photoshop's Raw engine?

Because you've never experienced the mismatch before and don't understand the two basic behaviors. Lightroom can always process it's own raw settings and produce a saved TIFF, PSD or JPEG...how you open those into a pixel editor isn't the issue. Yes, you have a higher degree of integration between LR and Photoshop when the ACR versions are in sync...but it's only the integration that is different...the end result is the same. If ACR and LR are in sync, ACR does the render. If out of sync, LR does the render. In either case, the rendering will match.

And this is the way LR has behaved since version two when the improved integration was added.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 04:41:33 PM
Because you've never experienced the mismatch before and don't understand the two basic behaviors. Lightroom can always process it's own raw settings and produce a saved TIFF, PSD or JPEG...how you open those into a pixel editor isn't the issue. Yes, you have a higher degree of integration between LR and Photoshop when the ACR versions are in sync...but it's only the integration that is different...the end result is the same. If ACR and LR are in sync, ACR does the render. If out of sync, LR does the render. In either case, the rendering will match.

And this is the way LR has behaved since version two when the improved integration was added.

Knowing that, will the Raw engine mismatch prompt I got from LR4 opening in CS5 PS change the preview in PS from the 1:1 preview rendering in LR? Why didn't I get a tiff copy of the Raw going into CS5 from LR4 if the engines are different? CS5 PS doesn't have PV2012 ACR which is what I invoked in LR4. When opening in CS5 will I get the PV2012 rendering or CS5's ACR PV2010 or whatever it's set to?


Good grief, with such complexity I see why Adobe went CC subscription which I'm assuming utilizes this synching of apps approach. All those apps in the cloud probably must be a hairball of interconnected processes and workflows that need constant tending to when something changes and other apps don't hear about it.

So I'ld venture to guess if someone didn't know about the tiff dupe when Raw engines don't match and ran a batch process action in Photoshop out of LR4 (if that could be done) that there would most likely be a bunch of dupe tiffs in LR's catalog library. If that's the case then a bunch of 16bit 18MP Tiffs as a result of batch processing like this would really eat up a lot of hard drive real estate real fast.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 16, 2013, 05:22:18 PM
Knowing that, will the Raw engine mismatch prompt I got from LR4 opening in CS5 PS change the preview in PS from the 1:1 preview rendering in LR? Why didn't I get a tiff copy of the Raw going into CS5 from LR4 if the engines are different? CS5 PS doesn't have PV2012 ACR which is what I invoked in LR4. When opening in CS5 will I get the PV2012 rendering or CS5's ACR PV2010 or whatever it's set to?

I don't really understand the questions...when you opened in Photoshop CS5 from LR4, you should have gotten a prompt and you should have selected the option to have Lightroom render the file...did you?

If so, LR will have processed the image and saved a TIFF with a -Edit in the name and opened it in Photoshop, did it?

If so, ACR in Photoshop CS5 had nothing to do with rendering the image, you got whatever you set your LR4 parameters to.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 16, 2013, 05:31:51 PM
Jeff, the misunderstanding might be that there are (at least) two ways of migrating an image from LR>PS. One is what you say: in the Photo Menu>Edit In..... will do what you say. It creates a TIFF or PSD on the fly in the LR catalog, creates a new thumbnail in the LR "ribbon" at the bottom, and the TIFF/PSD in Photoshop, which then opens. You do your edits there, save the file, then revert to LR where everything done in PS is in the new image with all the LR and PS edits preserved. The other way is to simply *Export* an LR file to your hard-drive, in which case it saves a rendered TIFF/PSD according the parameters one sets in prefs for saving them. Then it is a manual process to reimport it into LR if you want to do that. Either route preserves what one has done in both directions, except that TIFF/PSDs reimported to LR whatever the process are flattened versions because LR doesn't support layers, but the layered versions are preserved in PS if one has saved them. Don't know if this helps "tlook" or confuses things further, or is beside the point, but this is my understanding of how these applications cohere, and I do it daily so I THINK I got it right!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 16, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
Then it is a manual process to reimport it into LR if you want to do that. Either route preserves what one has done in both directions, except that TIFF/PSDs reimported to LR whatever the process are flattened versions because LR doesn't support layers, but the layered versions are preserved in PS if one has saved them. Don't know if this helps "tlook" or confuses things further, or is beside the point, but this is my understanding of how these applications cohere, and I do it daily so I THINK I got it right!

Well, except for the fact that when exporting, you can have LR auto add the exported images back into the catalog...so you don't HAVE to manually import the exported files :~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 16, 2013, 05:46:53 PM
Ah, neat. Wouldn't have missed it 'cause I always do the "Edit In...." route.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 06:06:26 PM
I appreciate the time you both took to explain this. I'll just have to sort it out examining the preview differences viewed in CS5. I've been trying to figure out why one Raw image in the folder of jpegs/Raws I've been working from in LR isn't showing up.

Also I've been sort of panicking, and a bit in a funk over this trying to find the CS6 upgrade disc online only to find the CS6 download version on Adobe's website and not really thrilled at paying an additional $199 after I just bought LR4 just to resolve this pesky workflow snag with Raw engine mismatches just to get PV2012.

I remember reading about this copied file issue about a year ago during the upgrade skip over path discussions at Adobe forums or maybe here and decided I didn't want to get into that and plumb forgot about it and went for the LR4 purchase. DOH!

I've been so used to opening from CS3 Bridge into ACR 4.6, edit and open in Photoshop CS3 and cancel out if I don't like the edits or need to print. It's so simple and fast. It's just one damn thing after another.

This is why I don't upgrade this much because of all this complexity. It's draining.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: SeanA on May 16, 2013, 06:20:49 PM
Layers, layer blend modes and real masking and selection tools so the thousands of hours and dollars I have invested in creating my fine art workflow won't go to waste. 

I woulds rather it all be in 1 program if possible, wasn't lightroom created modular for just this reason, just add Add a photohsop/pixel/layers based module and i will be a happy camper.

Is it just me or do having all those adjustment brush dots drive you crazy.  layers with selections, masks(clipping masks too) and blend modes is just a better more accurate easier way to work in a non destructive way.


Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 16, 2013, 06:39:14 PM
I appreciate the time you both took to explain this. I'll just have to sort it out examining the preview differences viewed in CS5. I've been trying to figure out why one Raw image in the folder of jpegs/Raws I've been working from in LR isn't showing up.

Also I've been sort of panicking, and a bit in a funk over this trying to find the CS6 upgrade disc online only to find the CS6 download version on Adobe's website and not really thrilled at paying an additional $199 after I just bought LR4 just to resolve this pesky workflow snag with Raw engine mismatches just to get PV2012.

I remember reading about this copied file issue about a year ago during the upgrade skip over path discussions at Adobe forums or maybe here and decided I didn't want to get into that and plumb forgot about it and went for the LR4 purchase. DOH!

I've been so used to opening from CS3 Bridge into ACR 4.6, edit and open in Photoshop CS3 and cancel out if I don't like the edits or need to print. It's so simple and fast. It's just one damn thing after another.

This is why I don't upgrade this much because of all this complexity. It's draining.

Tim, there's no question that PV2012 is a considerable improvement on PV2010 and earlier. So even if you were not a customer for PS at all, just using LR for all your image editing, moving to PV2012 was a seriously good idea. *Sometimes* there are upgrades that are just a damn good improvement and make sense, and make it worthwhile mastering the transitional bumps. You can of course update all your raw files from PV2010 to PV2012 automatically, but the general advice is not to do that, because there can be unexpecetd appearance changes to various images you may not like. OK, so now that you have a version of LR/ACR that works in PV2012, take advantage of all it can offer you - you'll be making fewer trips to PS; but when you need to go there, we've just finsihed discussing the modalities.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 06:49:56 PM
I don't really understand the questions...when you opened in Photoshop CS5 from LR4, you should have gotten a prompt and you should have selected the option to have Lightroom render the file...did you?

If so, LR will have processed the image and saved a TIFF with a -Edit in the name and opened it in Photoshop, did it?

If so, ACR in Photoshop CS5 had nothing to do with rendering the image, you got whatever you set your LR4 parameters to.

To get back to this, see the screengrab of the LR Raw Engine mismatch warning and what I got. I'm using LR4.4 downloaded from Adobe's website. Can't update CS5's Photoshop Raw plug-in as suggested so I'm stuck with this issue.

Mark, there's no question that PV2012 is a huge improvement in 100% previews of rendered pixel detail and slider tonality dynamics. I'm just thinking I should've went with CS6 instead.

I'm loving LR's collapsing interface arrows and fast zoom in's holding down the magnifying glass cursor on top of a lot of other things I'm discovering that are going to take getting used to.

Now I just got to figure out a way to turn off CS5's tabbed file stacking of multiple images opened from LR.

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: madmanchan on May 16, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
Tim, in short you need a compatible version of ACR to provide compatible renderings when using Lightroom's "Edit in Photoshop" feature.  That's because Lightroom actually uses the Camera Raw plug-in to render the image when opening that image into Photoshop.  (This is also the only case where Lightroom uses the ACR plug-in.  In all other cases when rendering pictures, Lightroom does the processing itself.) 

If you have Lightroom 4.4, for rendering compatibility with "Edit in Photoshop" you need Camera Raw 7.4.  That means you need CS6. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 08:33:05 PM
Tim, in short you need a compatible version of ACR to provide compatible renderings when using Lightroom's "Edit in Photoshop" feature.  That's because Lightroom actually uses the Camera Raw plug-in to render the image when opening that image into Photoshop.  (This is also the only case where Lightroom uses the ACR plug-in.  In all other cases when rendering pictures, Lightroom does the processing itself.)  

If you have Lightroom 4.4, for rendering compatibility with "Edit in Photoshop" you need Camera Raw 7.4.  That means you need CS6.  

Thanks for the confirmation, Eric.

Since I only tried this on one image seeing I didn't want to complicate libraries, catalogs, preview/edit caching schemes between Bridge and LR (CS3 Bridge is still showing the other duplicate tiff I tossed in LR "ribbon" display in a previous session testing this yesterday-need to update Bridge's cache for that folder), I didn't see a difference between the previews generated by CS5 engine and LR's but then I only turned on PV2012 and did a bit of sharpening in LR.


I didn't even save the changes to an xmp file like I do with CS3 Bridge/ACR and I was working in the Develop module clicking on the tiny thumbnail in the bottom horizontal "ribbon" display. I realize LR is implementing thumbnail generation differently from CS3 Bridge, so I have to keep in mind if what I'm clicking on and deleting/editing is a real file or just a place holder jpeg in the "ribbon". Library acts more like Bridge and Develop acts more like ACR but with a lot more and much better interface extras.

In hypothetical "Blue Sky" Photoshop, can this Raw engine mismatch between LR/Photoshop be stopped, fixed or eliminated without upgrading two apps?

Couldn't I just toss CS5's Adobe Camera Raw plug-in? That sounds like a better idea.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 16, 2013, 08:45:40 PM
Tim, in short you need a compatible version of ACR to provide compatible renderings when using Lightroom's "Edit in Photoshop" feature.  That's because Lightroom actually uses the Camera Raw plug-in to render the image when opening that image into Photoshop.  (This is also the only case where Lightroom uses the ACR plug-in.  In all other cases when rendering pictures, Lightroom does the processing itself.) 

If you have Lightroom 4.4, for rendering compatibility with "Edit in Photoshop" you need Camera Raw 7.4.  That means you need CS6. 

Eric, I'm interested to drill down on this one for a moment. PSCS5 accommodates ACR 6.7, which does have PV2012. So if I were to send a raw file from LR 4.4 to PSCS5 using "Edit In.....", I am getting the benefit of PV2012 in that PS rendition, aren't I? Visually, when I'v e tested, it seems so. Where exactly does the compatibility problem arise between LR 4.4 and PSCS5 using ACR 6.7? I also have CS6 so personally I could do it either way, but for those who don't, just wondering.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 16, 2013, 09:00:18 PM
And now I lost the CS3/ACR4.6 xmp edits from that original Raw mentioned here working it the way I did in LR.


This is why I only work on one image trying this stuff out just I did with iPhoto on Raws which uses a Library system of saving edits without actually selecting Save in the interface (WHAT A CONFUSING MESS). It creates duplicates I didn't ask for as place holders representing editing sessions. When you quit the app and open it up again it takes you to the point left off that I never saved to. The result is you can't tell if that's a REAL file or a place holder just representing an editing phase.

I turned on "Write to xmp" in LR preferences which saves both xmp and to catalog. Might turn that off and see if it stops the CS3 xmp overwrites.





Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 16, 2013, 09:04:19 PM
And now I lost the CS3/ACR4.6 xmp edits from that original Raw mentioned here working it the way I did in LR.


This is why I only work on one image trying this stuff out just I did with iPhoto on Raws which uses a Library system of saving edits without actually selecting Save in the interface (WHAT A CONFUSING MESS). It creates duplicates I didn't ask for as place holders representing editing sessions. When you quit the app and open it up again it takes you to the point left off that I never saved to. The result is you can't tell if that's a REAL file or a place holder just representing an editing phase.

I turned on "Write to xmp" in LR preferences which saves both xmp and to catalog. Might turn that off and see if it stops the CS3 xmp overwrites.



IPHOTO! - Tim - puleese - this is a thread about the rethinking of an adult application!

Let us not confuse us, you, or the subject of the thread with such alien ideology.  :-)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: datro on May 16, 2013, 09:59:01 PM


Photoshop (in no particular order):


  • Perpetual licensing
  • Separation of ACR into its own product (so I could _just_ buy and update ACR--no Lightroom eye candy or fancy printing features, just standalone ACR that sends a rendered image to the editor of my choice or saves it out to a file)
  • No longer having ACR monopolize either your Bridge instance or your Photoshop instance
  • Ability to run batch actions in the background while working (or alternately, have more than one instance of PS)
  • Editable keyboard shortcuts
  • Savable preferences (and everything gets saved, down to where you want your scratch file stored)
  • Smart objects (and thus smart filters and smart transformations)
  • Transparency
  • Selection tools (unlike everyone else, I seem to have no problem with the various wands and lassos we already have)
  • Blend modes
  • Advanced brush options (what we already have)
  • A color picker that's not a total usability disaster (plus the ability to turn it off)
  • Pressure sensitivity/tablet integration
  • Advanced mask options (basically what we have now)
  • Transformations (skew, scale, warp, free transform)
  • Old style crop tool (or at least let the damed tool default to "active" instead of making us click the aspect ratio box every time)
  • Perspective correction
  • Lens corrections
  • High pass filter
  • Sharpening
  • Gaussian blur (and all the other blurs, I guess)
  • Noise reduction
  • Noise creation
  • Healing brushes/clone stamp/content aware versions of those tools
  • 16 and 32bit depth options
  • Stitching (plus the ability to save a stitch, including geometric corrections and apply it to more than one set of images)
  • HDR
  • Focus stacking
  • Adjustment layers (levels, curves, sat, b/w, etc.)
  • White balance adjustment layers (you can do it with hue/sat, but white balance would be more intuitive)
  • Actions (but with an easy way to change a step's parameters without having to actually perform the step)
  • History
  • CMYK
  • Type (the CS6 type engine is actually good enough for anyone who's not a designer, but a glyphs panel would be really, really, really, really nice)



Things I don't need:

  • 3D
  • Video
  • Vectors (aside from type, of course)
  • Liquify
  • Puppet Warp
  • Lens flare
  • Flick panning (seriously, who on earth thought it was good feature in the first place and why is it still here and enabled by default in CS6?)
  • Animated zoom


+1 Especially the "don't need" list.  I could also do without the editable keyboard shortcuts.

Dave
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: s4e on May 17, 2013, 04:34:50 AM
Tim, in short you need a compatible version of ACR to provide compatible renderings when using Lightroom's "Edit in Photoshop" feature.  That's because Lightroom actually uses the Camera Raw plug-in to render the image when opening that image into Photoshop.  (This is also the only case where Lightroom uses the ACR plug-in.  In all other cases when rendering pictures, Lightroom does the processing itself.) 

If you have Lightroom 4.4, for rendering compatibility with "Edit in Photoshop" you need Camera Raw 7.4.  That means you need CS6. 

This is one of many reasons we want an edit module in LR that use the same raw engine!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rick Popham on May 17, 2013, 07:22:52 AM
There will really need to be a separate type Photoshop created that has a perpetual license update to it's Raw engine to avoid incompatibility with Lightroom.

That's my main point! Get it?

Isn't that what this whole thread is about?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Oldfox on May 17, 2013, 09:21:12 AM
I could also do without the editable keyboard shortcuts.
I "couldnt". There is no keyboard shortcut for Flatten Image. I changed Ctrl+F for that. Adobe uses it for Apply Last Filter. For every single psd-file I have, I use Flatten Image at some stage. I dont use filters very often, so for me the edit is very convenient.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 17, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
I "couldnt". There is no keyboard shortcut for Flatten Image. I changed Ctrl+F for that. Adobe uses it for Apply Last Filter. For every single psd-file I have, I use Flatten Image at some stage. I dont use filters very often, so for me the edit is very convenient.

For Flatten Image I cretaed SHIFT COMMAND (Windows CTRL) comma. This works and sacrifices nothing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 17, 2013, 10:16:06 AM
+1 Especially the "don't need" list.  I could also do without the editable keyboard shortcuts.

I "couldnt". There is no keyboard shortcut for Flatten Image. I changed Ctrl+F for that. Adobe uses it for Apply Last Filter. For every single psd-file I have, I use Flatten Image at some stage. I dont use filters very often, so for me the edit is very convenient.
In a nutshell this exchange sums up the entire thread.
Some people hate LR and love Bridge, others love LR and think Bridge is a waste of time.
Some people need certain features, other users think that completely different features are the mutt's nuts.
In other words there is very little consensus as to what is essential for photographers, even amongst the ones here on LuLa. Which on the whole I think would be fair to say is biased towards traditional photography which is only part of today's photography.

If you want a more pure photography programme LR already does the job extremely well [not that it couldn't be improved further]. Now if you want to do some bluesky thinking about a PS alternative that will attract photographers still using PS over LR, you need to consider that they use PS for a reason [or to be more precise hundreds of different reasons] so to attract them you may need to include an awful lot more than the stuff LR can do very well and in many ways a lot better.
I do all my basic grading work in LR these days as it's much quicker, easier and in many ways more powerful than using PS, though being able to use ACR as a filter in PS CC evens things up a bit. Currently I use PS for the more complex, less traditional in a sense photography work or as I saw it very nicely put once 'the fun stuff'. Which is probably the best way of using the programmes in my view and how I usually recommend using them when showing peeps workflows with PS/LR/Br.
Also I don't recall it being mentioned but the integration between PS and LR/PS and Br is is a very, very useful and powerful aspect of the programmes, particularly for professionals as it can save so much time. So if you want an viable alternative to PS - you need to think about BR + LR too.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 17, 2013, 11:02:01 AM
Quote
PSCS5 accommodates ACR 6.7, which does have PV2012.

Mark, ACR 6.7 only allows selecting it but disables the tools that allow rendering with it. When I open a Raw with ACR 4.6 xmp sidecar edits into ACR 6.7 within PSCS5 Bridge and select PV2012 it tosses previous edits (at least from what I see in the Basic Panel). It does the same thing to PV2010 xmp sidecar edits except you can't see it in the preview depending on what PV2010 tools have changed AND USED from PV2010.

The thing about LR4.4 is that it gives you two places to "Automatically" save edits (NOT AVAILABLE IN CS3-CS5 BRIDGE) without actually selecting (ACR style) "Export Settings to XMP"-(a manual method available in LR) and those two places are the Catalog-(database) and XMP sidecar-selectable in LR "Catalog Settings" as automatic actions after quitting LR without saving (similar to iPhoto without duplicate jpeg place holders). Turning off (unchecking) "Automatically Write Changes To XMP" as a sidecar in LR "Catalog Settings" will stop the automatic overwrite in LR that showed up in my CS3 Bridge.

See here:

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS638E3AC9-A04C-4445-A0D3-F7D8BA5CDE37.html

Seeing how LR automatically saves whatever you do to catalog database even when you don't commit the edits to xmp sidecar like in Bridge and quit out of LR, I'm keeping an eye on how large that catalog is going to grow when experimenting with 3000 Raws.

It would be nice/desirable if this level of complexity between a parametric editor and pixel editor was reduced or eliminated for future upgrading between the two. A suggestion is one could be a companion app package (similar to Bridge/ACR/PS) that "AUTOMATICALLY" share the same Raw engine in all future upgrades.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Oldfox on May 17, 2013, 12:42:54 PM
For Flatten Image I cretaed SHIFT COMMAND (Windows CTRL) comma. This works and sacrifices nothing.
That's a good hint;-) I will change Shift+Ctrl+Comma into Apply Last Filter. So nothing is sacrified.
Btw, I also changed Ctrl+L and Ctrl+R into Image Rotation > 90° CW (and CCW). I had a scanning project where I had to rotate a lot images. Using keyboard shortcuts made the task a lot easier.

It seems that the keyboard shortcuts come a long way. Levels and Curves have a shortcut but  Adjustment Layers none.

So editable keyboard shortcuts is good thing to have. You can personalize the program as you want.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 17, 2013, 12:49:24 PM
Btw, I also changed Ctrl+L and Ctrl+R into Image Rotation > 90° CW (and CCW). I had a scanning project where I had to rotate a lot images. Using keyboard shortcuts made the task a lot easier.
Even easier is to rotate a batch of images in Bridge/Lightroom, your images will then open the right way up in PS.

Quote
So editable keyboard shortcuts is good thing to have. You can personalize the program as you want.
Being able to customise a programme is the single best way of minimising customers complaining about how things are done.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 17, 2013, 01:04:33 PM
Levels and Curves have a shortcut but  Adjustment Layers none.


I applied the Levels and Curves shortcuts to the Levels and Curves Adjustment Layers, because there are no circumstances in which I would use Levels or Curves without them being on Adjustment Layers.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 18, 2013, 06:29:53 PM
I "couldnt". There is no keyboard shortcut for Flatten Image. I changed Ctrl+F for that. Adobe uses it for Apply Last Filter. For every single psd-file I have, I use Flatten Image at some stage. I dont use filters very often, so for me the edit is very convenient.

There is already a shortcut for flatten image, I use it all the time, on the PC it's [Ctrl+shift+E] which flattens the whole stack down to a single layer and [Ctrl+E] merges down from the currently selected layer - so no need to reconfigure any shortcut keys  :)

Dave
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Mark D Segal on May 18, 2013, 07:08:07 PM
There is already a shortcut for flatten image, I use it all the time, on the PC it's [Ctrl+shift+E] which flattens the whole stack down to a single layer and [Ctrl+E] merges down from the currently selected layer - so no need to reconfigure any shortcut keys  :)

Dave

Control Shift E is Merge Visible. This is not necessarily the same thing as Flatten Image.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 18, 2013, 07:33:16 PM
I would like a pretty full version of PS, but I could definitely live without the extended stuff or video or the pointless animated GUI etc. I really don't get on with LR (as some here may already know), because there just isn't enough individual pixel level control in there for me (yes I am also a control freak). So a cut down version of a photo editing tool that is more LR-centric than PS-centric, would definitely not be for me. So I don't know if this has already been suggested in this thread, as it is getting a little too long to browse through, but instead of asking Adobe to re-invent the wheel, which lets face it, they are not going to do, then would it not be easier for Adobe and for us who already know the product, for them to simply dig out and port the code from say CS3 (non extended), into the current 64 bit environment and then offer purchasable compatibility updates? Yes I know when I say easy, it is not in fact that easy, but it could be done and by a third party and on a fixed contract probably.

But even as I am writing this, I know none of this is ever going to happen, as to do something like this means Adobe would be cutting off its nose to spite its face, as quite a lot of its 12 million world wide customer base, would immediately buy into this much cheaper solution and so undermine Adobe’s current drive towards maximising its income stream from existing customers, right up until the pips squeak – although I recently read somewhere on the net, that apparently only around a quarter of a million have so far signed up to the CC, which works out at less than 3% if I have pressed the right buttons on my calculator, although this number might just be hype put out by the opposing camp I suppose.

But if something like this cut down version of PS or similar came to fruition and I am sure Jeff is totally the right guy to be pushing this idea for us all and straight into the ears of right people, then I would definitely buy into it, but as the old saying goes, I am not going to hold my breath.

Dave
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 18, 2013, 07:40:03 PM
Control Shift E is Merge Visible. This is not necessarily the same thing as Flatten Image.

Yes I know, but it does the same thing as flatten, only it doesn't turn the remaining layer into a background layer, which I only do right at the end of the whole process, with create new background from layer command - sorry if this is what you meant as I agree that no, it doesn't do that.

But there is still no need to change the standard shortcut keys, just record an 'action' to flatten the image and turn the remaining layer into a background layer and then assign keys to that action - I use Ctrl+F4 to do this, which works just fine and also leaves all my short cuts in tact and unchanged.

Just found this helpful short cut keyboard map - click here (http://www.zerolag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZeroLag.com_photoshop_screen_logo2.jpg).

Dave
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Jim Kasson on May 19, 2013, 04:57:16 PM
Just found this helpful short cut keyboard map - click here (http://www.zerolag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZeroLag.com_photoshop_screen_logo2.jpg).

I love it!  Thanks.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 19, 2013, 05:20:55 PM
Cntrl/Cmd+Shft+Alt+ e is one I use a lot. It makes a new layer using a flattened version of all the visible layers, without flattening document - very handy.

As for flattening documents, why do people do this? I always save the full layered PSD and if I ever need a flat version I simple export from LR or if in PS, I save as and merge layers.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jjj on May 19, 2013, 05:31:26 PM
Just found this helpful short cut keyboard map - click here (http://www.zerolag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZeroLag.com_photoshop_screen_logo2.jpg).
Handy list, but misses one I use all the time Cmd/Cntrl + spacebar get [temp] zoom tool and if you add alt you get zoom out.
Another handy tip is  bypressing and holding a keyboard shortcut key, PS lets you temporarily switch to a tool. When you let go of the shortcut key, Photoshop returns to the tool you were using before the temporary switch.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: judymcintosh on May 21, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
Tim, in short you need a compatible version of ACR to provide compatible renderings when using Lightroom's "Edit in Photoshop" feature.  That's because Lightroom actually uses the Camera Raw plug-in to render the image when opening that image into Photoshop.  (This is also the only case where Lightroom uses the ACR plug-in.  In all other cases when rendering pictures, Lightroom does the processing itself.) 

If you have Lightroom 4.4, for rendering compatibility with "Edit in Photoshop" you need Camera Raw 7.4.  That means you need CS6. 

For me this point ( which unless I've got it wrong seems to contradict the comments of others on the raw-rendering in the edit-in PS and indeed what I assumed the  Dialogue box suggests) is critical to going forward with development from a ( hobbyist) photographers perspective.
But first to back up, thanks greatly to Jeff for setting up a constructive and forward thinking thread. Whatever our personal ( for a few) and corporate views about adobe we are here discussing what we think we need in digital processing, so I am leaving my muddy shoes outside the door.
Personally I follow the 90:10 rule of using Lr(4.4) or CO7 resorting to Ps(cs5) for the minority. I am not in any way needing more of cs5 and content aware fill excepting of cs3 I had before ( relaxed upgrading), provided that my Raw rendering can follow any new camera files and ideally follow advances( and both adobe and captures current results do great things especially on my old 1ds files).
So in following this useful discussion I agree with the " wish list" but essentially it is what I already have in cs5 ( and a fraction of what it can do I appreciate) and what I have already paid for etc.
So I'm all for improving Lr with these functions perhaps avoiding any need to edit in ps or similar in future but I wonder if the real basic need is that future development of Lr should ensure that irrespective of versions of Ps ( or models of payment for it) that Lr renders the raw file not acr so that photographers who take their files to ps for edits do so without being locked into the time the latest ps version they have is.
 I suspect others may have grander vision for this, and I have to acknowledge that my wish list is probably limited by my experience ( with ps features to date) but frankly I see little reason to be on the upgrade treadmill for features I don't need.
I'm I too naive about this? I guess even if this isn't the case I can render in LRx as saved tiffs and then import to then redundant cs5 (in my case) without its version of acr involved edit up save to a edits folder and then point Lr at that. I do similar for CO7 so it may be even more " consistent" from a workflow approach.

Thanks also to Michael and Thomas, I'm sure you know that despite the vitriol most here are 90% on the same page, and that the opposite of love is grief not hate ( even though they sometimes look similar etc)... But that's for discussion outside this thread
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 22, 2013, 04:41:48 AM
But first to back up, thanks greatly to Jeff for setting up a constructive and forward thinking thread. Whatever our personal ( for a few) and corporate views about adobe we are here discussing what we think we need in digital processing, so I am leaving my muddy shoes outside the door.

Yep...which was the main point of this thread...

Seems this thread was noticed by Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/)...which was interesting...he said:

"To bad they didn't start this project before the hoopla about Creative Cloud set in. [Apparently Scott Kelby suggested something similar on one of his video sessions; plus apparently Jeff Schewe is now asking about something similar on Luminous-landscape discussion groups. I don't take any ownership in the idea itself; frankly, I thought it was an obvious development project when Lightroom first appeared.]"

Well...truth be told, the whole idea of a Lightroom Pro (that included pixel editing with parametric editing) didn't start with Adobe's announcement of Photoshop CC. It actually started when Mark Hamburg came to visit (and stay at the house for a couple of days) last year. The genesis for this thread started way before Adobe decided to drop CS7 perpetual...(and way before Scott made mention of the concept of LightShop on his Grid last week).

Lightroom is the only application in the Adobe portfolio that was really designed by and for photographers (you can read about the Shadowland development story here (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/)).

Actually, Lightroom's life was really uncertain for a long time at Adobe until Apple announced Aperture and Adobe decided to circle the wagons and go forward with Lightroom.

What isn't well known is that Mark Hamburg left Adobe after LR2 was released. He was head hunted by MSFT to work on Windows "usability" and moved from Santa Cruz to Woodinville, WA to work at MSFT. But, things degenerated at MSFT (for various reasons).

At some point, (when my wife and I visited Mark & family in Woodinville) the topic of his returning to Adobe came up...(he wasn't having any fun at MSFT). As things turned out, he decided to return back to Adobe where he drove the development of Adobe Revel (a non-pro soccer-mom photo app). He remained in WA and occasionally work from the Adobe Seattle office (the old Aldus offices).

So, fast foreword to now and all of a sudden the concept of a Photoshop "rebooted" is getting traction.

No, I don't know if it will go anywhere...but I do know there are some at Adobe that are not at all happy with what has transpired...so, the best I can say is we'll see. But the more feedback that we get, the better chance that something "interesting" may happen. Hopefully the concept will get some traction...(and not k=just because Thom or Scott Kelby mentioned it).

:~)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: judymcintosh on May 22, 2013, 05:37:30 AM
Thanks Jeff. I understood from other comments you made that there was a "variety of opinion" and like you I hope constructive commentary can assist in development by whomever can take the lead...as in nature vacuums dont exist but transiently....
BTW can you clarify the ACR doing the rendering whenever LR "edits in PS" that Eric mentioned? I think it is a pretty important issue as I described and maybe from an underlying "architecture" of the way these applications integrate as well I naively wonder.
PS I meant to thank Eric and Thomas (but no slight to Michael for hosting the great site) Im new here and have only seen the 3 of you in your great videos.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 22, 2013, 06:09:01 AM
BTW can you clarify the ACR doing the rendering whenever LR "edits in PS" that Eric mentioned? I think it is a pretty important issue as I described and maybe from an underlying "architecture" of the way these applications integrate as well I naively wonder.

Not 100% sure what you are referring to...if you are talking about LR5 being able to open a rendered image into Photoshop CC or earlier, it all depends. But, as long as you make sure you have LR 5+ render the image, any settings you apply in LR5 will carry over (they may not if you use the option "Render Anyway"–which isn't an optimal result).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 22, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
Thanks Jeff. I understood from other comments you made that there was a "variety of opinion" and like you I hope constructive commentary can assist in development by whomever can take the lead...as in nature vacuums dont exist but transiently....
BTW can you clarify the ACR doing the rendering whenever LR "edits in PS" that Eric mentioned? I think it is a pretty important issue as I described and maybe from an underlying "architecture" of the way these applications integrate as well I naively wonder.
PS I meant to thank Eric and Thomas (but no slight to Michael for hosting the great site) Im new here and have only seen the 3 of you in your great videos.

Check out what I previously posted earlier in this thread (with screengrabs) relaying this Raw Engine mismatch issue that affects preview quality appearance differences in Photoshop with LR4's PV2012 vs CS3 ACR PV2003 and CS5 ACR PV2010.

It's all about the preview quality rendering between the parametric generated preview and what appears in Photoshop at different zoom views with regard to the appearance of color and sharpness. 100% zoom is quite difficult to assess image quality on high resolution images.

This is another reason Photoshop is so important for me especially in CS3 ACR 4.6 so I could get more accurate to print views at zoom levels that showed the entire frame of the image over 100% views which is like looking at the image with a magnifying glass in both PS/ACR/LR.

Something odd lately I've noticed after downloading and using LR4 with its new PV2012 and generally improved main panel previews over CS3 Bridge's is that now I'm getting the same level of quality previews in CS3 Bridge's main preview pane on SOME folders of images. Apparently either LR4's preview generator has affected Bridge's cached previews or enacted Preferences that never took hold with regard to High Quality Preview settings. Whatever it is I've noticed a change in Bridge CS3 Main Preview pane which now shows sharpening and correct color saturation when it didn't used to, but not for all folders.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: mornellas on May 22, 2013, 02:48:13 PM
As I sit here in front of my monitor pondering the reasons why, simple things come to mind with wide eyes. We have to look past the rational of one's needs and explore the WHY's of the request. If we do that, you shall find there are many needs related to having the ability to turn things on or off within an application.

To build a brand new application seems to me, a large effort and investment. That of which, I really question the value considering that all we need is already built for the most part. Seems that having to regrind a new application is double work.

Photoshop is what it is. Good, bad or indifferent. Realistically, if we had the ability to gray out or turn off features or sets of features pre determined by a consensus - with the ability to customize the relationship of features to some extent, then you now have the core goal addressed.

To build an application and omit features, just leads to feature requests for the new app. As one can imagine, this turns into creating an exercise in square circles. Having the ability to turn features on or off as needed is a more desirable, practical and realistic goal.

Any other way, is a waste of time for Adobe and its users.

mike
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 22, 2013, 07:00:06 PM
To build a brand new application seems to me, a large effort and investment. That of which, I really question the value considering that all we need is already built for the most part. [...]

Photoshop is what it is. Good, bad or indifferent. [...]

Any other way, is a waste of time for Adobe and its users.

I think this depends upon the scope of your imagination for what an image tool could be, and your understanding of what are photoshop's shortcomings.  For me it could be many things, and its shortcomings are also many.  While there might be only so many ways to put brush to pixel, there are many ways to construct an image tool that have come along since photoshop was invented.  It might have been good enough for dear old dad, but it isn't good enough today.  If you can invent something new and steal photoshop's user base, then it's worth the money and time.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: mornellas on May 22, 2013, 07:31:50 PM
All valid points.

What I'm trying to get across is that applications have grown so much that the maturity level is robust enough to turn things on and off.

There may be other reasons to create new applications. Some reasons may be engineering, marketing - some may be political and some more likely shall be financial. Adobes ship has sailed and keeping it afloat is what I believe is the primary reason for a new app. The challenge they now face is coming up with new ways to skin the same 85% dead cat so they can stay in business.  AKA - Creative Cloud.

Everyone was complaining about not having a Swiss Army Knife. Now that you have it, we complain about it having too many tools.

Modular software will be the future that Adobe and other software manufactures can capitalize on without alienating its user base. The Cloud will be more like a hurricane for Adobe, if they screw up the internet ping authorization.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: madmanchan on May 22, 2013, 08:02:23 PM
To clarify:  When Lightroom uses "Edit in Photoshop" to send images to Ps without requiring writing an intermediate TIFF/PSD out to disk, this requires using the Camera Raw plug-in.  No, it doesn't call up the ACR interface, of course (i.e., this is all happening behind the scenes), but it is the one time when it's using the ACR plug-in instead of Lightroom's own internal imaging logic.  The reason this matters is that if you have an older version of ACR that doesn't support the features you're trying to use in Lr's Develop, then the handoff from Lr to Ps won't work properly (at that point, you'd have to render your Develop edits into an intermediate PSD/TIFF in order for the edits to be reflected properly in the image you see in Ps).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: judymcintosh on May 23, 2013, 06:15:46 AM
Thanks Eric, thats really clear and significant for the reason you mention.
My request for this thread is that any future for Lr or its offspring would ensure its raw conversion is passed to what for many (me at least) would be a more ancient (pre CC) Ps application  with its raw converter (ACR) sitting in the background. It needn't be a design feature of course (just more convenient), just a workflow for users to save to a folder as PSD/TIFF and then open those in Ps. That is now what I will be doing (Lr4 and CS5), as Id mistaken the "Render using Lightroom" to mean Lightroom would do the raw conversion.
Im sure I've gone a generation back on raw conversion for those photos that I decided to take to Ps unknowingly, and been playing with the lowest common denominator between the two for raw conversion.For me Lr generations have been worth the difference to upgrade, but Ps not. The changes in the payment model may actually work better for me ironically through this better understanding and think "beyond Ps upgrades". Heat gives way to light.......
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 23, 2013, 02:48:14 PM
Quote
When Lightroom uses "Edit in Photoshop" to send images to Ps without requiring writing an intermediate TIFF/PSD out to disk, this requires using the Camera Raw plug-in.  No, it doesn't call up the ACR interface, of course (i.e., this is all happening behind the scenes), but it is the one time when it's using the ACR plug-in instead of Lightroom's own internal imaging logic.

The reason for the bold highlights, Eric, is to point out the fact Lightroom uses plug-ins as well which made me wonder why the code couldn't be changed so that there would be an option within the "Edit In Photoshop" dialog box to allow selecting which ever "Imaging Logic" is most current (or desired) so a bitmap copy isn't created thus allowing "Edit In Photoshop" to act in the same manner it does starting out in Bridge>ACR>Photoshop.

Why does Photoshop's plug-in get to override LR this way? Would it be easy to make a change like that for current users of CS5 PS and older and in future CC upgrades when LR uses older "Imaging Logic"?

Once parametric edits are rendered to pixels and previewed in Photoshop those instructions are no longer needed and so an option on priority of which app controls the look of the preview should be given to the source, the app that originally created the parametric instructions.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: aduke on May 23, 2013, 06:28:37 PM
I just performed the following experiment.

In LR5, I chose an image and applied a very strong radial filter to it, severely darkening most of the image. I then chose Edit-in Photoshop, via the menu (or rather,  by right-click the image and chose edit in Photoshop.) LR gave a message saying that there was a conflict between the ACR levels in LR and Photoshop, and asking what I wanted to do. I told it to render using lightroom.

In PS, the image appeared, looking just as it did in LR, with a bright spot in the middle of a sea of black.

Returning to LR, the tif was deleted. I again told LR to edit in PS by using Ctrl-E. Again the message appeared and again I said to render in LR, and again the expected image appeared. Back in LR it was deleted again.

Returning to LR  and deleting the image again, I once more said to edit in Photoshop. The same message appeared, but this time I replied to Open Anyway, causing the image to be rendered in PS. This time the image looked as if there was no radial image.

I am now convinced the the choice to Render Using Lightroom causes lightroom to do exactly that, creating a tif that is passed to PS. Also, that the Render Anyway choice sends the raw file to PS along with the parametric version of the settings and the image was rendered in PS. It looked somewhat like the base image but without the radial filter.

Alan
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: MHMG on May 23, 2013, 10:15:07 PM
So, here's a PS feature I just used today, that until today, I didn't realize just how often I have come to rely on it. I wanted to look at three different print versions of an image, ie. one softproofed on HN photo rag using Peceptual rendering, another softproofed on HN photo rag using Relative rendering with BPC, and still another version of the same image softproofed to an altogether different paper, for example, Canson Platine. Sometimes, I want to look at variations of sharpening settings at a particular magnification. PS's Arrange/tile plus "match" features let's you do this in a really elegant way. LR has a side-by-side compare feature of same image but no way that I know of to compare more than two versions of the same image in a tiled scene on screen. PS will tile 3, 4, etc, images side by side and let you set unique edit/output renderings to each image. I know of no other software at the moment that can do this. So, Jeff, if you have the ear of some skunkworks software programming team that wants to reinvent the image editing process for us photographers, that would be a great feature to include/retain in the next incarnation.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: aduke on May 24, 2013, 12:09:54 AM
So, here's a PS feature I just used today, that until today, I didn't realize just how often I have come to rely on it. I wanted to look at three different print versions of an image, ie. one softproofed on HN photo rag using Peceptual rendering, another softproofed on HN photo rag using Relative rendering with BPC, and still another version of the same image softproofed to an altogether different paper, for example, Canson Platine. Sometimes, I want to look at variations of sharpening settings at a particular magnification. PS's Arrange/tile plus "match" features let's you do this in a really elegant way. LR has a side-by-side compare feature of same image but no way that I know of to compare more than two versions of the same image in a tiled scene on screen. PS will tile 3, 4, etc, images side by side and let you set unique edit/output renderings to each image. I know of no other software at the moment that can do this. So, Jeff, if you have the ear of some skunkworks software programming team that wants to reinvent the image editing process for us photographers, that would be a great feature to include/retain in the next incarnation.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

If you make several virtual copies of an image and then make individual and different changes to each, you can see all or most of them on a single screen by selecting all of them and entering Survey Mode (hot-key N).

Alan
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 24, 2013, 12:20:50 PM
Quote
I am now convinced the the choice to Render Using Lightroom causes lightroom to do exactly that, creating a tif that is passed to PS. Also, that the Render Anyway choice sends the raw file to PS along with the parametric version of the settings and the image was rendered in PS. It looked somewhat like the base image but without the radial filter.

Just for clarification what version of Photoshop were you using?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: aduke on May 24, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Tim:

Sorry for not noting that: CS5!

Alan
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: digitaldog on May 24, 2013, 01:25:45 PM
I am now convinced the the choice to Render Using Lightroom causes lightroom to do exactly that, creating a tif that is passed to PS.

Yes, when you export OR LR tells you the version of ACR isn't on parity and you pick Render using LR. Usually ACR does the rendering not LR when you use Edit in Photoshop. Been that way for years but at least version 1 used to have LR do the rendering. Later Adobe just made a call to Photoshop (and ACR) to do this. If the two are on version parity, LR doesn't render, ACR does.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on May 24, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
Yes, when you export OR LR tells you the version of ACR isn't on parity and you pick Render using LR. Usually ACR does the rendering not LR when you use Edit in Photoshop. Been that way for years but at least version 1 used to have LR do the rendering. Later Adobe just made a call to Photoshop (and ACR) to do this. If the two are on version parity, LR doesn't render, ACR does.

So then it's possible to switch it back and give the rendering option to LR, right?

Wish I knew the reason why this was changed or why it's set up this way.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: digitaldog on May 24, 2013, 02:48:44 PM
So then it's possible to switch it back and give the rendering option to LR, right?

Sure, use Export.

The current behavior where ACR renders is a lot faster and you end up in Photoshop which is kind of what you asked for when you say "Edit in Photoshop". Oh, and you get that edited version back into the library after you save. If you don't have the latest version of ACR, you want to use the Export command, unless you want to cripple the editing you've done with newer software, just to use the Edit In Photoshop option.

What LR doesn't do is force you to upgrade to the newer version of ACR. But you do have to use Export.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: JohnHeerema on May 24, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
When Adobe decided to improve it’s revenues by converting purchasers into renters earlier this month, I found myself wondering what I would do if I had the opportunity to create an alternative to Photoshop.

The question has been percolating in my head for a while now, and when I discovered this thread, I decided to try sharing some of my thoughts, despite the conventional wisdom that it is pointless to post into a thread that is already several pages long.

By way of background, I’ve been using Photoshop for a very long time. As much as I like Lightroom, I use Photoshop at some point in the production of almost all my exhibition images. My technical expertise is in software development and digital signal processing. I was pretty interested in Live Picture when it was introduced, until I saw the price.

If I could, I’d want to hire about six particular people from Adobe for the project (naturally, that would include Mr. Knoll, and a few other key people). That would mean total clean-room development, but starting with a fresh slate might not be such a bad thing.  There’s a lot of pretty well thought out stuff in Photoshop, so building something better would be far from trivial – but doable with the right people and resources, IMHO.

When I edit images, I think in terms of regions of interest, and transformations on them.
Photoshop has much more precise ways to select a region of interest than Lightroom does, wherein lies much of its appeal for me. In Photoshop, selections can be either vector-based, or mask-based. Some tasks lend themselves to one kind of selection, and some to another. Either way, the partial selection (variable transparency) concept is very nice.

Smart filters in Photoshop, and adjustment brushes in Lightroom have the desirable ability to be modified at any point, which is something I’d like to generalize to all image operations in a Photoshop replacement.

The layer paradigm seems natural to me, perhaps because I think of layers in terms of the very efficient bitblt operations that are performed between them. I’ve noticed though, that a surprising number of people don’t find them intuitive.

Whether layers are intuitive or not, one of the things that almost everyone does in Photoshop from time to time is “copy merged to new layer”, which breaks the ability to treat the layers beneath the new layer as being editable. I’d like to make that unnecessary.

I’ve been thinking of an alternative approach, in which regions of interest don’t have to fit into the layer stack approach. Perhaps you’re editing a photo of someone, and you are adding local contrast to her left iris. You might want to do a few things to the same selection.

I’d like to be able to define “left iris” as a named selection, including a bit of feathering around the edges, and then be able to perform one or more transformations on that selection. The selection and its transformations would be one “thing” in a collection of such things. Perhaps they would look like a layer stack, as they do in Photoshop, but they wouldn’t have to. They could be items in a list, nodes in a node tree, pages in a book, or something entirely new.  Whatever they looked like, you could presumably click on something, and immediately see what part of the image it affected, and be able to modify any of the transformations that had been made on it. Lightroom sort of takes this approach, but the Lightroom approach doesn’t have a useful way to organize the adjustments to an image, so it bogs down after a while: there are just too many pins on the image to tell what’s what.

I’d like the selection and transformations to survive through other operations that happened to include the same region of interest. For example, if I were to slightly enlarge the entire eye, I’d like the transformations on the iris to remain editable.  If I had removed distracting reflections in a few windows in a photo of a building, and then applied a transformation on the whole building to straighten its vertical lines, I’d still like to be able to modify the transformations on the individual windows.

I don’t see any reason that operations that we’ve come to think of as being pixel oriented have to be stored as bitmaps. Filters such as liquefy, and content-aware healing can still be thought of as being essentially parametric.

Naturally, I think of “snapshots”, and alternative branches as being intrinsic functionality (think of what a version control system does).

For the sake of efficiency it might very well be that the software would have to create a series of bitmaps as part of its imaging processing pipeline (I think that it would) – but I see that as an efficiency optimization, rather than as a necessary part of the visual paradigm.  So even if the internal representation were something like bitmaps and bitblt operations between them, you’d never have a need to make an explicit new bitmap of a particular state via “Merge Visible” and its variants.


Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 24, 2013, 11:48:31 PM
Naturally, I think of “snapshots”, and alternative branches as being intrinsic functionality (think of what a version control system does).

Ironic you said this because the genesis of Lightoom was a sandbox project Hamburg started called PixelToy (sometimes refereed to Schewe Paint by Mark) which essentially leveraged Photoshop history and snapshot functionality (I had a large'ish impact on history when Mark first wrote it for Photoshop 5).

PixelToy was an ability to do a bunch of stuff to an image, take a snapshot and use the snapshot to blend by brush, back into the image. Each snapshot could be edited...for further functionality.

Sadly, when Mark was convinced to to go a database driven app, the snapshot painting fell by the wayside. And history in Lightroom isn't related, not is there an ability to blend between LR snapshots.

Maybe something for Mark to take a 2nd look at.

BTW, I just bought a copy of Live Picture 2.6 on Ebay for $ .99 (shipping and handling was $10.95). I've got an old G4 laptop with 10.4 and classic running OS 9.x on it. I'm gonna try to install it and play with Live Picture to try to remember how it worked.

I still have my old LP 1.3 and the $3,499 dongle but I don't think I have a machine it would run on (and LP 2.6 was much better).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 24, 2013, 11:55:29 PM
John, why not adopt an N-dimensional dataflow processing model for your architecture?  

Layers are just a 1-dimensional dataflow processing model (aka, "node based"), and you can always implement layers within a part of your N-dimensional dataflow model (where N = 1 dimension).  Everything can be a smart filter, and baking in intermediate layers can be an option.  You can accomplish many kinds of things using N-dimensions that you can't accomplish in one dimension, e.g., making multiple uses of a single source with indefinite non-destructive editing and undo, etc.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: JohnHeerema on May 25, 2013, 01:24:35 AM
Quote
why not adopt an N-dimensional dataflow processing model

I like that. The trick might be creating a user interface that was intuitive for photographers - I'm not sure that I see photographers warming up to something that looked too much like a data flow diagram.

I would think that a lot of transformations would be order-independent, but that you'd need a good way to specify when one transformation has to be done before (or after) another transformation.
 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: JohnHeerema on May 25, 2013, 01:29:29 AM
Quote
BTW, I just bought a copy of Live Picture 2.6 on Ebay for $ .99 (shipping and handling was $10.95). I've got an old G4 laptop with 10.4 and classic running OS 9.x on it. I'm gonna try to install it and play with Live Picture to try to remember how it worked.

I'm sure that a lot of us would love to read about your impressions of Live Picture as viewed from your perspective of all that's happened to image editors since then.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on May 25, 2013, 01:37:04 AM
I'm sure that a lot of us would love to read about your impressions of Live Picture as viewed from your perspective of all that's happened to image editors since then.

Well, I was beta testing PS 3.0, LP 1.3 and X-res all at the same time. I haven't touched LP for over a decade...so it'll be interesting to see what it has to offer in retrospect. I'll post a report if I get it to install & work.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 25, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
I like that. The trick might be creating a user interface that was intuitive for photographers - I'm not sure that I see photographers warming up to something that looked too much like a data flow diagram.

I would think that a lot of transformations would be order-independent, but that you'd need a good way to specify when one transformation has to be done before (or after) another transformation.
 

Agreed.  I think it would be possible to build one or more levels of abstraction above the dataflow engine in order to present a reasonable user interface for different purposes.  One could even construct a photoshop "classic" compatibility layer.  At the least, one could hide some of the complexity.  In other respects, though, the complexity of the dataflow diagram would only need to equal the complexity of the task being undertaken, and that's up to the ambition of the user. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: mornellas on May 28, 2013, 10:55:35 AM
Quark exposure  - AKA Pixel lens had non linear history painting with the full suite of brushes. It was pretty cool for the time - circa 1996, but was bogged down by the lack of power from the machine technology of the time. This is not a new idea, but it could be useful if the complexity were to be whittled down to something manageable for users to easily understand.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 28, 2013, 01:16:46 PM
Agreed.  I think it would be possible to build one or more levels of abstraction above the dataflow engine in order to present a reasonable user interface for different purposes.  One could even construct a photoshop "classic" compatibility layer.  At the least, one could hide some of the complexity.  In other respects, though, the complexity of the dataflow diagram would only need to equal the complexity of the task being undertaken, and that's up to the ambition of the user.  
Musicians have been coping with "data flow diagrams" for a long time, either in the form of computer software or analog synthesizers. The screenshot below shows an example where you can connect various modules graphically, and link parameters to sliders/wheels so that you can build an "instrument". Something similar might be envisioned for photo? One might choose to design image processing pipelines from scratch (even from mults, adds, delays and other low-level concepts), or one might to use user-friendly pre-set "imaging instruments" that you have designed yourself, downloaded for free or purchased.
(http://fr.audiofanzine.com/tests_v3/native_instruments/reaktor5/spacedronestructure.jpg)

The biggest difference between musical instruments and image processing may be the level of graphical interaction with the parameters and data expected by photography editors (i.e. masks). Using MATLAB, graphic interaction with the image while doing edits is an issue for me.

I assume that a pipeline like this would have to have a certain "overkill" in terms of precision (floating-point?) and would have to be generic rather than tailor-made. This suggests worse performance than anything tailor-made (Lightroom/ACR?)

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 28, 2013, 02:07:51 PM
Musicians have been coping with "data flow diagrams" for a long time, [...] Something similar might be envisioned for photo? One might choose to design image processing pipelines from scratch (even from mults, adds, delays and other low-level concepts), or one might to use user-friendly pre-set "imaging instruments" that you have designed yourself, downloaded for free or purchased.
[...]
The biggest difference between musical instruments and image processing may be the level of graphical interaction with the parameters and data expected by photography editors (i.e. masks). Using MATLAB, graphic interaction with the image while doing edits is an issue for me.

I assume that a pipeline like this would have to have a certain "overkill" in terms of precision (floating-point?) and would have to be generic rather than tailor-made. This suggests worse performance than anything tailor-made (Lightroom/ACR?)

Just as you can write a program in a high-level language and compile it to machine language, you could also implement high-level interfaces and/or languages that map to a low-level dataflow machine architecture.  You could even implement a "compatibility module" for classic photoshop methods.  You could go a little further and implement some rather simple but powerful structures in an easy-to-digest form.  But for anyone with the ambition, you could build modules of your own to match the complexity of your undertaking while hiding the details.  [The most complicated dataflow diagrams are only needed where there is an irreducible complexity to the task, and in those circumstances, one is always in an existential confrontation with one's own ambition and the computer.]

Used in the most ambitious way, the processing demands would be greater of course.  But when used to do the old familiar sorts of things, it is still possible to elect to "bake in" intermediate data such as masks in a way that would reduce the demands on real-time processing in much the same way as it is done today.

All pipes need not be created equal.  Some boxes only transmit scalar quantities or vectors.  For boxes that transmit raster data, the pipe need only be as wide as necessary.  Masks could still be 8 bits for those who want that, and as I mentioned, the masks could be baked in as intermediate results, until such time as the source data is changed. 

The short answer is that I don't think that this architecture needs to be any less efficient than the classic architecture on "classic" tasks.  And it /certainly/ could be used to exploit multicore/multhread architectures more readily than photoshop classic. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 28, 2013, 03:01:39 PM
Just as you can write a program in a high-level language and compile it to machine language, you could also implement high-level interfaces and/or languages that map to a low-level dataflow machine architecture. 
But high-level language compiled into lower-level language tends to not be as efficient as optimal low-level language. The expressibility of something like x86 assembler is probably a close map to the possibilities of the hardware itself. Someone with a lot of skill, patience and intimate knowledge of the function to be implemented as well as the hardware to do the calculations can do intricate mappings between the two that offers good quality vs execution time trade-offs.

If you implement something high-level (like MATLAB) there are few tools to express that you only care about integer values from -127 to +128 in a calculation on 32-bit integers (there are limited tools to operate on integers period). It is hard to express that a log2 operation can be done using only bitshifts in some cases, or to call the common "count leading zeros in this word, please" instruction found on some cpus. There are few tools that hint that organizing/accessing data as 128 bit "units" is good for some SIMD units/cache architectures, while other widths may be better for others. Even Intels own C-compiler has its limits, not to mention Mathworks dubious MATLAB->C translation.
Quote
You could even implement a "compatibility module" for classic photoshop methods.
Sure. You could embed Photoshop and have all of its features, plus some new alternative. Adds to the implementation complexity and might detract from the perceived "cleanliness" of the software.

Playing a bit of a devils advocate here, I think it is an interesting project. I think that the dsp is doable. It is often the UI that makes or breaks an otherwise good product (I suck at designing and using UIs).

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on May 28, 2013, 03:38:30 PM
Musicians have been coping with "data flow diagrams" for a long time,
or more correctly, a few musicians.
Most musicians I know would run a mile rather than get involved with that sort of complexity.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on May 28, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
Playing a bit of a devils advocate here, I think it is an interesting project. I think that the dsp is doable. It is often the UI that makes or breaks an otherwise good product (I suck at designing and using UIs).

Keep in mind that photoshop "classic" is a 1-dimensional dataflow machine (approximately).  Getting into the esoterics of compiler design is not necessary here.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on May 29, 2013, 02:48:34 AM
or more correctly, a few musicians.
Most musicians I know would run a mile rather than get involved with that sort of complexity.
"Most musicians" would include a gazillion classical violin and piano players. I would argue that a number of artistically influential, economically successful musicians relate to this complexity in some ways. One might argue that some of their gear is stage-props, that they have hired hands to do the routings etc. Still, signal routing/processing is part of the game for many musicians working with electric stringed instruments, keyboards and computer production.
(http://www.synthmania.com/Famous%20Sounds/Images/KeithEmerson.jpg)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/aqueouspenguin13/edgepopgear.jpg)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: mistybreeze on June 07, 2013, 08:53:51 AM
Well, this sure is an interesting discussion.

I may be one of the only people here that is really happy with Photoshop as-is.  I would like it if all the bugs got fixed though...I am not a Lightroom user so I rely heavily on Bridge for file browsing...I really dislike Lightroom because I am using any one of 5 different computers to work on in a given day accessing files on portable drives or from a server. Lightroom and the catalogs don't play nicely on a variety of different machines.

Josh's comments resonate with me, except I've tried to like CS6, and I keep going back to CS5. I'm usually the first to embrace change, but not if the change doesn't excite or seduce me. CS6 leaves me wondering who is running the show at Adobe? I'm extremely reluctant to commit to CS6.

I rarely use Bridge, mostly for working on eBay photos when selling the crap that needs to go.

I met George Jardine many years ago when he was trying to convince NYC pros to go with Lightroom. I kinda fell in love with George, and I've been following his guru genius ever since. My studio uses his Lightroom system design with great success, and I have about five machines. I use them seamlessly, and I credit George Jardine for that. For a sophisticated user, I think George offers the best tutorials on the market.

Then Lightroom 4 came out and annoyed me. I sensed a strong slant to appeal to a mass audience to make more money. I don't need Maps. I don't need only one book-making choice. I also don't need a lot of useless garbage slowing down the engine to make the workflow more sluggish.

I don't think you would be a candidate for a Photoshop alternative because, well, you need Photoshop and you fall into the category; professional digital imaging/retouching/prepress that needs the full Photoshop package. However, many digital photographers (pros, non-pros) do not. So, that's kinda the issue...people who use Lightroom only need a portion of Photoshop on a subset of images and don't need everything Photoshop has to offer.

I don't need everything Photoshop has to offer. There is much in Photoshop that I never use and don't foresee using in the future. Yet, it looks like I may not be a candidate for this "blue sky" Photoshop alternative.

Fashion and portrait photographers in advertising need compositing, pixel editing, adjusting, and prepress to keep the customers satisfied. And Lightroom doesn't do enough to satisfy NYC's Fine Art community.

If CS5 could work forever, I think I'd be OK with that. The only thing I really long for is spending less time at the computer. (I may be forced to retire with this software insanity.)

We experience drops in internet service from time to time. I think it's a building issue, but I will not move my studio. And in the age of terrorism, I have no desire to entertain "cloud" services. I never want to be forced to rely on the internet to conduct business. So, I'm not sure what I'm going to do or where my business fits into this mess. Frankly, I'd like to tell Adobe where to stick it, and I may be first in line if Capture One could ever recruit the right genius.

It seems to me the issue always boils down to money, and my suppliers tell me over and over again: the pro community is too small, there's no big money in serving pros.

So if "Lightroom Pro" isn't going to have enough features to truly attract the photography pros like me, what market will it serve? What financial incentive exists to create this product? This "blue-sky" stuff sounds like another watered down version of pro. Does Adobe (and the marketplace) really need another product like that? Don't we already have enough?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on June 07, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
It seems to me the issue always boils down to money, and my suppliers tell me over and over again: the pro community is too small, there's no big money in serving pros.

So if "Lightroom Pro" isn't going to have enough features to truly attract the photography pros like me, what market will it serve? What financial incentive exists to create this product? This "blue-sky" stuff sounds like another watered down version of pro. Does Adobe (and the marketplace) really need another product like that? Don't we already have enough?
How many Lightroom users are there out there? How many photoshop users? How many "photo-oriented" photoshop users? As Lightroom is a lot cheaper and more consumer-oriented, I would have guessed 10:1 or more for Lightroom. But it does not have Photoshops legacy, nor its practical monopoly within its segment.

What features would Lightroom have to add to convince "Photoshop" and "Lightroom+Photoshop" users to go Lightroom-only/mainly? What features could/should be stripped?

How important are storage/bandwidth-implications of the Lightroom model vs Photoshop model to you?

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter Le on June 07, 2013, 08:52:45 PM
    It would be easier to add a few things from Lightroom to Photoshop to get there........then the other way around....
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: kim on June 25, 2013, 11:29:12 AM
An excellent thread and apologies for coming late to the party with my contribution.

I’ve been using PS for 10 years and LR for about 1 year. Both are excellent products in their own areas and when the two are combined the result is both convenient and unexpected. I get the impression from reading various forums that many users are unaware how LR and PS integrate – which was my situation until recently. When an image needs more manipulation than LR4 can reasonably do I export the image to PS CS6 – no surprise there. The unexpected part is that by importing the .PSD file into the LR4 catalogue (there's an option to do this automatically during export), all my LR4 export routines are then available to flatten, resize, convert and sharpen the image in the saved .PSD file. It's simple and fast to use.  For me this workflow provides the basic principles for the design of a New PS product which is really just a “Super LR”.

New PS will have a commercial angle that can’t be ignored if it’s going to succeed. Old PS was able to maintain its excessive  pricing level (by amateur standards) historically because it was able to do more than its competitors 10+ years ago and became the standard among business users along with business-level pricing. The price of New PS will have to be much lower than CS6 if it’s going to take off among amateurs and I suggest  a small premium above todays LR. Obviously it must also have a perpetual use licence not rental.

While talking about commercials there’s another area which needs to change in New PS. It's time to decouple raw support from the main program. It’s a ridiculous situation when ACR is made deliberately incompatible with old versions of LR & PS so that you have to buy a new version of LR or PS just because you bought a new camera. It should be possible to upgrade just the ACR module for a small price (compared to the price for full LR), with everything else being compatible.  For Adobe there will be an income stream from selling new Raw modules and photographers will be happier as their old software will still be usable (for a small fee) with a new camera.

For functionality of New PS, reading through this thread pretty much every PS feature has been labelled essential by someone.  New PS has got to be different to PS and be stripped down  otherwise there’s no point in starting again. This will disappoint some of the thread contributors but I see no alternative. For the disappointed people there will still be Classic PS to do what they want.

For me the most important features of New PS are:
- Using LR for raw conversion and initial settings
- Using LR export functions for output
- non-destructive editing throughout and that includes filters, sharpening etc. - If LR’s parametric model can be extended, great.
- A wider range of local adjustments than in today's LR
- Pixel based content can be added and modified

LR has a small range of tools for local adjustments but I find them limited. In today’s PS I use adjustment layers, masks and “blend if” extensively for local adjustments. These are broadly the same in principle as LR’s local adjustments except that PS has many more options available with much better ways of defining and refining the masks. Good selection tools are a must – todays magnetic lasso, polygonal lasso, magic wand plus a selection brush. I only use a handful of blending modes: normal, lighten, darken, color, luminosity and occasionally multiply. All the other modes can go. The only PS brush I use is round with varying hardness and opacity (as in LR) so all fancy brushes can go although I can see a place for a square or triangular brush.

The ability to add new pixel-based content – for example to cover up gaps or unwanted objects in an image – is essential with some sort of layer model to control it. Masks are essential. Being able to increase the dimensions of an image so that images can be combined or cloned material added. Content based fill and adding custom patterns are useful. Transformations, nudging, aligning are all needed.

All the vector stuff and paths can go, along with graphical design stuff like text and shapes. If someone needs these they will have to go back to classic PS.
CMYK seems a divisive subject with photographers being firm “Yes” or “No” without any in the middle. I have no need for it myself but maybe a specialised export routine will be enough ?
No need for video and 3D.
Given the capability of export routines I see no need for Actions either.
Compatibility with existing plugins is vital – I often use Topaz Denoise and Focus Magic.
I’d like to see more interpolation routines such as the various Sync implementations.

I can see why many want stitching included but I think it's an unnecessary distraction. A simple export model to another tool like PT GUI should be enough. HDR – I’m not sure.  Probably editing of 32-bit images should be included.

A potential barrier to widespread acceptance of a PS replacement based on LR is the LR Catalogue and having to import images into it. While many are OK with this, some photographers hate it. I find it cumbersome and prefer to use Bridge. Bridge has the advantage compared to the LR Catalogue of simply displaying what is in the folder without having to do an Import. On the other hand I can see why the Catalogue is needed technically by LR to maintain the details of an image manipulation. This leads me on to a suggestion to solve the Catalogue problem in the new PS. Introduce a new mode for the Catalogue  - “Bridge mode” - which works like Bridge and just displays the images in a folder. If the photographer works on an image or changes anything the details automatically get saved into a local file, otherwise it’s left as is. Functions that depend on the full Catalogue aren’t available in my Bridge mode.

As this has been a long post (sorry, but it’s a good opportunity to add my views to the debate) here’s a summary of my new PS.
- Builds on the principles of LR so that it's really just a “Super LR”
- non-destructive editing throughout
- Uses LR for raw conversion and initial manipulations
- Separate pricing for ACR (Raw module) upgrades
- Uses LR export routines for output
- Uses LR Catalogue but adding a new simple Bridge mode where Import is not needed
- Has Layers for adding & manipulating pixel based material
- has a wider range of local adjustments
- Existing PS plug-ins can be used for modifying content  e.g. sharpening and grain reduction
- Includes variety of selection and masking tools
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: StephaneB on June 25, 2013, 06:33:11 PM
Hoping this won't be considered provocative, but if LR included the Nik plugins in a non-destructive way, it would simply be heaven. No need to change anything to them, just embed them and make them non destructive. I'd subscribe to that! Honest.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on June 25, 2013, 09:20:51 PM
Hoping this won't be considered provocative, but if LR included the Nik plugins in a non-destructive way, it would simply be heaven. No need to change anything to them, just embed them and make them non destructive. I'd subscribe to that! Honest.

What function(s) do you want that are in Nik and not in LR?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: StephaneB on June 26, 2013, 01:40:12 AM
What function(s) do you want that are in Nik and not in LR?

In general: U-Points! There is nothing like it in the entire industry and it is by far the best selection method for localized adjustments for photography. The edge finding in LR's paintbrush does not come close to the combination of precise selection and seamless blending that U-Points offer. U-Points just work naturally, visually. They remove the technicality from the act of selecting.

DFine

Viveza: even if most of Viveza's adjustments are available in LR, they are global.

Silver Efex

HDR Efex (cannot be non-destructive, would generate a tiff)

Sharpener Pro: more of a nice to have. I find sharpening in LR to be excellent. It is easier to isolate skys from sharpening with Nik Sharpener thanks to, yes, U-Points.

Color Efex: I use some of the filters for some pictures, but I can live without it. It would certainly be great to have the same in LR, but Color Efex filters are very CPU-taxing and I can't see how it would be practical to have that kind of processing in a non-destructive pipeline. I'd expect it to slow down LR to a crawl, making the whole thing unusable.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Alan Gilbertson on June 26, 2013, 08:17:03 PM
For a "Lite" photo editing application (or directly in LR/ACR), I'd love to see LUTs incorporated for fast color manipulation. I could envision a thriving community of "look" enthusiasts sharing them on Adobe Exchange or Photoshop.com. One only has to look at the success of Instagram and its ilk to know that this approach has a great deal of appeal. From a professional perspective, a massive upgrade to color correction could surely be migrated from pro video apps like Speedgrade, and the ability to save and reuse looks is already a big part of the appeal of OnOne and Nik for many working pros (wedding photographers, especially, have to be able to work extremely fast, but they aren't alone).

The essential retouching basics like healing brush, spot healing brush and clone stamp, plus a full set of blend modes would have to be in there for when things gets too much for the raw processor. Ditto masking and compositing, for the simple tasks like sky replacement. Beyond that, ACR covers just about everything I ever want to do with straightforward photographs.

Beyond that, when I'm doing art pieces or a commercial project destined for InDesign and/or the web I would probably always turn to Photoshop because a) it has everything, and b) I'm used to it.

I'm a Bridge > ACR > Photoshop guy, mostly because I do a lot more with Creative Suite than photography and Bridge covers everything (and I was already using Bridge long before LR came along). LR and I have a friendly but distant relationship.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: PECourtejoie on July 29, 2013, 09:15:33 AM
Hi all.
What a Ps for photographers could do without is: most of the Extended features: 3D, Video. Some of the stacking are useful for astrophoto or to remove differences (moving objects) between photos.

CYMK mode can go, for me: InDesign has the ACE engine anyways, and one wants to convert there to CYMK at the end, so that one can use the RGB files for ePub/Tablet. export. (It could still be useful to have Proofing.) (or if it stays, it would be in an output module, where the SFW tools could be)

What it needs to have: Masking (with different aliasing modes for paths), but masks could be nodal, reused on several layers as instances that can be inverted...
Using the 8BF plug-in architecture means one could use the many Photoshop plug-ins there, but the native ones must have blend mode and opactity controls built in/or be available on the layers panel in non modal mode, so that one can experiment when applying the (smart) filter.
All filters and adjustment must be "smart", no more destructive editing, even on masks: using the smart masks talked earlier.
The content aware tools are too good to do without.

I'd dream about a sort of "match color" for layers that would check for contrast and color consistency.
Looks (LUT) are very good, and one could use Speedgrade to develop some.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on July 29, 2013, 07:52:44 PM
CYMK mode can go, for me

I don't think CMYK is that expensive to have bundled in, along with all the other color modes and profiles.

Quote
masks could be nodal, reused on several layers as instances that can be inverted...

Yes!  Nodal architecture is the key to the future. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on December 18, 2013, 08:48:59 AM
So, what's the status of this project? Is Thomas going ahead with the design?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on December 18, 2013, 01:58:20 PM
Nothing to report...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: StephaneB on December 18, 2013, 06:00:52 PM
I suspect CC for photographers killed off any rationale for such a project.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: nma on December 19, 2013, 10:19:50 PM
Should start with floating point reprrsentation of image data to accommodate the sensors of the future. Then assess needs for processing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 20, 2013, 01:59:27 AM
I suspect CC for photographers killed off any rationale for such a project.

Adobe has been killing off innovation for years. 

Although parts of Photoshop have been contributed by talented DSP engineers, the core design of the application is an amateurish design of the worst kind that has been kept alive for fifteen years by sheer dint of force.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: StephaneB on December 20, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Adobe has been killing off innovation for years. 

Although parts of Photoshop have been contributed by talented DSP engineers, the core design of the application is an amateurish design of the worst kind that has been kept alive for fifteen years by sheer dint of force.

Wow, I didn't mean it at all in that way.

My point is that Photoshop, LightRoom and ProSite all for $10/month is an excellent deal that makes it pointless for anyone at Adobe to develop an alternative tool and extremely difficult for us to justify looking for alternatives.

I happen to find Photoshop brilliant. It does many tihngs I don't need, but what I need is better done in Photoshop than in any other software.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on December 20, 2013, 04:13:36 AM
My point is that Photoshop, LightRoom and ProSite all for $10/month is an excellent deal that makes it pointless for anyone at Adobe to develop an alternative tool and extremely difficult for us to justify looking for alternatives.
If it's an "Excellent deal" depends on your point of view, and that subject has been picked to pieces enough already.

I think many of us would like to see a replacement for Photoshop that's tailored specifically for photographers, rather than being a 'everything for everyone' package.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 20, 2013, 04:51:37 AM
I think many of us would like to see a tool that is built upon a powerful and elegant virtual machine at the lowest level, coupled with a layer of functionality above it that is tailored specifically for photographers.  The difficulty is that understanding how one would tailor the level of functionality for photographers would be informed by knowledge about the potential of the underlying virtual machine architecture.  Only when those two concerns can be brought together will one be able to create a truly modern tool.

There is little about photoshop that is brilliant.  There are just artists who are resourceful.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 20, 2013, 06:57:25 AM
It's not exactly an either/or proposition. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on December 20, 2013, 08:22:24 AM
I find the comments on "amateurishness" interesting.  I actually think that Photoshop is a pretty well running system for a package that had been essentially "cobbled together" over a 20+ year period.  Could it be better designed and more efficient if it were restarted and redesigned from scratch...of course....but at what expense...and cost to the user...??

As far as a trimmed down package.  I would like the proponents of that to build a list of what functions in Photoshop they would like included and those excluded.....and then get concurrence from the photographic community on the lists.  :-)

John
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on December 20, 2013, 10:16:20 AM
 I would like the proponents of that to build a list of what functions in Photoshop they would like included and those excluded.....and then get concurrence from the photographic community on the lists.  :-)
That's exactly what this thread is supposedly doing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: digitaldog on December 20, 2013, 10:24:13 AM
I think many of us would like to see a replacement for Photoshop that's tailored specifically for photographers, rather than being a 'everything for everyone' package.
Yeah like Photoshop Lightroom <g>
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Isaac on December 20, 2013, 11:17:05 AM
Like LR + luminosity masks.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: sniper on December 20, 2013, 05:42:27 PM
Why would the "new" version of photoshop (or whatever it's called) want less features than we have now, what I'd add to photoshop is better batch processing options, something that doesn't need images to be imported to edit several images at a time.
This sounds like someones planning on cutting back on the photoshop we know and love.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 20, 2013, 05:56:51 PM
The cost would certainly be high for a ground-up redesign, but the benefits would be considerable as well.

There is a phase in which to involve photographers in the process.  Best is to lay the architectural groundwork that would support most any consideration that a photographer (or designer artist, or, or ...) would want.  The usability part of the problem, believe it or not, isn't the hard part.  

Besides, if you ask users prematurely what they want, what you end up with is something like "give me what I already know PLUS-or-MINUS something" which leads to an ad hoc death spiral.  

Let me give you an example of how it might work.

- Develop an architecture based upon a virtual machine (VM) with a nodal, dataflow architecture.  

- The (considerable) features and complexities of the VM can be /hidden or revealed/ in application layers as desired for different levels of users and suited for different purposes.

- The VM allows for a compatibility layer with the historical application where needed.

- The VM allows one to retain, where desired, all intermediate stages of the processing right down to the individual brush stroke, which may be modified in any way at any time.  The intermediate stages may be either baked-in or recomputed at will.  Sets of actions may be aggregated.

- The VM allows unlimited re-use of intermediate data in more than one stage of the processing.  This also allows for any number of derivative intermediates, which retain their dependencies on the original data in every sense, and may be themselves re-used.

- The VM provides all the abstractions needed for efficient concurrent processing without need for special cases.

- The VM allows for a very high-level, object-based scripting language, which in turns allows for sophisticated actions to be built up out of primitives.  Programs written in the scripting language may be shared at will.  The clear-cut semantics of the scripting language allow users to communicate in clear and unambiguous language about their techniques.  

- The application layers above the VM would allow for all the things that one does or can do now, including an outright compatibility layer, but would also allow for sophisticated new techniques.  

- The same model could be used for images and video. Moreover, it could be used for media presentation layers (e.g., broadcast, and interactive media) and knowledge-based systems that are unheard of today.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on December 20, 2013, 06:33:23 PM
The cost would certainly be high for a ground-up redesign, but the benefits would be considerable as well.

There is a phase in which to involve photographers in the process.  Best is to lay the architectural groundwork that would support most any consideration that a photographer (or designer artist, or, or ...) would want.  The usability part of the problem, believe it or not, isn't the hard part.  

Besides, if you ask users prematurely what they want, what you end up with is something like "give me what I already know PLUS-or-MINUS something" which leads to an ad hoc death spiral.  

Let me give you an example of how it might work.

- Develop an architecture based upon a virtual machine (VM) with a nodal, dataflow architecture.  

- The (considerable) features and complexities of the VM can be /hidden or revealed/ in application layers as desired for different levels of users and suited for different purposes.

- The VM allows for a compatibility layer with the historical application where needed.

- The VM allows one to retain, where desired, all intermediate stages of the processing right down to the individual brush stroke, which may be modified in any way at any time.  The intermediate stages may be either baked-in or recomputed at will.  Sets of actions may be aggregated.

- The VM allows unlimited re-use of intermediate data in more than one stage of the processing.  This also allows for any number of derivative intermediates, which retain their dependencies on the original data in every sense, and may be themselves re-used.

- The VM provides all the abstractions needed for efficient concurrent processing without need for special cases.

- The VM allows for a very high-level, object-based scripting language, which in turns allows for sophisticated actions to be built up out of primitives.  Programs written in the scripting language may be shared at will.  The clear-cut semantics of the scripting language allow users to communicate in clear and unambiguous language about their techniques.  

- The application layers above the VM would allow for all the things that one does or can do now, including an outright compatibility layer, but would also allow for sophisticated new techniques.  

- The same model could be used for images and video. Moreover, it could be used for media presentation layers (e.g., broadcast, and interactive media) and knowledge-based systems that are unheard of today.

Good technical discussion...frankly, I am not qualified to appreciate.

The real problem is the cost/benefit.  What is the marketing case and sales "commitments" that will convince the "green eye shades" to commit budget.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrp on December 21, 2013, 09:49:07 AM
What seems clear is that the world is moving to tablets. CPU power hungry imaging apps are likely to be the last real use for PCs within a decade. An application that takes advantage of the new hardware and need to be able to shift images around the internet, rather than being designed to print them is what is needed.  Adobe seems to get this but has a long way to go.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Simon Garrett on December 21, 2013, 12:22:49 PM
The cost would certainly be high for a ground-up redesign, but the benefits would be considerable as well.

There is a phase in which to involve photographers in the process.  Best is to lay the architectural groundwork that would support most any consideration that a photographer (or designer artist, or, or ...) would want.  The usability part of the problem, believe it or not, isn't the hard part.  

Besides, if you ask users prematurely what they want, what you end up with is something like "give me what I already know PLUS-or-MINUS something" which leads to an ad hoc death spiral.  

Let me give you an example of how it might work.

- Develop an architecture based upon a virtual machine (VM) with a nodal, dataflow architecture.  

- The (considerable) features and complexities of the VM can be /hidden or revealed/ in application layers as desired for different levels of users and suited for different purposes.

- The VM allows for a compatibility layer with the historical application where needed.

- The VM allows one to retain, where desired, all intermediate stages of the processing right down to the individual brush stroke, which may be modified in any way at any time.  The intermediate stages may be either baked-in or recomputed at will.  Sets of actions may be aggregated.

- The VM allows unlimited re-use of intermediate data in more than one stage of the processing.  This also allows for any number of derivative intermediates, which retain their dependencies on the original data in every sense, and may be themselves re-used.

- The VM provides all the abstractions needed for efficient concurrent processing without need for special cases.

- The VM allows for a very high-level, object-based scripting language, which in turns allows for sophisticated actions to be built up out of primitives.  Programs written in the scripting language may be shared at will.  The clear-cut semantics of the scripting language allow users to communicate in clear and unambiguous language about their techniques.  

- The application layers above the VM would allow for all the things that one does or can do now, including an outright compatibility layer, but would also allow for sophisticated new techniques.  

- The same model could be used for images and video. Moreover, it could be used for media presentation layers (e.g., broadcast, and interactive media) and knowledge-based systems that are unheard of today.
That sounds almost like Java!
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Some Guy on December 21, 2013, 12:43:29 PM
What seems clear is that the world is moving to tablets. CPU power hungry imaging apps are likely to be the last real use for PCs within a decade. An application that takes advantage of the new hardware and need to be able to shift images around the internet, rather than being designed to print them is what is needed.  Adobe seems to get this but has a long way to go.

That (tablets) and cell phone camera shooters as well.

I don't know if Adobe is planning on going that route as many others are jumping to that ship.  I cannot see the cell crowd paying too much for their cellphone photo apps since they dump their hardware every year or two for something totally new.  Adobe doesn't seem to innovate that quick.  Adobe may stick with the computer crowd as serious retouchers/editors as their software has become very bloated compared to some new programmers who write small and tight code for phone apps, but how it plays out in the future may be very questionable for them.  They could go the way of Polaroid, Agfa film, and Kodak; that or buy up some apps already created and call them their own.  Maybe go the way of Autodesk and charge $4,500 for AutoCAD 2015 along with some security USB dongle needed too and payable with an AutoDesk VISA card (jk.  ;) )

Aside, if they do alter PS too much, people will get irate as they do with any OS change as "They sure screwed that up!"  MS cannot do a total makeover of their OS without people complaining: "It's so much harder to learn or figure out.  I'm going back to Windows 7, or Vista."  Apple has the same issues as "This new Mac Colorsync 10.9 sure has screwed up my printing" - aside from all the hardware driver upgrades needed for that mess.

SG
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: jrsforums on December 21, 2013, 02:06:22 PM
What seems clear is that the world is moving to tablets. CPU power hungry imaging apps are likely to be the last real use for PCs within a decade. An application that takes advantage of the new hardware and need to be able to shift images around the internet, rather than being designed to print them is what is needed.  Adobe seems to get this but has a long way to go.

Adobe. Is working on it.

Listen to Phoyofocus podcast with Brian Hughes
http://photofocus.com/2013/12/13/bryan-oneil-hughes-photoshop-senior-product-manager/
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 21, 2013, 09:10:13 PM
That sounds almost like Java!

The idea of a virtual machine or "abstract machine" is definitely implemented in Java.  The idea dates back much further, but the idea remains that you can create an abstract machine with /generative/ possibilities in the same way that the Java virtual machine allows one to run any legal Java program.  Design the abstraction with media processing in mind, and you can have a machine that allows for virtually unlimited possibilities in media processing.  By creating application layers above the virtual machine, you can build new tools in a way that either reveals or hides the underlying complexity of the virtual machine and tailors the user experience in a way that suits specific needs for specific users. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 21, 2013, 09:24:29 PM
The idea of a virtual machine or "abstract machine" is definitely implemented in Java.  The idea dates back much further, but the idea remains that you can create an abstract machine with /generative/ possibilities in the same way that the Java virtual machine allows one to run any legal Java program.  Design the abstraction with media processing in mind, and you can have a machine that allows for virtually unlimited possibilities in media processing.  By creating application layers above the virtual machine, you can build new tools in a way that either reveals or hides the underlying complexity of the virtual machine and tailors the user experience in a way that suits specific needs for specific users. 

All this is great, but does it make sense from a business perspective? How many man years do you think it will take to recreate PS? Maybe 100 at a cost of $250,000 per man year. Do you really think Adobe would recoup this cost? I don't....so it won't happen.

If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 22, 2013, 06:51:14 AM
All this is great, but does it make sense from a business perspective? How many man years do you think it will take to recreate PS? Maybe 100 at a cost of $250,000 per man year. Do you really think Adobe would recoup this cost? I don't....so it won't happen.

If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...

The proposition goes far beyond "recreat(ing) photoshop" of course.  The same architecture could be deployed in the video/motion picture industry as well, and beyond, into interactive media. 

For Adobe itself, recouping the cost would be the least of their worries; the amount of money in their market goes far beyond the expense of new development.  Think of what people are paying now just for their CC subscriptions every year.  At some point Adobe has to think about how they are going to keep the market for the next 20+ years.  There are at least a couple of strategies -- invest in a new architecture that would decisively dominate, or continue to bet on their ability to dominate the market through aggressive business practices and extraction of fees from their customer base month-to-month. 

Pragmatically, I don't think they can afford to do either one to the exclusion of the other.

The difficulty I think has more to do with corporate culture than whether the project has a solid business justification.  And that is why I said, a few messages ago, that aggressive marketing of this aging product line is standing in the way of real innovation.  I wouldn't doubt that there are innovative forces within Adobe, but that, to put it mildly, the culture is conflicted.  It is inevitable that market pressure will catch up with them at some point.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on December 22, 2013, 11:34:16 AM
If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...
I think there is some truth to this. Adobe can afford for Photoshop to
1) be expensive/have annoying license terms
because:
2) Photoshop does what it does well
3) A lot of people have invested a lot of time in learning Photoshop

An underdog competitor would have to offset 3) by offering a lot more on 2) and/or underselling on 1).

I believe that is a hard task, and that there is perhaps easier money elsewhere in software. Perhaps the "Photoshop" market is mature/stagnated (still generating lots of revenue), while other markets have more potential for growth.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on December 22, 2013, 12:56:14 PM
3) A lot of people have invested a lot of time in learning Photoshop
How much of that is particularly Photoshop though?
I suspect a fair chunk of people's investment in learning is just as much, if not more, about digital image manipulation in general. An awful lot of that knowledge learnt would be transferable to any other image manipulation program.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 22, 2013, 02:54:53 PM
Rhossydd, yes.

A lot of the time it takes to learn photoshop is tied up with assimilating its needless -- needless -- complexity, which is a consequence of its ad hoc design from the word go.  After years of accumulated hacks, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example of bad software design in widespread use today.  [I'm sure the government has something to match it.]

For example:

- It uses 1-dimensional dataflow to solve a problem that is inherently multidimensional.  This gives rise to all kinds of ridiculous workarounds.

-- "Apply image..."  
-- 1-dimensional groups
-- Inability to reuse intermediate results or derivatives thereof without multiple project files
-- Inability to redo portions of a design without nuclear Undo
-- Smart filters versus dumb filters
-- Inability to mix modes, color spaces, and bit depths freely

- Inability to create a scripting language of any kind that gives access to every feature in the program

Then there are a host of just silly things, like blend modes with metaphoric names.  And the entire semantics is just ridiculous.  Have you ever seen anyone who can describe coherently how they did a complex design.  

All of these things require unnecessary cognitive complexity and waste time in instruction.  A real orthogonal design would be much simpler to grasp and use.  The only reason we've gotten this far is due to the ingenuity and determination of individual users in spite of the tool.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 22, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Rhossydd, yes.

A lot of the time it takes to learn photoshop is tied up with assimilating its needless -- needless -- complexity, which is a consequence of its ad hoc design from the word go.  After years of accumulated hacks, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example of bad software design in widespread use today.  [I'm sure the government has something to match it.]

For example:

- It uses 1-dimensional dataflow to solve a problem that is inherently multidimensional.  This gives rise to all kinds of ridiculous workarounds.

-- "Apply image..."  
-- 1-dimensional groups
-- Inability to reuse intermediate results or derivatives thereof without multiple project files
-- Inability to redo portions of a design without nuclear Undo
-- Smart filters versus dumb filters
-- Inability to mix modes, color spaces, and bit depths freely

- Inability to create a scripting language of any kind that gives access to every feature in the program

Then there are a host of just silly things, like blend modes with metaphoric names.  And the entire semantics is just ridiculous.  Have you ever seen anyone who can describe coherently how they did a complex design.  

All of these things require unnecessary cognitive complexity and waste time in instruction.  A real orthogonal design would be much simpler to grasp and use.  The only reason we've gotten this far is due to the ingenuity and determination of individual users in spite of the tool.

Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 22, 2013, 05:12:33 PM
Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.

Gimp3 as based on GEGL.
Nuke.
Historically, AVS (A Visualization System).

All of these were designed around the principles being discussed here, and for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Meanwhile, look again at the title of this thread.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 22, 2013, 05:30:31 PM
GEGL:

http://mmiworks.net/pics/blog12/boxeshosesL.jpg
http://blog.mmiworks.net/2012/01/gimp-full-gegl-ahead.html
http://www.gimpchat.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7064
http://pellelatarte.fr/en/
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ButchM on December 22, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.

Wow! With that attitude we would all still be drawing stick figures with bits of charcoal and berry juice on cave walls.

Last time I checked, it was imaginative dreaming that inspired invention and innovation. I think now, more than ever, is definitely not the time to develop a herd mentality that the it is not only impossible but futile to pursue an alternative to Ps that is more in-tune with photographers. Where would this world be if everyone followed your advice?

With current resources in the manner of coding more efficiently, advanced hardware and OS capabilities, I'm quite confident if Thomas were to venture forth to develop Ps today ... it would look, feel and function quite differently than what we are accustomed to.

To dismiss the concept purely on the basis that the task may be too difficult ... goes against the grain of all that I have experienced.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 22, 2013, 08:34:48 PM
Gimp3 as based on GEGL.
Nuke.
Historically, AVS (A Visualization System).

All of these were designed around the principles being discussed here, and for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Meanwhile, look again at the title of this thread.

I said with the power and breadth of functionality. I really don't care how it is designed...I care about what I can do with the software. None of the packages you mentioned even comes close to what can be done with PS. Totally irrelevant what is under the sheets if what is above the sheets does not cut the cake.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 22, 2013, 08:40:00 PM
Wow! With that attitude we would all still be drawing stick figures with bits of charcoal and berry juice on cave walls.

Last time I checked, it was imaginative dreaming that inspired invention and innovation. I think now, more than ever, is definitely not the time to develop a herd mentality that the it is not only impossible but futile to pursue an alternative to Ps that is more in-tune with photographers. Where would this world be if everyone followed your advice?

With current resources in the manner of coding more efficiently, advanced hardware and OS capabilities, I'm quite confident if Thomas were to venture forth to develop Ps today ... it would look, feel and function quite differently than what we are accustomed to.

To dismiss the concept purely on the basis that the task may be too difficult ... goes against the grain of all that I have experienced.

I'm not dismissing anything. I am just being realistic. Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned? Seems to me photographers who are devoted to PS have signed on to the subscription model and those who have not signed up, most likely won't even if PS was redone. Don't see a business case here.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ButchM on December 22, 2013, 09:22:03 PM
I'm not dismissing anything. I am just being realistic. Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned? Seems to me photographers who are devoted to PS have signed on to the subscription model and those who have not signed up, most likely won't even if PS was redone. Don't see a business case here.

Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

Though I've been a full time photographer for 38 years ... I am not "devoted" to Ps, Adobe or any other product or brand of tool I utilize in my daily tasks. In fact, I've been casting an eye to the horizon looking for an alternative to Ps for quite some time, even though I have owned and used Ps for over 20 years. It may be the most popular choice ... and it may now have a bargain basement monthly fee that all the cool kids are flocking to ... but in many cases, Ps is still very dated bloatware that very few users employ to its full potential. Likewise, there are more than few folks out there earning a very good living who have never used Ps.

Plus, as Jeff Schewe pointed out ... Ps was NEVER designed for photographers as an "image processor" ... it was designed as a graphics tool for prepress operations ... photographers merely hijacked the app and claimed it as their own. (Remember he and others stressing that message out to us all back in May?)

Hopefully, someone out there with the capabilities and the inspiration won't suffer from your pessimistic attitude and offer an alternative that is a better fit.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 22, 2013, 09:46:53 PM
Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

Though I've been a full time photographer for 38 years ... I am not "devoted" to Ps, Adobe or any other product or brand of tool I utilize in my daily tasks. In fact, I've been casting an eye to the horizon looking for an alternative to Ps for quite some time, even though I have owned and used Ps for over 20 years. It may be the most popular choice ... and it may now have a bargain basement monthly fee that all the cool kids are flocking to ... but in many cases, Ps is still very dated bloatware that very few users employ to its full potential. Likewise, there are more than few folks out there earning a very good living who have never used Ps.

Plus, as Jeff Schewe pointed out ... Ps was NEVER designed for photographers as an "image processor" ... it was designed as a graphics tool for prepress operations ... photographers merely hijacked the app and claimed it as their own. (Remember he and others stressing that message out to us all back in May?)

Hopefully, someone out there with the capabilities and the inspiration won't suffer from your pessimistic attitude and offer an alternative that is a better fit.

It takes more than capabilities and inspiration to make it as can be seen by all the PS wannabes we have seen come and go over the years. Even companies such as Corel that has a broad range of skills, personnel and money bowed out when it got tough. It's nice to dream, but I'll continue to use the outdated PS while others go out and try their luck with the next PS wannabe.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on December 22, 2013, 10:06:59 PM
Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

He's a habitual thread hijacker in Adobe threads.  Shall we return to the topic?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 22, 2013, 10:09:52 PM
He's a habitual thread hijacker in Adobe threads.  Shall we return to the topic?

You mean return to dreaming. :D
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on December 23, 2013, 09:42:04 PM
Quote
Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned?

Who said the subscription models are required? Many photographers will never sign up for the subscription model. But if Adobe offered the new Photoshop (Photoshop Lightroom Pro?) on perpetual basis like LR, many CC subscribers would switch to it.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: digitaldog on December 23, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Who said the subscription models are required? Many photographers will never sign up for the subscription model. But if Adobe offered the new Photoshop (Photoshop Lightroom Pro?) on perpetual basis like LR, many CC subscribers would switch to it.
Who said? Adobe. And why would they build a new PS like product without a subscription? To dilute these who they want to suscribe to CC? Makes no sense.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on December 23, 2013, 11:26:01 PM
Well, if Adobe won't cannibalize some of their products, somebody else will.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on December 24, 2013, 08:18:24 AM
Well, if Adobe won't cannibalize some of their products, somebody else will.

The last 20 years disagrees with your statements. Lots of half ass attempts, but nothing close. I sure wouldn't invest into a product that is here today, gone to tomorrow.
Title: Re:
Post by: Torbjörn Tapani on December 24, 2013, 10:52:30 AM
Beating Adobe on their own turf might not be possible. But if you change the game...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Stephane Desnault on January 06, 2014, 07:34:20 AM
For photographers, I imagine more something like a "Lightroom Super Plus"... Specifically I'd love to have Lightroom PLUS the following that are in Photoshop:

- Layers
- Advanced selections
- Advanced pixel editing (liquify...)
- Advanced HDR creation (REAL HDR, not tonemapped images)
- Advanced 32bit and HDR manipulations, ie. being able to manage colors and light outside the tonemapped universe (cf. the HDRI Handbook 2.0)

And on top of that, I'd also want:

- Facial recognition (à la Google/Picasa) for easy keywording
- The color management and grading controls available in SpeedGrade CC - they are way above what PS and LR offer
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Stephane Desnault on January 06, 2014, 08:21:45 AM
I forgot two things in the list above:

- Intelligent skin editing controls: Advanced color rendering and selection across skin colors, maybe even linked to facial recognition.
- White balance and tonality controls centered around skin color, for easy, fast and essential color grading.

(can you tell I'm often shooting events and portraits in available light  :) ?)

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: StephaneB on January 08, 2014, 04:24:50 PM
Gimp3

For example:

-- Smart filters versus dumb filters


First time I read Gimp 3 was to be released soon was around 2001...

It is funny to see people criticizing Photoshop for having both "dumb" adjustment layers and smart filters and then promoting a program that has neither :)
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on January 08, 2014, 07:22:26 PM
First time I read Gimp 3 was to be released soon was around 2001...

It is funny to see people criticizing Photoshop for having both "dumb" adjustment layers and smart filters and then promoting a program that has neither :)

1) Nice try.
2) Reminder about thread topic again, about designing something new.
3) The technology exists and is proven in production.  Nuke. 
4) Whether you'll ever get it is partly up to you.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: KatManDEW on January 20, 2014, 08:23:19 AM
While talking about commercials there’s another area which needs to change in New PS. It's time to decouple raw support from the main program. It’s a ridiculous situation when ACR is made deliberately incompatible with old versions of LR & PS so that you have to buy a new version of LR or PS just because you bought a new camera. It should be possible to upgrade just the ACR module for a small price (compared to the price for full LR), with everything else being compatible.  For Adobe there will be an income stream from selling new Raw modules and photographers will be happier as their old software will still be usable (for a small fee) with a new camera.

Late to the party myself... I'm in 100% agreement with you here, and "obik" in reply #11 in this thread. I find this very infurating.

Without some radical new FUNCTIONAL, photography specific additions to LR/PS (not just bells and whistles), I can't imagine me ever needing anything more than what is provided in LR and PS now. I will not upgrade to CC just to get raw capability for my next new camera. I positively will move to something else. I am willing to pay for ACR upgrades, but will not pay monthly extortion simply to maintain raw capability with new cameras.

I'm still using LR 4.4 because with the exception of improved spot removal in LR 5, I see no FUNCTIONAL improvments in LR5. Just bells and whistles. For the few times I need to "straighten" an image, I can do that just fine in LR 4.4. I don't need a dumbed down automatic feature for that, and an upgrade price to go with it.

In my opinion, and that of many folks I know personally, most all software, including operating systems, have hit a functional improvement dead end. Except for compatability with new hardware (cameras, more system memory, larger hard discs, higher resolution displays), what more can new software packages really provide, except bells and whistles? Pretty animated icons, Aero desktops? Touch screen capability for my large expensive calibrated workstation display?

Developers have hit a functional dead end, so they are looking at a rental model to provide future revenue.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LKaven on January 20, 2014, 11:41:32 AM
In my opinion, and that of many folks I know personally, most all software, including operating systems, have hit a functional improvement dead end. Except for compatability with new hardware (cameras, more system memory, larger hard discs, higher resolution displays), what more can new software packages really provide, except bells and whistles? Pretty animated icons, Aero desktops? Touch screen capability for my large expensive calibrated workstation display?

Developers have hit a functional dead end, so they are looking at a rental model to provide future revenue.

You're right when it comes to Adobe.  Adobe has always favored putting its resources into aggressive business strategies to squeeze continued royalties out of their aging designs, over new technical innovation. 

But I would not say that most all software has hit a functional improvement dead end.  Many new things are possible, as we've discussed earlier in this thread.  But economic barriers to entry are high, especially in so-called "mature" product categories. 

Selling deeply entrenched but obsolete products is made easier by the fact that users have the least understanding of the scope of possibilities for their tools.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Lightsmith on February 04, 2014, 07:24:54 PM
The software industry has escaped the attention of the FTC. Adobe has bought out its primary competitors on three occasions with the last being Macromedia with its Freehand and Flash products. Adobe kills the product and customers have no choice but to go with Adobe. I have been left in the lurch three times and each time my old work product is not longer compatible with the Adobe replacement so my libraries become worthless for future work.

I also have to work with companies overseas and they are often two or three rev levels back on Illustrator and Indesign and so increasingly I farm work out so I don't have to maintain multiple versions as Adobe has stopped making it possible to do a save as and have the work compatible with a prior release of the application.

Where I live in Monterey, CA I cannot get DSL much less broadband so the Cloud is not an option. Even if it was I know after 25 years of working with computer technology not to have all my work dependent upon both a wired connection and to having a companies servers operational 24x7. When Adobe has glitches with new code and people cannot bring up applications then the work being done for clients comes to a screeching halt.

Check the Adobe forums and read the many comments where people cannot access their Cloud subscription and are unable to work.

I have the latest Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign for my company's computers but that will be the end of it. We are not moving to the Cloud to further enrich the greedy buggers at Adobe and this is all about the money. Fortunately with Nikon I have their image processing tools and RAW converter to fall back on so worst case I can save files as TIFF and open them in CS6. There was nothing really all that valuable in terms of new releases of Photoshop after CS4 that is not done better with third party applications.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2014, 03:53:52 AM
Quote
Check the Adobe forums and read the many comments where people cannot access their Cloud subscription and are unable to work.

This is frightening.
Is it possible to have on the same computer PS CS5 / CS6 alongside PS CC, and run one or the other?
Or would there be a conflict having both PS versions on the same computer?

Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on February 05, 2014, 04:05:45 AM
This is frightening.
Is it possible to have on the same computer PS CS5 / CS6 alongside PS CC, and run one or the other?
Or would there be a conflict having both PS versions on the same computer?

I have CS 5.5, CS6 and CC all installed and running on Mac OS 10.7.5. (can't say that CS 5.x works the same way but I suspect it does).
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: sniper on February 05, 2014, 05:33:24 AM
Who said? Adobe. And why would they build a new PS like product without a subscription? To dilute these who they want to suscribe to CC? Makes no sense.
In what way does making another slimed down version of photoshop thats not elements or lightoom make sense? If the full photoshop is selling so well on CC why is there a need for another version?  Lets face it between photoshop/lightroom/elements it's already pretty well covered.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rick Popham on February 05, 2014, 08:38:17 AM
This is frightening.
Is it possible to have on the same computer PS CS5 / CS6 alongside PS CC, and run one or the other?
Or would there be a conflict having both PS versions on the same computer?



Yes, I have PS CS6 running with PS CC (trying the Photography Bundle) on my Windows machine (8.1). If you use Lightroom, it will default to using CC as the editor, and you'll have to set CS6 as a secondary editor.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: stevenskl on March 08, 2016, 12:10:05 PM
Some days ago, Sven Doelle (Principal Business Development Manager/Adobe) said in a Live webinar on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AOrork7lVs  @about 58:10)  that Adobe is thinking about a successor to Lightroom.  Hmmm......would he say that, if this successor wouldn`t be already in beta?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Schewe on March 08, 2016, 02:00:44 PM
Some days ago, Sven Doelle (Principal Business Development Manager/Adobe) said in a Live webinar on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AOrork7lVs  @about 58:10)  that Adobe is thinking about a successor to Lightroom.

Although I don't speak German I'm pretty sure he was talking about a mobile app...
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: stevenskl on March 08, 2016, 03:37:09 PM
I do speak german. He was definitly speaking about Lightroom, not any mobile app.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on March 09, 2016, 12:35:22 AM
Although I don't speak German I'm pretty sure he was talking about a mobile app...
As a grown up, I am having a hard time following the trend of prioritizing mobile a lot. It is like BMW saying "oh, you got this new 5-series? But you don't really want that. See, we are selling electric cars now. You need one of those. As a matter of fact, we are going to bug you about our i3 series every single time you sit down in your car. So be a good lad and do as you are told."

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: john beardsworth on March 09, 2016, 03:33:30 AM
As a grown up, I am having a hard time following the trend of prioritizing mobile a lot. It is like BMW saying "oh, you got this new 5-series? But you don't really want that. See, we are selling electric cars now. You need one of those. As a matter of fact, we are going to bug you about our i3 series every single time you sit down in your car. So be a good lad and do as you are told."

Why are BMW and others offering electric cars though? It's because of wider issues than replacing one lump of metal with another, isn't it? Be a good lad and forget about all that pollution? Same with "mobile". It's not just about cameras but about how many photographers' expectations are being changed by their experience of wider mobile technologies. We're used to email on every device - why not our family pics? Why not professional ones too? What's so great about being chained to the desk?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on March 09, 2016, 03:48:05 AM
What's so great about being chained to the desk?
In the case of LR; more speed, more gamut, more storage, more convenience.

In car terms why would you want a car that's smaller, can't go as far and costs more to buy and run ?
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: john beardsworth on March 09, 2016, 04:09:35 AM
Again, you've got to look at the bigger picture.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rhossydd on March 09, 2016, 04:36:35 AM
Again, you've got to look at the bigger picture.
Quite, my desktop has a 27" screen.

In car terms, the case for electric cars being better for the environment overall is still very unclear.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: stevenskl on March 09, 2016, 04:41:31 AM
I`m trying to translate, what he actually said:
"At the moment we are considering, wether we should continue with Lightroom in its current way for the next 100 years or do we think about something totally new some day. Lightroom is now 10 years old, some day there must be a successor."
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: john beardsworth on March 09, 2016, 04:52:25 AM
Quite, my desktop has a 27" screen.

In car terms, the case for electric cars being better for the environment overall is still very unclear.

So take your desktop with you everywhere, do you? Use it to show people your pictures in the pub, take selfies, or when you happen to be there when the Leaning Tower topples over?

As for cars, analogies are usually a dead end, but the point was that electric cars are being introduced because of wider issues. The same is true of software vendors' interest in mobile.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: francois on March 09, 2016, 05:13:07 AM
I`m trying to translate, what he actually said:
"At the moment we are considering, wether we should continue with Lightroom in its current way for the next 100 years or do we think about something totally new some day. Lightroom is now 10 years old, some day there must be a successor."

This is also my interpretation although my German is very rusty…
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: chez on March 09, 2016, 08:32:13 AM
Quite, my desktop has a 27" screen.

In car terms, the case for electric cars being better for the environment overall is still very unclear.

And with mobile aware applications you can still use your 27" monitor when you are at home...but when you are traveling for 2 months throughout Asia...it sure would be nice to be able to still process images just like at home...even if it's on a 12" laptop.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 09, 2016, 03:27:43 PM
And with mobile aware applications you can still use your 27" monitor when you are at home...but when you are traveling for 2 months throughout Asia...it sure would be nice to be able to still process images just like at home...even if it's on a 12" laptop.

So I guess there's not much of an issue editing images on a uncalibrated display with questionable gamut size?

Several days ago after reading comments on another photo hosting site of how sharp my images looked, I checked my images on the newest 21" Retina display iMac at my Best Buy and saw the sharpness was as intended, but the color seemed less saturated with skin tones a bit jaundice even after first setting the canned "iMac" default profile.

Then I checked the images on a Galaxy AMOLED mobile device with a AdobeRGB-ish gamut and set its display setting to "Basic" which emulates sRGB. What I saw was horrible. The gamma seemed as if I'ld assigned a 2.6 gamma profile to a 2.2 gamma encoded image, darkish and a bit contrasty and saturated. I could find no other setting to fix it.

Sorry, I'm seeing the electric car analogy not even in the ballpark from an efficiency standpoint.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on March 10, 2016, 05:11:22 AM
Why are BMW and others offering electric cars though? It's because of wider issues than replacing one lump of metal with another, isn't it?
For the same reasons as they introduce anything: they see an opportunity to generate profit. In the case of my country, car taxes are really high, and our politicians have chosen to cut _all_ taxes, roadfees etc from electric cars (a bike has 24% VAT, a Tesla has 0%). In addition, they get to drive in the bus lane, (often) free electricity for charging. No wonder that they sell well over here.

You are missing my point, though. I am perfectly fine with BMW selling electric cars, I might even buy one myself at some time. But if they made my experience driving a 1 year old BMW diesel car worse by introducing idiotic commercials while I was driving, I would be really annoyed. "Piiing. Whoops, we see that your electric car charger subscription has run out, please visit your car dealer immediately in order to get this fixed". "What? I dont need an electric car charger."
Quote
Be a good lad and forget about all that pollution?
Electric cars may or may not be a good thing wrgt pollution. Me and you may or may not care about pollution. I can assure you that BMW as an organization (not talking about individuals) care exactly zero about pollution. Big organizations tends to act as sociopaths and the only things keeping them from doing "bad" things is regulation and PR.
Quote
Same with "mobile". It's not just about cameras but about how many photographers' expectations are being changed by their experience of wider mobile technologies. We're used to email on every device - why not our family pics? Why not professional ones too? What's so great about being chained to the desk?
I use mobile devices myself (I am not _that_ old). Just like any tool, they are good for some things, worse for other things. For reading news on the bus, playing games and browsing my folder of family pictures, they are great and have largely replaced my desktop tools. For writing letters of some length, developing software, editing images, I have yet to find a mobile device that is really satisfying. Given the restrictions of such devices, I am having a hard time believing that they will ever be great for those things.

I am surprised by the amount of attention that mobile devices get from Adobe (and the rest of the industry), at the (apparent) cost of their core business. Perhaps I am just being old fashioned. Perhaps the venture capitalists could teach me a thing or two. But that is my current perception.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rdonson on March 10, 2016, 09:13:15 AM

I am surprised by the amount of attention that mobile devices get from Adobe (and the rest of the industry), at the (apparent) cost of their core business. Perhaps I am just being old fashioned. Perhaps the venture capitalists could teach me a thing or two. But that is my current perception.

-h

Not too surprising really.  Companies always look for ways to grow and grow profits.  You don't have to be a soothsayer to see the growth in mobile far exceeds the growth in desktops (if there is any).  Now that they've captured most of the creatives desktops with CC, mobile is the next frontier.  If you look at the increasing compute power in mobile SOCs it's easy to imagine real creative apps running in the mobile world.

For the record I use Lr Mobile on my iPad and find it a real boon for a number of things.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: ihv on March 14, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
.. If you look at the increasing compute power in mobile SOCs it's easy to imagine real creative apps running in the mobile world ..

On the other hand, the ever increasing computing power also means one can at some point easily afford a plain simple Windows tablet and use the existing full-feature software equivalent.

As for an average user, I doubt people are willing to shell out money as there are already plenty of free apps and for professionals it is quite a far cry yet in terms of features.

We'll see.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on August 08, 2016, 04:38:47 PM
I wonder if this ever ended up getting traction in Adobe?  A new photo editor designed from the ground up with all Thomas knows now could be a wondrous thing.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rdonson on August 08, 2016, 04:43:30 PM
The wonder would be rewriting all the ancient code in PS. 
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Pictus on August 08, 2016, 11:07:45 PM
They are trying to use AI(artificial intelligence)
http://news.mit.edu/2015/computer-program-fixes-old-code-faster-than-expert-engineers-0609
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on August 09, 2016, 04:22:11 AM
They are trying to use AI(artificial intelligence)
http://news.mit.edu/2015/computer-program-fixes-old-code-faster-than-expert-engineers-0609
The article seems to talk about re-arranging binary code. Why would Adobe modify the binary code as long as they have access to the source code?

Code (basically) describes _what_ to do, in a more or less clean, humanly readable manner but more specific than plain words. The compiler then use this description to map to a specific piece of hardware.

Given that programming languages are highly deterministic, cpu hardware even more so, one would think that programming languages could focus only on accurate description, leaving performance issues to the compiler. The fact that the world does not work like this (people re-arrange their code to make it more efficient on certain hardware), casts some doubt on the intelligence of AI. I have a hard time understanding why a human being can occasionally beat a compiler by 2:1 or 10:1 in a task that can be described as mathematically well-defined and repetitive.

I would think that the (some of the) problems for Adobe is that they have a piece of software that:
1. "Works" (they can sell/rent expensive licenses to many users - the bean counters are happy, why spend a lot of resources on reinventing it?)
2. They have a large user base that is accustomed and trained to a specific behaviour (change how curves behave and you get angry customers)
3. The code base is large, complex, possibly poorly documented/automatically tested, written in low-level languages and optimized for irrelevant hardware. Backtracking into a functional description and re-implementing (compact, well-structured, secure, testable) is hard and expensive, and chances are that the new version would behave slightly differently from the old one.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: howardm on August 09, 2016, 07:43:08 AM
An alternate perspective.............

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on August 09, 2016, 09:53:59 AM
An alternate perspective.............

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Sensible.

I guess in some ways, Lightroom is the "rewrite" of Photoshop. Simpler, leaner, more targeted, less debt. But not for all Photoshop users.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tom b on August 09, 2016, 10:04:04 AM
Photography 101, Photoshop has never been a photographer's tool. It was a graphic designer's tool in the digital revolution, when digital took over analogue in the printing industry.

Lightroom is the successor for photographers in the digital era.

Adobe has made the biggest change on you see on your digital TVs and smart phones possible as well as your digital print products. Lightroom continues to make photography look great.

To be honest we rarely see a "photograph" these days, Adobe has changed what we see for better or worse.

To be honest Photoshop /Lightroom has been enough, market forces have been the enemy.

Cheers,
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Dr Tone on August 09, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
I just want some serious Lightroom performance improvements.  If it can be done with the current code base great if not it might be time to step back and rethink the queue of adjustments.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Pictus on August 09, 2016, 10:52:33 AM
The article seems to talk about re-arranging binary code. Why would Adobe modify the binary code as long as they have access to the source code?

I do not know, may get more details in the http://projects.csail.mit.edu/helium/
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on August 09, 2016, 11:29:38 AM
Photography 101, Photoshop has never been a photographer's tool.

Really?  Darn.  I've been using the wrong tool for 20 years.  Leaves me feeling a little empty.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 09, 2016, 12:26:24 PM
I just want some serious Lightroom performance improvements.  If it can be done with the current code base great if not it might be time to step back and rethink the queue of adjustments.

+1

LR has become annoyingly slow on my three year old Windows system
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rdonson on August 09, 2016, 01:15:17 PM
Really?  Darn.  I've been using the wrong tool for 20 years.  Leaves me feeling a little empty.

Over time they added a number of features that aided photographers and we all flocked to it.  The easy way to tell if it's for photographers is to look at PS and then take a guess of what percentage of all it's features you use.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Rory on August 09, 2016, 01:27:08 PM
Over time they added a number of features that aided photographers and we all flocked to it.  The easy way to tell if it's for photographers is to look at PS and then take a guess of what percentage of all it's features you use.

Are we really having a discussion on whether Ps is for photographers?  Really?

OTOH, a redesign of Ps/Lr from the ground up, with photography being a priority, might be worthwhile.  I'm just curious as to whether this idea ever was taken forward.  Jeff doesn't post rumours so there must have been some discussion about this in Adobe.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: rdonson on August 09, 2016, 01:32:34 PM
Are we really having a discussion on whether Ps is for photographers?  Really?

Nope
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tom b on August 09, 2016, 04:31:01 PM
"Really?  Darn.  I've been using the wrong tool for 20 years.  Leaves me feeling a little empty.

I'm in Ubud, Bali at the moment. Adobe's presence is everywhere. Restaurant menus, advertising, brochures etc are all digitally reproduced. Photoshop was introduced as part of the digital revolution which was based on prepress, not photography.

Photoshop has three major components, graphic design, illustration/drawing and photography. There are around twenty odd Adobe products out there now for multimedia. Photoshop is part of the digital revolution. Lightroom is for photographers.


In conclusion, Photoshop was introduced for prepress/graphic arts. It only became photographer friendly when Lightroom was introduced.

Cheers,
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: FranciscoDisilvestro on August 09, 2016, 07:43:45 PM
In conclusion, Photoshop was introduced for prepress/graphic arts. It only became photographer friendly when Lightroom was introduced.


I disagree with this statement. It might be valid for photographers that just sent their film to a lab for processing, but not for anybody with darkroom experience. Many tools in Photoshop are the technological evolution of darkroom techniques and even inherited their names. Where do you think dodge, burn, unsharp mask, invert, etc come from? Another hint, it has "Photo" as part of the name.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Pictus on August 09, 2016, 08:15:36 PM
I disagree with this statement. It might be valid for photographers that just sent their film to a lab for processing, but not for anybody with darkroom experience. Many tools in Photoshop are the technological evolution of darkroom techniques and even inherited their names. Where do you think dodge, burn, unsharp mask, invert, etc come from? Another hint, it has "Photo" as part of the name.

+1
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Benny Profane on August 09, 2016, 10:49:55 PM
"Really?  Darn.  I've been using the wrong tool for 20 years.  Leaves me feeling a little empty.

I'm in Ubud, Bali at the moment. Adobe's presence is everywhere. Restaurant menus, advertising, brochures etc are all digitally reproduced. Photoshop was introduced as part of the digital revolution which was based on prepress, not photography.

Photoshop has three major components, graphic design, illustration/drawing and photography. There are around twenty odd Adobe products out there now for multimedia. Photoshop is part of the digital revolution. Lightroom is for photographers.


In conclusion, Photoshop was introduced for prepress/graphic arts. It only became photographer friendly when Lightroom was introduced.

Cheers,

Nope. Prepress background here. Photoshop is for photography manipulation, or, commonly known as retouching. Lightroom is not a serious image enhancement tool, more of a way to organize and do basic image work to large batches of RAW files. It is not a retouching program. There is a reason Lightroom and Photoshop are bundled together, and it isn't because they are redundant programs. Overlap some, but each has its purpose. Illustrator is for design work and, well, illustrations. InDesign is for page and other layout design. Used to be Quark for the last, but, Adobe won. They are now the monopoly. All hail Adobe.

Walk into any modern graphic design studio or department, and you will find that most designers use InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop. No Lightroom, that resides back at the photo studio. Also, a 3d program is on a few computers, maybe only one, because not too many people actually know how to effectively get results from 3D. It's hard, much harder than Photoshop. But, it is the future. And then there's some using a web design software, I'm not really sure which (not my thing), probably Adobe, since it integrates so well into the workflow. That's it. A modern designer should be very efficient in that software to be employable.

Edit: what isn't mentioned here, and it's something I used to clench my teeth over at work around this fellow who thought he was smart and actually, every now and then, started talking about alternative software to compete or whatever (what was he thinking? But he had certain ears open to him) with Photoshop. Really dumb. Because Photoshop, like it or not, is the industry standard, so, therefore, when one hires a retoucher, one hires a Photoshop expert. To retrain a staff in new software would take soooo much time, and then you're locked into, essentially, a proprietary software that will be difficult to manage, since nobody out there, new hires, I mean, knows anything else but PS. Such is one advantage of a monopoly.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on August 10, 2016, 03:28:22 AM
In conclusion, Photoshop was introduced for prepress/graphic arts.
Why care? Technics reportedly introduced the SL1200 as a high fidelity consumer record player, but it turned out to have most appeal as a DJ and scratching tool.

I doubt that Adobe could have predicted how and how much Photoshop would be used decades after its introduction.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tom b on August 10, 2016, 03:09:56 PM
Why care? Technics reportedly introduced the SL1200 as a high fidelity consumer record player, but it turned out to have most appeal as a DJ and scratching tool.

I doubt that Adobe could have predicted how and how much Photoshop would be used decades after its introduction.

-h

The original post, "…so, if Thomas were to through [sic] everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?"

Hey, Thomas and other Adobe staff designed Lightroom for Photographers.

Photoshop continues to be for those, "Web, design, prepress, science and video people," as well as Photographers and other people (think artists).

Cheers,
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Benny Profane on August 10, 2016, 07:11:12 PM
Lightroom is not enough. Don't stop there.

If somebody is using Photoshop for something else besides photo work these days, then they're doing it wrong. Maybe twenty years ago one could justify it, but, not anymore.There could be two reasons for it. Ignorance of what's possible with other software, or laziness.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on August 11, 2016, 02:36:37 AM
Edit: what isn't mentioned here, and it's something I used to clench my teeth over at work around this fellow who thought he was smart and actually, every now and then, started talking about alternative software to compete or whatever (what was he thinking? But he had certain ears open to him) with Photoshop. Really dumb. Because Photoshop, like it or not, is the industry standard, so, therefore, when one hires a retoucher, one hires a Photoshop expert. To retrain a staff in new software would take soooo much time, and then you're locked into, essentially, a proprietary software that will be difficult to manage, since nobody out there, new hires, I mean, knows anything else but PS. Such is one advantage of a monopoly.
Even "industry standards" gets replaced occasionally. WordPerfect used to be an industry standard for word processing. It got replaced. Users were willing (or forced) to re-train. Fortran used to be an industry standard programming language for numerical computation. It has largely been replaced.

Suggesting to replace an industry standard may or may not be "dumb". It all depends on what he was going to improve upon. Claiming that one can "easily" or "fast" make an image editor that would make users and employers throw away Photoshop in a heartbeat would probably be "dumb". In terms of image processing algorithms and interactive image editing features, Adobe probably have exhausted most of the low-hanging fruit.

Someone with the resources and inclination might make an image editor that changed the rules. Either through licensing, hardware requirements, content distribution, etc. Initially, hard-core Photoshop users would probably ignore it, but "fringe users" might not. Get enough of those fringe users, and you could possibly generate enough revenue and momentum to threaten Adobe on the longer run. Notice how Nokia and friends laughed at Apples initial iPhone (and in many traditional phone metrics, it was pretty bad). However, things changed remarkeably fast.

-h
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Benny Profane on August 11, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
Well, first of all, he was dumb, but the kind of dumb that sounded smart, if you know what I mean. And he already screwed the place up by moving them into the direction of all the wrong 3D software he could find, which was a shame to watch. Glad to be gone.

And, alternative softwares are being used. One of them, unfortunately, is Lightroom, which some actually consider a retouching tool, their only one. I have seen it on resumes. Then there are all the push button plug in software tools. You know, push this button and the woman's face is magically smoothed to perfection. Push this button and you have a B&W masterpiece. Push this button and you have Art. Those have been successful, because of the reasonable cost and ease of use, and I guess they will continue to be, because, bottom line, retouchers are expensive, and a lot of modern software is about eliminating labor costs. And, now that Print is near death, those alternatives will be viable since the world is and will be looking at images on their handheld devices instead of paper. Can't see someone investing the enormous amount of capitol and manpower in developing a new photo editing program in that environment. Nope, we're stuck with Photoshop, which, frankly, is a pretty good piece of software, if you ask me. I'm just concerned that it could become neglected, but, so far, so good.

And, btw, comparing Photoshop to some early word processing software is a little insulting. It takes a long time, maybe, well, forever, to master PS. We're not typing memos.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: tom b on August 14, 2016, 06:04:05 AM
Look, what I'm saying is that Photoshop was introduced as part of the "desktop publishing revolution".

Adobe was set up on the back of Postscript, Pagemaker, Photoshop, Illustrator and Adobe Postscript fonts. It made publishing more democratic and much cheaper.

How long after Photoshop's introduction was it possible for a photographer to print an A2 B&W print to rival that of a silver halide print for the same cost and with the same quality? Then how long again was it for colour?

Cheers,
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on August 14, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
Back in '97 I used Photoshop as a prepress technician for the first time to do rudimentary 6 color separations for ad specialty graphics to print on t-shirts, mugs and caps. Color seps, whose edges had to slightly overlap by a millimeter against the edges of each separated graphic element such as borders around logos and fonts which was called butt registration.

All that used to be done in the darkroom where I had to use a vacuum frame on a graphics camera to create a choke & spread on the edges of each color sep by placing several sheets of clear film between the exposing medium and the artwork and blast it with light for a couple of seconds. This worked like a charm for ornate and intricate line work (i.e. comic book characters) so we didn't have to cut rubylith by hand with an Xacto knife which was very labor and time intensive.

Photoshop has a selection edge editor under its Select menu, one called Contract, the other Expand that act the same as choke & spread. NEATO! I used it a lot. Didn't have time to learn Illustrator and turning scanned pixel base omages into vector graphics.

Now all that doesn't have to be done because vector editing became part of Photoshop as it was with Adobe Illustrator. The point being with my little story is that there are so many ways to do things in an application which I think needs to be thoroughly investigated by software engineers for them to come up with the best ONE method to something as simple as reproduce a FREAKIN' PICTURE! I mean look what we're doing with DNA and gene therapy and still we struggle with reproducing pictures.

COME ON! What's taking these guys so long? To hell with PostScript, to hell with PDF...JUST FIGURE OUT HOW TO SIMPLIFY ALL THIS!

I got out of prepress and graphics all together because of all the numerous Adobe apps I had to learn just to combine graphics with continuous tone images just so they print or show up in a browser. What a nightmare and I'm not even talking about having to deal with no-it-alls who sabotage projects because they think their way is better. To hell with all that.

I became a photographer. Less frustration. And strangely I rarely use Photoshop for editing photos after shooting and editing in Raw format. See, nothing is ever clear about how one goes about making a picture.
Title: Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Post by: hjulenissen on August 15, 2016, 06:59:30 AM
...
And, btw, comparing Photoshop to some early word processing software is a little insulting. It takes a long time, maybe, well, forever, to master PS. We're not typing memos.
It is very hard to compare the "skill" needed to master one job vs another. I would be very hesitant to claim that what I do for a living is somehow more "hard" or "serious" than what anyone else does.

One measure would be the years of school needed and/or the years of training needed to be able to consistently  deliver. I don't know how long typists needs, neither do I know how long photoshop artists needs. I do assume that they do more than "writing memos". Friends of mine that are serious scientists spends a considerable amount of time in order to be efficient in LaTeX.

Another measure would be the pay that employers are willing to give the right people. By that measure, I reckon that Microsoft Excel is a far more serious tool than Photoshop?

I do know that I would never be a good nurse or teacher, no matter how hard I tried. Both are high on my "valuable professions" list.

-h