Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 107081 times)

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #360 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. 

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #361 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...
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #362 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.

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2039
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #363 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
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2371
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #364 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.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #365 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.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 03:35:58 PM by LKaven »
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #366 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.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #367 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.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 05:32:54 PM by LKaven »
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 598
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #369 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.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #370 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.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #371 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.
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 598
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #372 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.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #373 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.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #374 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?

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #375 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
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 767
    • advantica blog
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #376 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.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11830
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #377 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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 767
    • advantica blog
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #378 on: December 23, 2013, 11:26:01 PM »

Well, if Adobe won't cannibalize some of their products, somebody else will.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #379 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21   Go Up