Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 186672 times)

stevenskl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #400 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."
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #401 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.
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13758
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #402 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…
Logged
Francois

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #403 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.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #404 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.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #405 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
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 05:16:09 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #406 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.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #407 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.
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #408 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.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #409 on: August 08, 2016, 04:43:30 pm »

The wonder would be rewriting all the ancient code in PS. 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Pictus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
    • Retouching
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #410 on: August 08, 2016, 11:07:45 pm »

Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #411 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
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #413 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
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #414 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,
Logged
Tom Brown

Dr Tone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #415 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.
Logged

Pictus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
    • Retouching
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #416 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/
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #417 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.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #418 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
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #419 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.
Logged
Regards,
Ron
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22   Go Up