Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 186741 times)

kingscurate

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #80 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.
Logged
I aint a pro

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #81 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #82 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)
Logged
John

rasterdogs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #83 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.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #84 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #85 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
Logged
John

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #86 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.
Logged

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #87 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?
Logged

Pogo33

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #88 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 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 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."
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #89 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.
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #90 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.

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #91 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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:10:21 pm by ButchM »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #92 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.

dds

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #93 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.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #94 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

« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 04:40:45 pm by Jim Kasson »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #95 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.

Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #96 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.

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #97 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.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #98 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

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #99 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...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 22   Go Up