Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 186704 times)

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #120 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.
Logged

KevinMcD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #121 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.
Logged

rasterdogs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #122 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.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #123 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.
Logged

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #124 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.
Logged
John
Flickr

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #125 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 :~)
Logged

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #126 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.
Logged
John
Flickr

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #127 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.

Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #128 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?
Logged

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #129 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.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #130 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.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #131 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.
Logged

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #132 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.
Logged

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #133 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.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #134 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.

:~)
Logged

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #135 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.
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #136 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 moirĂ© 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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 01:50:01 am by wolfnowl »
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #137 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.
Logged

Wayland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
  • Trust me I'm a Viking
    • Waylandscape
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #138 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...
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 02:40:04 am by Wayland »
Logged
Wayland. [/S

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #139 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.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22   Go Up