Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 186710 times)

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #100 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 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.

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #101 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

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #102 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).

:~)
Logged

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #103 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.
Logged

Joe S

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #104 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.
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #105 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.
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 #106 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #107 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.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #108 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.
Logged

Michael Schoenfeld

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
    • Michael Schoenfeld
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #109 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
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #110 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 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 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.


Soap splash screen 1998.


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. And yes, Phil went dark with the LR UI :~)
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #111 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)
Logged
John

Michael Schoenfeld

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
    • Michael Schoenfeld
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #112 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
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:24:39 pm by Michael Schoenfeld »
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 #113 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

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 #114 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

obik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #115 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.
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #116 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.
Logged
John

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 #117 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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Rick Popham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 198
    • http://
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #118 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.



Logged

tuthill

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #119 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 22   Go Up