Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 186699 times)

s4e

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #140 on: May 12, 2013, 05:04:55 am »

Well, that bring up an interesting point...if this new fangled Photoshop were designed to be a companion to Lightroom (to be used pretty much only in conjunction with Lightroom) it would be like a plug-in for Lightroom to edit pixels for when the task at hand can't be done parametrically.

So, if this wasn't a stand long but a bundle, something like Lightroom Pro, then you wouldn't need to duplicate anything in LR...and things like soft proofing, and printing wouldn't be needed because, well, the presumption would be you would round trip into the pixel editing sister app with the intention of bring that back to Lightroom for the rest of what Lightroom can do (which is pretty much what I use Photoshop for now).
This is a very good idea Jeff  ::) With this concept you can as you suggest skip functionallity that is allready well covered in LR. You can also design the user interface so it's easier to understand then today with two very different UI concepts like we have to day... Skip ARC of course - no need to duplicate this.
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #141 on: May 12, 2013, 08:27:03 am »


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.



I am not sure what you were saying about PSD embeded in TIFFs.  Could you explain more?  And how this effects us?

I did some tests with layered TIFFs saved from Photoshop.  The TIFFs were zipped.  The reason for the test was to see if I also would need to save flattened TIFFs for future access to my end product.

Initially I tried Irfanview and Qimage Ultimate.  Qimage for printing, Irfanview a viewer.  Both had no problem.

I later tried Faststone Viewer.  It failed to open them.  I tried unzipped and LZW compressed, which both opened with Faststone.  I found out via Google that this was probably the result of Faststone using an older version of TIFF viewing....which, I guess, could esily be updated.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #142 on: May 12, 2013, 09:21:29 am »

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.

I have been muling over concerns, many of which you allude to here....which is why I asked about "timeline" in an earlier, unanswered, post.

This AM, I was planning to open a new thread to address this, but since you have brought it up here, I will post my thoughts and concerns.  At your request, I will be glad to move it to a separate thread.

I have already praised this thread.  It shows us that there ARE people in Adobe who care about photographers....but, ya know....we knew that....we have all have had dealings (limited granted) with Thomas and Eric and know what they are like.

We have also seen that "Type A" personalities can, if they want, keep the dialog reasonable and controlled(something I had already decided was needed by me and plan to continue in my personal posts).

THE PROBLEM is that, for now, this does really not change anything.  As Jeff says, it is 'Blue sky".

There is no promise or commitment that Adobe will approve or fund this well intentioned work effort.

This effort will no help us to make our own personal decisions on how we deal with CC....it's pricing and the risks of eventual/possible loss of use of the code.

If I remember correctly, statements have been made in print and interviews where LR function was going to move more toward CC, including release of new function to the LR CC version, which may not be updated in the perpetually licensed version.

I mention all this not to be disruptive.  I would love for this thread to result in an ongoing, committed, funded Adobe work effort.  If Adobe does approve it, let's be honest, it will not be here quickly....it will take years to implement...just like the  paradigm changing Lightroom took years.

If Adobe decides to support this project, they could better retain their existing customers by creating a "Photographer Package" today, with a direction statement on how it would be changed over time.

The initial 'package' could be a bundling of Photoshop CC and Lightroom "CC".  There should be a 'Statement of Direction" for the work effort concepts coming out of this thread....this gives a strong feeling of the corporations support and commitment, but with out any specific legal remedies if it does not complete as stated (IBM did this many times).

Further, Adobe should work out a CC offering, for photographers, which will alleviate fears of future loss of whatever code they were using at the time.  My thoughts would be that after 'X' months of subscription of the combined PS/LR bundle, the subscriber could stop, but continue using it, but with no future upgrades. The term of 'X' would be for current users of PS CS3-CS6.  Others would be 'X' + 'Y' months.

The "deal" could include a caveat, that over time...when 'Lightroom PRO' becomes a working reality, the PS/LR package will be discontinued....and replaced with just LR Pro (which will have grown within the package over years).  Those wishing to continue use of PS CC (because they want function, such as graphics/upgrades) will be able to convert to the "regular" PS CC offering.

Anyway, just my thoughts on ways to retain customers and assist the "blue sky" effort to succeed, which would be win-win for us all.

John
Logged
John

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 #143 on: May 12, 2013, 09:38:33 am »

I am not sure what you were saying about PSD embeded in TIFFs.  Could you explain more?  And how this effects us?

I did some tests with layered TIFFs saved from Photoshop.  The TIFFs were zipped.  The reason for the test was to see if I also would need to save flattened TIFFs for future access to my end product.

Initially I tried Irfanview and Qimage Ultimate.  Qimage for printing, Irfanview a viewer.  Both had no problem.

I later tried Faststone Viewer.  It failed to open them.  I tried unzipped and LZW compressed, which both opened with Faststone.  I found out via Google that this was probably the result of Faststone using an older version of TIFF viewing....which, I guess, could esily be updated.

I don't want to bog down this thread but here is the answer to an enquiry I made on the Photoline Forum:

Quote from: Gerhard Huber
Quote from: Wayland
I have a couple of questions which I will ask as my exploration continues but possibly the most important for me is, wether are there any plans to improve the level of support for layered TIFFs in the near future?
PhotoLine has full support for layerd TIFFs.
What you mean, I think, is Photoshop-TIFF support. It doesn't save layered TIFFs, but includes a full PSD inside the TIFF.
We don't support this at the moment.

Gerhard


The upshot is that Photoline will open a PS layered TIFF as a flattened image only. This seems to be the case with other programs I have tried as well. Although you can still access your final image, all your careful production work, for example creating detailed masks that you may have wanted to use again, is lost.

A layered TIFF as written by Photoshop is not as archival as I once believed.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 09:49:40 am by Wayland »
Logged
Wayland. [/S

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 #144 on: May 12, 2013, 09:44:39 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...

Gary, to me the issue you are raising is not blue-sky - it is a very practical matter that Adobe has brought to the fore with the new licensing policy. The generic issue is who owns the proprietary file formats and will we always have access to the software that can open them. The advantage of TIFF is that eventhough Adobe owns it, it is essentially "open-source" for all practical purposes and many applications can use it, so one is not beholden to one company's policies over which one has no control. So I think any new software being designed must include the capability to render into TIFF, but preferably as well to use a raw format that truly is open, along with a reader, the license for which is perpetual so that the license holder will never be at the mercy of a corporate policy change when it comes to opening their raw files.
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 #145 on: May 12, 2013, 10:08:50 am »

I don't want to bog down this thread but here is the answer to an enquiry I made on the Photoline Forum:
PhotoLine has full support for layerd TIFFs.
What you mean, I think, is Photoshop-TIFF support. It doesn't save layered TIFFs, but includes a full PSD inside the TIFF.
We don't support this at the moment.

Gerhard

The upshot is that Photoline will open a PS layered TIFF as a flattened image only. This seems to be the case with other programs I have tried as well. Although you can still access your final image, all your careful production work, for example creating detailed masks that you may have wanted to use again, is lost.

A layered TIFF as written by Photoshop is not as archival as I once believed.

OK....now I understand..

I was talking about the layered TIFF being able to be view/printed as a flattened TIFF....which most (updated) software can to.

You were talking about being able to view and manipulate the layers....which you and Photoline called "PSD". 

I see the reality in this new world that the best we will get is the fattened view (even if unflatted, layered file).  Adobe owns (or has purchased the rights to ) the algorithms used in the layers.  I do not see them being available to outside software creators.

This, I think, is the crux of the concern with PS CC.  The potential loss of ability to revisit our work-in-progress, which created the final image, and be able to easily reinterpret it.  Our only choice is to attempt to modify the flattened TIFF, which we all know is usually not successful.  Or, completely restart with the RAW. 
Logged
John

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #146 on: May 12, 2013, 10:38:25 am »

I would be a big fan of the "LR plug-in" approach.  If I envision future LR's that continue to add incremental features like better selections, text additions, masking and (maybe) layers, then the only real hole to fill is image blending.  Stitching for panos (Photoshop-like) and focus blending (Helicon Focus-like).

Hehe:  Adobe, just go and license Helicon Focus like you did with Pixel Genius, then add to it Photoshop's stitching capability as a LR plug-in.

Dave

« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 10:40:09 am by dchew »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #147 on: May 12, 2013, 11:17:51 am »

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.

Trust me, I'm not being flippant here.  This long-term storage problem is already addressed by Epson, Canon and HP.  So far, the only truly archival backup is a print. If it's only machine readable, not human readable, then at some time in the future that data is vulnerable to loss.  I'm sure many of us have data that's inaccessible because of the storage medium, not the file structure.  Got any data on Zip disks?  Bernoulli drives?  Tape? Floppies?  A possible option would be some kind of a desktop film recorder, but I'm not holding my breath for that.



Back to the problem at hand:

I'd love to see a more user-configurable interface.  The colour choices available within LR are a good first step, as are "workspaces" but since all of us use software in different ways, It'd be good if we could have lots of control of both workflow and on-screen appearance of the software.

Which leads me to add a nice-to-have (but not must-have) to my list for a Simplified Pixel Editor for Photographers.  Scripting and Actions.
Logged

RetSurfer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
    • My Flickr Site
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #148 on: May 12, 2013, 11:28:57 am »

I hope you don’t mind a hobbyist adding something here.

First, thank you Jeff for starting this thread.  As for me there were aspects to the new CC that appealed to me, namely additions to the programs as the creative team came up with them instead of waiting the 18 to 24 months upgrade cycle, also the “sync” ability to different platforms.

I’m a businessman who is about to pull the trigger on implementing Office 365 throughout my company. As such, I see similarities with what Adobe is doing. Being able to be live on my work station, home computer, tablet and phone is pushing me into the 21st century, at least that’s the way I perceive it.

I know the above analogy is different because mainly Office 365 is geared toward a collaborative workflow but I do see possibilities for a photographer on location using a tablet to edit the parameters of a shoot live instead of remembering later what the scene looked like when downloading to the main workstation. Or the ability of a pro when presenting his work to make small edits on his tablet at the presentation and it is synced when he gets back to his workstation.

Hopefully this is not too far off this topic but I do see the cloud as the future of all computing.

Mark
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #149 on: May 12, 2013, 11:36:03 am »

Oh, I just remembered something else I'ld like in the "Blue Sky" Photoshop.

All or most of the tools mentioned that would normally be accessed in the menu bar be placed in an uncluttered narrow vertical/horizontal palette list similar to ACR/LR UI. It's already done with some PS filters but the dialog boxes and listing arrangements waste a lot of UI real estate. See below the screenshot of CS3 PS "Reticulation" filter dialog box just as an example on how not to design a dialog box.

And make the dialog boxes that open when clicking on the name within the listing be of reasonable size kind of along the lines of Levels and Smart Sharpen.

Oh...And you can get rid of all those filter choices listed in that Reticulation screengrab.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 11:40:30 am by tlooknbill »
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #150 on: May 12, 2013, 12:07:22 pm »



Wasted space? Oh No! What if you need to zoom in to see the effects?

You can collapse the filter panel if you need more space. No?

« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 03:20:50 pm by Gulag »
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #151 on: May 12, 2013, 01:09:02 pm »

First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces. One thing I like about it is that the fact that I'm going into Photoshop makes it clear to me that I am about to start editing pixels. To me it is vitally impotant to know exactly when I am editing parametrically and when I'm editing pixels. Thus, I prefer the idea of a sort of "Photoshop Light" that is separate but easy to get into and back from, to the addition of a new module to LR (unless the new module forces some conspicuous visible change, like a purple border around the screen with the legend "Editing Pixels" in yellow!)

Eric M.


Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

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 #152 on: May 12, 2013, 01:16:06 pm »

First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces.

Eric M.


+1, as I do it daily with no issues.

That said, in a new application configuration, to the extent it can be further improved to take account of various peoples' issues with it, so much the better. I have no programming expertise whatsoever but I would imagine that if one were starting at the drawing board, either an omnibus application or two inter-related ones pose the same kind of factors that would need to be addressed.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #153 on: May 12, 2013, 01:36:43 pm »

First, let me add my thanks to Jeff for starting and continuing this thread, which is probably the most valuable thread on LuLa at the present time, IMHO. There have been excellent ideas put forth.

I'd like to express one qualm about the notion of "seamlessness," which has come up. I find the move from LR to CS and back very easy and clear, ecen with the wildly different interfaces. One thing I like about it is that the fact that I'm going into Photoshop makes it clear to me that I am about to start editing pixels. To me it is vitally impotant to know exactly when I am editing parametrically and when I'm editing pixels. Thus, I prefer the idea of a sort of "Photoshop Light" that is separate but easy to get into and back from, to the addition of a new module to LR (unless the new module forces some conspicuous visible change, like a purple border around the screen with the legend "Editing Pixels" in yellow!)

Eric M.




I agree, and this was I tried to express in my post yesterday evening. The switch to pixel editing should be very clear and explicit.  More so than just switching panels in Lr in my opinion.
Logged
John
Flickr

sma shooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #154 on: May 12, 2013, 01:44:19 pm »

Jeff, many thanks for originating this thread. I have been impressed by the thoughtful and specific replies. I agree with many suggestions, and would probably never have thought of many more. My only request is that the Photoshop Type tool NOT be deleted from your proposed Photoshop for Photographers. I have found it very useful to combine photos and type in PS for contact sheets, promotional materials, and other documents, and I would hate to see it disappear. Thanks!

Jim Quinn
Logged

s4e

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #155 on: May 12, 2013, 02:07:09 pm »

Start with the basic and improve in the comming version to make sure you can offer something not to far ahead. Keep link to Photoshop from LR as an option because you it's not possible to offer everything in this plugin.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #156 on: May 12, 2013, 02:13:26 pm »

Gulag, the whole point of this thread is to create a version of Photoshop that is used by photographers, not photo illustrationists which is what you showed in your use of that "style" of filter. You still have to rummage through that nested dropdown filter menu system to find it.

Get rid of the Filter menu way of accessing tools is my main gist here. It's a clunky way of quickly getting to the tool a photographer needs. I can't even remember where specific filters are located or their name and their effect much less visualize in my mind how it will improve the image.

I'm for decreasing all the "options" clutter and simplify the UI implementing a simple, yet small floating dialog box interface that can be collapsed vertically or horizontally and/or moved around easily.
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #157 on: May 12, 2013, 02:21:45 pm »

Gulag, the whole point of this thread is to create a version of Photoshop that is used by photographers, not photo illustrationists which is what you showed in your use of that "style" of filter. You still have to rummage through that nested dropdown filter menu system to find it.

Get rid of the Filter menu way of accessing tools is my main gist here. It's a clunky way of quickly getting to the tool a photographer needs. I can't even remember where specific filters are located or their name and their effect much less visualize in my mind how it will improve the image.

I'm for decreasing all the "options" clutter and simplify the UI implementing a simple, yet small floating dialog box interface that can be collapsed vertically or horizontally and/or moved around easily.

It seems to me there are at least two types of photographers, one calls himself technician, the other artist.Don't you think each type needs his own kind of Photoshop interface and tool set? One Size Fits All?

Besides, the current Photoshop's interface and menu system are highly customizable. If one doesn't want to see any menu item that he doesn't use, he can simply turn its visibility off. He can also assign keyboard shortcut to any menu item for speedier workflow if he's not mouse person.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 02:30:59 pm by Gulag »
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

— Jean Baudrillard

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #158 on: May 12, 2013, 02:29:33 pm »

It seems to me there are at least two types of photographers, one calls himself technician, the other artist.Don't you think each type needs his own kind of Photoshop interface and tool set? One Size Fits All?

Doesn't Elements have a bunch of those graphical effects filters?

In fact now that I thought of Elements, I don't see why Elements couldn't be tweaked by adding the features mentioned in this thread and include the full version of ACR and a stripped down and simplified type Bridge image browser with keywording and EXIF embedding and "Image Processor..." for quick downsizing and converting to sRGB for web uploading.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
« Reply #159 on: May 12, 2013, 02:39:04 pm »

Quote
Besides, the current Photoshop's interface and menu system are highly customizable. If one doesn't want to see any menu item that he doesn't use, he can simply turn its visibility off. He can also assign keyboard shortcut to any menu item for speedier workflow if he's not mouse person.

Again, TOO MUCH CLUTTERED OPTIONS AND CUSTOMIZATION features that can get erased with a "Reset Preferences To Default" routine OR corrupted.

That kind of GUI options clutter turns photo editing into a game boy video experience with all these keyboard action shortcut routines to turn that on, that off, hit the tab/shift, tab/control for this and that. It just makes photo editing a nerve wracking experience trying to remember all that CRAP!

It's a photo, not an arts and crafts project! Use Corel for that.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 22   Go Up