Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What options exist currently to Photoshop?  (Read 3521 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8054



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2013, 01:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I think layers was version 3. I started with 2, the first with CMYK, and I think layers was one full version later.

Crap, I can't open my CMYK PS files in Photoshop versions earlier than 2? <G>

Pretty sure you're right about version 3. I recall those layers with much excitement and was happy I didn't have to use that 3rd party software that had layers prior to Photoshop (College). Anyone remember that one?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2013, 01:54:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Just spent a few hours with PhotoLine.  It appears to be a comprehensive program that uses a very PS-like paradigm.  It is not an exact PS clone, but will not take much learning for an experienced PS user.  There are a few issues, however. 


I also just took a look at Photoline. It would be a very solid alternative to PS for me except I couldn't get the soft proofing mode to work worth a damn. That's a deal breaker for me. It might be a "MAC OS10.8 doesn't play nice with Photoline" issue, but I have a help request in with support at PHotoline to see if they can help me figure it out.  Otherwise, Photoline seems to be a very robust image editing tool with lots of sophistication, e.g., layers and masks, LAB/HSL color modes, etc... you know, the kind of pro stuff that mere amateurs supposedly don't care about!
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2662


WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2013, 02:05:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The What and When of Photoshop history.

While we groan about this or that issue with PS, the little omissions and gotchas in most of these alternative softwares show us where the real value of PS lies.  It may be awkward and a little retro, but its rough edges have been smoothed out.  You know what they say...the first 90% of a software package is completed in 10% of the time, the rest never happens.  It's a credit to Adobe that almost all "the rest" is actually in place.
Logged
dds
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2013, 08:01:18 PM »
ReplyReply

My question about photoline and gimp and the other alternatives is this: do they have the same kind of sophisticated selection tools as photoshop? I'm still old school: select, then edit....
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2662


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2013, 11:10:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The selection tools in PS are in a class by themselves, with huge improvements over the last few versions.  Add to that things like mask refinement and non destructive mask blurring and many other refinements and there seems to be very little real competition for PS right now, at least for those who rely on masking and layering.

And the unfortunate thing about those refinements is that many of them are covered by software patents.  So it's not just a matter of cloning the functionality.  In many cases a new piece of software would have to use significantly different paradigms and techniques, hugely increasing the effort required to achieve similar functionality.

I invite the users of PS competitors to correct me on this, but it seems like Gimp and some other PS-like programs are using something closer PS5 as a model, rather than the later CS versions.  It occurs to me this may be partly because of patent issues, dating from the unfortunate day in the 90's when software patents were first granted.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3012


« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2013, 03:44:16 AM »
ReplyReply

The selection tools in PS are in a class by themselves, with huge improvements over the last few versions.  Add to that things like mask refinement and non destructive mask blurring and many other refinements and there seems to be very little real competition for PS right now, at least for those who rely on masking and layering.

And the unfortunate thing about those refinements is that many of them are covered by software patents.  So it's not just a matter of cloning the functionality.  In many cases a new piece of software would have to use significantly different paradigms and techniques, hugely increasing the effort required to achieve similar functionality.

Hi Bill,

Even a seemingly simple application like photoFXlab by Topaz Labs offers blending layers functionality, and edge aware brushes, and it doesn't screw up color when changing brightness. Besides that, it's a command center unleashing the excellent Topaz Labs plugins that can be added when the user wants specific functionality, like advanced masking, or noise reduction, or tonemapping, or Black and White conversion, or you name it.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2013, 04:58:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Even a seemingly simple application like photoFXlab by Topaz Labs offers blending layers functionality, and edge aware brushes, and it doesn't screw up color when changing brightness. Besides that, it's a command center unleashing the excellent Topaz Labs plugins that can be added when the user wants specific functionality, like advanced masking, or noise reduction, or tonemapping, or Black and White conversion, or you name it.

Exactly. And the most important point for those of us counting down the years before we have to find an alternative to CS6 is that the current photoFXlab has been developed in a world where Adobe hadn't yet dropped a bomb on its customer base.

Give Topaz Labs, GIMP, et al, four or five years of development in a world where tens of thousands of ex-Adobe customers are clamoring for an alternative to Photoshop, and the feature sets of those applications won't remotely resemble what they are today.

Supply and demand.

Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2013, 06:47:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Look what happened when some enterprising folks got together and created Open Office.  There is a free version of all the MS Office programs that are compatible with MS file formats.  Even some in the corporate IT sector are taking a long look at it as a way of saving money.  Folks can vote with their pocket book (there is a donation link on the homepage).  This is the one really good way of expressing outrage (for those who are outraged).
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3012


« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2013, 07:05:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Look what happened when some enterprising folks got together and created Open Office.  There is a free version of all the MS Office programs that are compatible with MS file formats.  Even some in the corporate IT sector are taking a long look at it as a way of saving money.  Folks can vote with their pocket book (there is a donation link on the homepage).  This is the one really good way of expressing outrage (for those who are outraged).

Hi,

And interestingly, when the original OpenOffice[/color]]OpenOffice sponsor Sun was acquired by Oracle, and Oracle started pushing the developers in a direction they didn't want, the developers left, and LibreOffice was born.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2662


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2013, 12:02:27 PM »
ReplyReply

^ And because of OpenOffice and Libre Office, Microsoft introduced a $100 "home" version of Microsoft Office, which is comparable to its much more expensive suite.  So by similar chemistry, maybe someday we'll see a Photoshop Home version that is not just Elements.
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #50 on: May 10, 2013, 12:23:58 PM »
ReplyReply

^ I think the development of an equivalent Photoshop Home version that is not just Elements is inevitable. But as their stock continues to drop today (on the trading floor and otherwise), I increasingly doubt it will have Adobe's name on it.


Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad