Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 61806 times)
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #340 on: July 29, 2013, 08:15:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all.
What a Ps for photographers could do without is: most of the Extended features: 3D, Video. Some of the stacking are useful for astrophoto or to remove differences (moving objects) between photos.

CYMK mode can go, for me: InDesign has the ACE engine anyways, and one wants to convert there to CYMK at the end, so that one can use the RGB files for ePub/Tablet. export. (It could still be useful to have Proofing.) (or if it stays, it would be in an output module, where the SFW tools could be)

What it needs to have: Masking (with different aliasing modes for paths), but masks could be nodal, reused on several layers as instances that can be inverted...
Using the 8BF plug-in architecture means one could use the many Photoshop plug-ins there, but the native ones must have blend mode and opactity controls built in/or be available on the layers panel in non modal mode, so that one can experiment when applying the (smart) filter.
All filters and adjustment must be "smart", no more destructive editing, even on masks: using the smart masks talked earlier.
The content aware tools are too good to do without.

I'd dream about a sort of "match color" for layers that would check for contrast and color consistency.
Looks (LUT) are very good, and one could use Speedgrade to develop some.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #341 on: July 29, 2013, 06:52:44 PM »
ReplyReply

CYMK mode can go, for me

I don't think CMYK is that expensive to have bundled in, along with all the other color modes and profiles.

Quote
masks could be nodal, reused on several layers as instances that can be inverted...

Yes!  Nodal architecture is the key to the future. 
Logged

LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #342 on: December 18, 2013, 07:48:59 AM »
ReplyReply

So, what's the status of this project? Is Thomas going ahead with the design?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #343 on: December 18, 2013, 12:58:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Nothing to report...
Logged
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


WWW
« Reply #344 on: December 18, 2013, 05:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect CC for photographers killed off any rationale for such a project.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

nma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #345 on: December 19, 2013, 09:19:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Should start with floating point reprrsentation of image data to accommodate the sensors of the future. Then assess needs for processing.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #346 on: December 20, 2013, 12:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect CC for photographers killed off any rationale for such a project.

Adobe has been killing off innovation for years. 

Although parts of Photoshop have been contributed by talented DSP engineers, the core design of the application is an amateurish design of the worst kind that has been kept alive for fifteen years by sheer dint of force.
Logged

StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


WWW
« Reply #347 on: December 20, 2013, 02:21:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Adobe has been killing off innovation for years. 

Although parts of Photoshop have been contributed by talented DSP engineers, the core design of the application is an amateurish design of the worst kind that has been kept alive for fifteen years by sheer dint of force.

Wow, I didn't mean it at all in that way.

My point is that Photoshop, LightRoom and ProSite all for $10/month is an excellent deal that makes it pointless for anyone at Adobe to develop an alternative tool and extremely difficult for us to justify looking for alternatives.

I happen to find Photoshop brilliant. It does many tihngs I don't need, but what I need is better done in Photoshop than in any other software.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1906


WWW
« Reply #348 on: December 20, 2013, 03:13:36 AM »
ReplyReply

My point is that Photoshop, LightRoom and ProSite all for $10/month is an excellent deal that makes it pointless for anyone at Adobe to develop an alternative tool and extremely difficult for us to justify looking for alternatives.
If it's an "Excellent deal" depends on your point of view, and that subject has been picked to pieces enough already.

I think many of us would like to see a replacement for Photoshop that's tailored specifically for photographers, rather than being a 'everything for everyone' package.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #349 on: December 20, 2013, 03:51:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I think many of us would like to see a tool that is built upon a powerful and elegant virtual machine at the lowest level, coupled with a layer of functionality above it that is tailored specifically for photographers.  The difficulty is that understanding how one would tailor the level of functionality for photographers would be informed by knowledge about the potential of the underlying virtual machine architecture.  Only when those two concerns can be brought together will one be able to create a truly modern tool.

There is little about photoshop that is brilliant.  There are just artists who are resourceful.
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


WWW
« Reply #350 on: December 20, 2013, 05:21:46 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote ]


I think many of us would like to see a replacement for Photoshop that's tailored specifically for photographers, rather than being a 'everything for everyone' package.

[/quote]

+1
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #351 on: December 20, 2013, 05:57:25 AM »
ReplyReply

It's not exactly an either/or proposition. 
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


« Reply #352 on: December 20, 2013, 07:22:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I find the comments on "amateurishness" interesting.  I actually think that Photoshop is a pretty well running system for a package that had been essentially "cobbled together" over a 20+ year period.  Could it be better designed and more efficient if it were restarted and redesigned from scratch...of course....but at what expense...and cost to the user...??

As far as a trimmed down package.  I would like the proponents of that to build a list of what functions in Photoshop they would like included and those excluded.....and then get concurrence from the photographic community on the lists.  :-)

John
Logged

John
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1906


WWW
« Reply #353 on: December 20, 2013, 09:16:20 AM »
ReplyReply

 I would like the proponents of that to build a list of what functions in Photoshop they would like included and those excluded.....and then get concurrence from the photographic community on the lists.  :-)
That's exactly what this thread is supposedly doing.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8776



WWW
« Reply #354 on: December 20, 2013, 09:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I think many of us would like to see a replacement for Photoshop that's tailored specifically for photographers, rather than being a 'everything for everyone' package.
Yeah like Photoshop Lightroom <g>
Logged

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

Posts: 2760


« Reply #355 on: December 20, 2013, 10:17:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Like LR + luminosity masks.
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #356 on: December 20, 2013, 04:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Why would the "new" version of photoshop (or whatever it's called) want less features than we have now, what I'd add to photoshop is better batch processing options, something that doesn't need images to be imported to edit several images at a time.
This sounds like someones planning on cutting back on the photoshop we know and love.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #357 on: December 20, 2013, 04:56:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The cost would certainly be high for a ground-up redesign, but the benefits would be considerable as well.

There is a phase in which to involve photographers in the process.  Best is to lay the architectural groundwork that would support most any consideration that a photographer (or designer artist, or, or ...) would want.  The usability part of the problem, believe it or not, isn't the hard part.  

Besides, if you ask users prematurely what they want, what you end up with is something like "give me what I already know PLUS-or-MINUS something" which leads to an ad hoc death spiral.  

Let me give you an example of how it might work.

- Develop an architecture based upon a virtual machine (VM) with a nodal, dataflow architecture.  

- The (considerable) features and complexities of the VM can be /hidden or revealed/ in application layers as desired for different levels of users and suited for different purposes.

- The VM allows for a compatibility layer with the historical application where needed.

- The VM allows one to retain, where desired, all intermediate stages of the processing right down to the individual brush stroke, which may be modified in any way at any time.  The intermediate stages may be either baked-in or recomputed at will.  Sets of actions may be aggregated.

- The VM allows unlimited re-use of intermediate data in more than one stage of the processing.  This also allows for any number of derivative intermediates, which retain their dependencies on the original data in every sense, and may be themselves re-used.

- The VM provides all the abstractions needed for efficient concurrent processing without need for special cases.

- The VM allows for a very high-level, object-based scripting language, which in turns allows for sophisticated actions to be built up out of primitives.  Programs written in the scripting language may be shared at will.  The clear-cut semantics of the scripting language allow users to communicate in clear and unambiguous language about their techniques.  

- The application layers above the VM would allow for all the things that one does or can do now, including an outright compatibility layer, but would also allow for sophisticated new techniques.  

- The same model could be used for images and video. Moreover, it could be used for media presentation layers (e.g., broadcast, and interactive media) and knowledge-based systems that are unheard of today.
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


« Reply #358 on: December 20, 2013, 05:33:23 PM »
ReplyReply

The cost would certainly be high for a ground-up redesign, but the benefits would be considerable as well.

There is a phase in which to involve photographers in the process.  Best is to lay the architectural groundwork that would support most any consideration that a photographer (or designer artist, or, or ...) would want.  The usability part of the problem, believe it or not, isn't the hard part.  

Besides, if you ask users prematurely what they want, what you end up with is something like "give me what I already know PLUS-or-MINUS something" which leads to an ad hoc death spiral.  

Let me give you an example of how it might work.

- Develop an architecture based upon a virtual machine (VM) with a nodal, dataflow architecture.  

- The (considerable) features and complexities of the VM can be /hidden or revealed/ in application layers as desired for different levels of users and suited for different purposes.

- The VM allows for a compatibility layer with the historical application where needed.

- The VM allows one to retain, where desired, all intermediate stages of the processing right down to the individual brush stroke, which may be modified in any way at any time.  The intermediate stages may be either baked-in or recomputed at will.  Sets of actions may be aggregated.

- The VM allows unlimited re-use of intermediate data in more than one stage of the processing.  This also allows for any number of derivative intermediates, which retain their dependencies on the original data in every sense, and may be themselves re-used.

- The VM provides all the abstractions needed for efficient concurrent processing without need for special cases.

- The VM allows for a very high-level, object-based scripting language, which in turns allows for sophisticated actions to be built up out of primitives.  Programs written in the scripting language may be shared at will.  The clear-cut semantics of the scripting language allow users to communicate in clear and unambiguous language about their techniques.  

- The application layers above the VM would allow for all the things that one does or can do now, including an outright compatibility layer, but would also allow for sophisticated new techniques.  

- The same model could be used for images and video. Moreover, it could be used for media presentation layers (e.g., broadcast, and interactive media) and knowledge-based systems that are unheard of today.

Good technical discussion...frankly, I am not qualified to appreciate.

The real problem is the cost/benefit.  What is the marketing case and sales "commitments" that will convince the "green eye shades" to commit budget.
Logged

John
jrp
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #359 on: December 21, 2013, 08:49:07 AM »
ReplyReply

What seems clear is that the world is moving to tablets. CPU power hungry imaging apps are likely to be the last real use for PCs within a decade. An application that takes advantage of the new hardware and need to be able to shift images around the internet, rather than being designed to print them is what is needed.  Adobe seems to get this but has a long way to go.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad