Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 43075 times)
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #360 on: December 21, 2013, 11:22:49 AM »
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.
That sounds almost like Java!
Logged
Some Guy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #361 on: December 21, 2013, 11:43:29 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.

That (tablets) and cell phone camera shooters as well.

I don't know if Adobe is planning on going that route as many others are jumping to that ship.  I cannot see the cell crowd paying too much for their cellphone photo apps since they dump their hardware every year or two for something totally new.  Adobe doesn't seem to innovate that quick.  Adobe may stick with the computer crowd as serious retouchers/editors as their software has become very bloated compared to some new programmers who write small and tight code for phone apps, but how it plays out in the future may be very questionable for them.  They could go the way of Polaroid, Agfa film, and Kodak; that or buy up some apps already created and call them their own.  Maybe go the way of Autodesk and charge $4,500 for AutoCAD 2015 along with some security USB dongle needed too and payable with an AutoDesk VISA card (jk.  Wink )

Aside, if they do alter PS too much, people will get irate as they do with any OS change as "They sure screwed that up!"  MS cannot do a total makeover of their OS without people complaining: "It's so much harder to learn or figure out.  I'm going back to Windows 7, or Vista."  Apple has the same issues as "This new Mac Colorsync 10.9 sure has screwed up my printing" - aside from all the hardware driver upgrades needed for that mess.

SG
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #362 on: December 21, 2013, 01:06:22 PM »
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.

Adobe. Is working on it.

Listen to Phoyofocus podcast with Brian Hughes
http://photofocus.com/2013/12/13/bryan-oneil-hughes-photoshop-senior-product-manager/
Logged

John
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #363 on: December 21, 2013, 08:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply

That sounds almost like Java!

The idea of a virtual machine or "abstract machine" is definitely implemented in Java.  The idea dates back much further, but the idea remains that you can create an abstract machine with /generative/ possibilities in the same way that the Java virtual machine allows one to run any legal Java program.  Design the abstraction with media processing in mind, and you can have a machine that allows for virtually unlimited possibilities in media processing.  By creating application layers above the virtual machine, you can build new tools in a way that either reveals or hides the underlying complexity of the virtual machine and tailors the user experience in a way that suits specific needs for specific users. 
Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #364 on: December 21, 2013, 08:24:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The idea of a virtual machine or "abstract machine" is definitely implemented in Java.  The idea dates back much further, but the idea remains that you can create an abstract machine with /generative/ possibilities in the same way that the Java virtual machine allows one to run any legal Java program.  Design the abstraction with media processing in mind, and you can have a machine that allows for virtually unlimited possibilities in media processing.  By creating application layers above the virtual machine, you can build new tools in a way that either reveals or hides the underlying complexity of the virtual machine and tailors the user experience in a way that suits specific needs for specific users. 

All this is great, but does it make sense from a business perspective? How many man years do you think it will take to recreate PS? Maybe 100 at a cost of $250,000 per man year. Do you really think Adobe would recoup this cost? I don't....so it won't happen.

If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #365 on: December 22, 2013, 05:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

All this is great, but does it make sense from a business perspective? How many man years do you think it will take to recreate PS? Maybe 100 at a cost of $250,000 per man year. Do you really think Adobe would recoup this cost? I don't....so it won't happen.

If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...

The proposition goes far beyond "recreat(ing) photoshop" of course.  The same architecture could be deployed in the video/motion picture industry as well, and beyond, into interactive media. 

For Adobe itself, recouping the cost would be the least of their worries; the amount of money in their market goes far beyond the expense of new development.  Think of what people are paying now just for their CC subscriptions every year.  At some point Adobe has to think about how they are going to keep the market for the next 20+ years.  There are at least a couple of strategies -- invest in a new architecture that would decisively dominate, or continue to bet on their ability to dominate the market through aggressive business practices and extraction of fees from their customer base month-to-month. 

Pragmatically, I don't think they can afford to do either one to the exclusion of the other.

The difficulty I think has more to do with corporate culture than whether the project has a solid business justification.  And that is why I said, a few messages ago, that aggressive marketing of this aging product line is standing in the way of real innovation.  I wouldn't doubt that there are innovative forces within Adobe, but that, to put it mildly, the culture is conflicted.  It is inevitable that market pressure will catch up with them at some point.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #366 on: December 22, 2013, 10:34:16 AM »
ReplyReply

If it was easy, we would have seen some competitor step up to the plate, but none has...
I think there is some truth to this. Adobe can afford for Photoshop to
1) be expensive/have annoying license terms
because:
2) Photoshop does what it does well
3) A lot of people have invested a lot of time in learning Photoshop

An underdog competitor would have to offset 3) by offering a lot more on 2) and/or underselling on 1).

I believe that is a hard task, and that there is perhaps easier money elsewhere in software. Perhaps the "Photoshop" market is mature/stagnated (still generating lots of revenue), while other markets have more potential for growth.

-h
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #367 on: December 22, 2013, 11:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

3) A lot of people have invested a lot of time in learning Photoshop
How much of that is particularly Photoshop though?
I suspect a fair chunk of people's investment in learning is just as much, if not more, about digital image manipulation in general. An awful lot of that knowledge learnt would be transferable to any other image manipulation program.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #368 on: December 22, 2013, 01:54:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Rhossydd, yes.

A lot of the time it takes to learn photoshop is tied up with assimilating its needless -- needless -- complexity, which is a consequence of its ad hoc design from the word go.  After years of accumulated hacks, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example of bad software design in widespread use today.  [I'm sure the government has something to match it.]

For example:

- It uses 1-dimensional dataflow to solve a problem that is inherently multidimensional.  This gives rise to all kinds of ridiculous workarounds.

-- "Apply image..."  
-- 1-dimensional groups
-- Inability to reuse intermediate results or derivatives thereof without multiple project files
-- Inability to redo portions of a design without nuclear Undo
-- Smart filters versus dumb filters
-- Inability to mix modes, color spaces, and bit depths freely

- Inability to create a scripting language of any kind that gives access to every feature in the program

Then there are a host of just silly things, like blend modes with metaphoric names.  And the entire semantics is just ridiculous.  Have you ever seen anyone who can describe coherently how they did a complex design.  

All of these things require unnecessary cognitive complexity and waste time in instruction.  A real orthogonal design would be much simpler to grasp and use.  The only reason we've gotten this far is due to the ingenuity and determination of individual users in spite of the tool.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 02:35:58 PM by LKaven » Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #369 on: December 22, 2013, 03:57:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Rhossydd, yes.

A lot of the time it takes to learn photoshop is tied up with assimilating its needless -- needless -- complexity, which is a consequence of its ad hoc design from the word go.  After years of accumulated hacks, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example of bad software design in widespread use today.  [I'm sure the government has something to match it.]

For example:

- It uses 1-dimensional dataflow to solve a problem that is inherently multidimensional.  This gives rise to all kinds of ridiculous workarounds.

-- "Apply image..."  
-- 1-dimensional groups
-- Inability to reuse intermediate results or derivatives thereof without multiple project files
-- Inability to redo portions of a design without nuclear Undo
-- Smart filters versus dumb filters
-- Inability to mix modes, color spaces, and bit depths freely

- Inability to create a scripting language of any kind that gives access to every feature in the program

Then there are a host of just silly things, like blend modes with metaphoric names.  And the entire semantics is just ridiculous.  Have you ever seen anyone who can describe coherently how they did a complex design.  

All of these things require unnecessary cognitive complexity and waste time in instruction.  A real orthogonal design would be much simpler to grasp and use.  The only reason we've gotten this far is due to the ingenuity and determination of individual users in spite of the tool.

Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #370 on: December 22, 2013, 04:12:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.

Gimp3 as based on GEGL.
Nuke.
Historically, AVS (A Visualization System).

All of these were designed around the principles being discussed here, and for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Meanwhile, look again at the title of this thread.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 04:32:54 PM by LKaven » Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #371 on: December 22, 2013, 04:30:31 PM »
ReplyReply

GEGL:

http://mmiworks.net/pics/blog12/boxeshosesL.jpg
http://blog.mmiworks.net/2012/01/gimp-full-gegl-ahead.html
http://www.gimpchat.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7064
http://pellelatarte.fr/en/
Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #372 on: December 22, 2013, 06:53:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Show me an image processor that is as powerful as PS and is very intuitive with an optimal user interface. I see none, so PS is it. Until something comes to market to rival PS, all this needless dreaming is just that...dreaming.

Wow! With that attitude we would all still be drawing stick figures with bits of charcoal and berry juice on cave walls.

Last time I checked, it was imaginative dreaming that inspired invention and innovation. I think now, more than ever, is definitely not the time to develop a herd mentality that the it is not only impossible but futile to pursue an alternative to Ps that is more in-tune with photographers. Where would this world be if everyone followed your advice?

With current resources in the manner of coding more efficiently, advanced hardware and OS capabilities, I'm quite confident if Thomas were to venture forth to develop Ps today ... it would look, feel and function quite differently than what we are accustomed to.

To dismiss the concept purely on the basis that the task may be too difficult ... goes against the grain of all that I have experienced.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #373 on: December 22, 2013, 07:34:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Gimp3 as based on GEGL.
Nuke.
Historically, AVS (A Visualization System).

All of these were designed around the principles being discussed here, and for exactly the reasons being discussed here. Meanwhile, look again at the title of this thread.

I said with the power and breadth of functionality. I really don't care how it is designed...I care about what I can do with the software. None of the packages you mentioned even comes close to what can be done with PS. Totally irrelevant what is under the sheets if what is above the sheets does not cut the cake.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #374 on: December 22, 2013, 07:40:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow! With that attitude we would all still be drawing stick figures with bits of charcoal and berry juice on cave walls.

Last time I checked, it was imaginative dreaming that inspired invention and innovation. I think now, more than ever, is definitely not the time to develop a herd mentality that the it is not only impossible but futile to pursue an alternative to Ps that is more in-tune with photographers. Where would this world be if everyone followed your advice?

With current resources in the manner of coding more efficiently, advanced hardware and OS capabilities, I'm quite confident if Thomas were to venture forth to develop Ps today ... it would look, feel and function quite differently than what we are accustomed to.

To dismiss the concept purely on the basis that the task may be too difficult ... goes against the grain of all that I have experienced.

I'm not dismissing anything. I am just being realistic. Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned? Seems to me photographers who are devoted to PS have signed on to the subscription model and those who have not signed up, most likely won't even if PS was redone. Don't see a business case here.
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #375 on: December 22, 2013, 08:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not dismissing anything. I am just being realistic. Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned? Seems to me photographers who are devoted to PS have signed on to the subscription model and those who have not signed up, most likely won't even if PS was redone. Don't see a business case here.

Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

Though I've been a full time photographer for 38 years ... I am not "devoted" to Ps, Adobe or any other product or brand of tool I utilize in my daily tasks. In fact, I've been casting an eye to the horizon looking for an alternative to Ps for quite some time, even though I have owned and used Ps for over 20 years. It may be the most popular choice ... and it may now have a bargain basement monthly fee that all the cool kids are flocking to ... but in many cases, Ps is still very dated bloatware that very few users employ to its full potential. Likewise, there are more than few folks out there earning a very good living who have never used Ps.

Plus, as Jeff Schewe pointed out ... Ps was NEVER designed for photographers as an "image processor" ... it was designed as a graphics tool for prepress operations ... photographers merely hijacked the app and claimed it as their own. (Remember he and others stressing that message out to us all back in May?)

Hopefully, someone out there with the capabilities and the inspiration won't suffer from your pessimistic attitude and offer an alternative that is a better fit.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #376 on: December 22, 2013, 08:46:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

Though I've been a full time photographer for 38 years ... I am not "devoted" to Ps, Adobe or any other product or brand of tool I utilize in my daily tasks. In fact, I've been casting an eye to the horizon looking for an alternative to Ps for quite some time, even though I have owned and used Ps for over 20 years. It may be the most popular choice ... and it may now have a bargain basement monthly fee that all the cool kids are flocking to ... but in many cases, Ps is still very dated bloatware that very few users employ to its full potential. Likewise, there are more than few folks out there earning a very good living who have never used Ps.

Plus, as Jeff Schewe pointed out ... Ps was NEVER designed for photographers as an "image processor" ... it was designed as a graphics tool for prepress operations ... photographers merely hijacked the app and claimed it as their own. (Remember he and others stressing that message out to us all back in May?)

Hopefully, someone out there with the capabilities and the inspiration won't suffer from your pessimistic attitude and offer an alternative that is a better fit.

It takes more than capabilities and inspiration to make it as can be seen by all the PS wannabes we have seen come and go over the years. Even companies such as Corel that has a broad range of skills, personnel and money bowed out when it got tough. It's nice to dream, but I'll continue to use the outdated PS while others go out and try their luck with the next PS wannabe.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769


« Reply #377 on: December 22, 2013, 09:06:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps you forget ... this discussion began to seek out an alternative to the beloved subscription plan.

He's a habitual thread hijacker in Adobe threads.  Shall we return to the topic?
Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #378 on: December 22, 2013, 09:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

He's a habitual thread hijacker in Adobe threads.  Shall we return to the topic?

You mean return to dreaming. Cheesy
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


WWW
« Reply #379 on: December 23, 2013, 08:42:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Redesigning a system like PS from scratch is a huge undertaking. How would they payback this huge development? Would you sign up for the subscription model Adobe has adapted if PS was redesigned?

Who said the subscription models are required? Many photographers will never sign up for the subscription model. But if Adobe offered the new Photoshop (Photoshop Lightroom Pro?) on perpetual basis like LR, many CC subscribers would switch to it.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad