Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...  (Read 69941 times)
kiklop
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2013, 07:02:59 PM »
ReplyReply

so, if Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch to design a new version, a Photoshop for Photographers (and not web, design, prepress, science nor video) what would be a core set of features?
It is a while since i felt the need for something like that. As someone that is occasionally teaching young students and photographers I often found PS too intimidating for those that want “Just” to edit their images.

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?
Pretty much so.

Could you live without type?, Video? 3D? (I assume so)
Not needed except type. Some options for styling watermarks with some text effects would still be a must I guess although not as powerful as with PS.

What about Bridge?
You either have this “editor” included and tight with LR or you need a functional browser (my preference).  Personally, I think bridge didn’t evolve as it should with recent PS releases and needs a new re-thinking.

There would need to be some sort of brushing functionality, but I doubt you would be much besides simple brushes with softness/opacity and no brush effects, right?


Right … but, while there isn’t a need for all advanced options of PS, brush work should be highly functional.  After all, brush is an essential tool for many image editing tasks.

Would you want the Blur gallery and Puppet warp? Liquify?
Yes – no - no

What about editable keyboard shortcuts? (which was a huge engineering effort which is also why LR doesn't have it yet).
Absolutely (I never get used to shortcuts in LR, among my biggest gripe with LR ergonomics.
  While I don’t personally like the way Gimp is interacting with user, their shortcut assignment procedure seems very easy and intuitive for me.

But you would need to do color conversions, right?
Yep, essential for something that is aimed to be serious photo imaging editor.

So, what would be needed to create a Photoshop for Photographers that would be designed as a pixel editing companion to Lightroom?
For Lightroom only? Wink
That would be a mistake IMHO but then again, I can understand possible adobe motivation.

One aspect that I would really like to see improved are selection options. For example, luminosity (or zones for those that like to think that way) based selections which some of us did with various actions.

If Thomas were to through everything out and start over from scratch”

 ..  so we aren’t talking about “photographer” optimized PS ?
If so, then there is a whole new possibility for a better user interface suited for photo editing but that not only is worth a new thread but probably a new subforum  Roll Eyes 


..  and Adobe and even other 3rd party developers...
And here is a turn down for me personally.
Sorry for saying this, but at this point, personally I would really prefer a photo editor from a photo-centric driven company (or team) than a wall street driven one (adobe). I know it is ugly to say this but IMHO adobe has crossed a turning point and I don't see there is going back any time soon.

I have a lot of work to do to prepare new workshop lessons without adobe products; it is a huge tasks and I’m not even sure what tools will I pick for the job, replacing PS will be especially hard at this point but adobe didn’t really let us any choice; teaching for products with lifetime subscription policy just isn’t ethical in my view.
 (Luckily I’m not alone since most of my colleagues I have spoken to do feel the same and preparing future workshop will be a collective task).
 
I have nothing but high respect for both Thomas and Eric but a happy end movie in my book is either they move from adobe or other talented people outside adobe  come with something really worth supporting (may take a while but for the sake of a better future it would be the best).

My apologies if last remarks are OT (feel free to delete them) but it is just part of my personal view about a photo editor i would like to see on the market 
Logged

Mladen Sever
dyxum.com
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2013, 08:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, can't resist.  : )

Photoshop for Photographers "shouldn't haves":  (assuming LR is used in close partnership)

Print
Type
3D
Video
Statistics
Vector tools and layers (except selection pen and maybe paths)
"Art" brushes, painting tools and filters.  Gaussian Blur does me just fine, thanks.
Exotica such as Puppet Warp and Content Aware Move



"must haves"

the same close relationship with LR (such as "load images as layers", stitch)
all existing file load/save ops
colour mgt
all existing layer functions
all existing selection tools
maintain plug-in compatibility
cloning, spotting and healing tools
16 and 32 bit image support, including HDR functions.
history
all existing transforms, including "warp"
info/histogram
maintain all existing keyboard shortcuts
64 bit and multicore utilization



"in your dreams"

pricing and licensing similar to current rules for LR
better auto blend and auto align layers, with more user controls
improved stitching with more user controls
improved or innovative selection tools
cool stuff we'd never have thought of.



Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2013, 08:12:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes I forgot, I would add "warp" into the desirable set of transforms to carry into an expanded LR or new app.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 746


« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 08:18:31 PM »
ReplyReply

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).

Jeff, I think this is a great idea and thank you for starting this thread.

I think the "Pixel Plugin" Should initially focus on the key areas where LR is weak....but do not try to take on too much.

For example, layers, blending modes, and masks are important, as is alignment of the layers to assist blending.  HDR, focus stacking, & panos would be nice, but frankly, there are lots of other products available that work really nice (allow plugins..??).  

I would hate to not have content aware heal, patch, scale, and move, as well as the clone and regular patch tool.

If CMYK and LAB manipulation are easy...OK, but, while many still us them (because they know them), I suspect (limited knowleded opinion, here) that some of the newer LR/PS functions have replaced much of their need. (please don't kill me guys)

Improve the LR print module.  Better interpolation algorithms, and more sophisticated sharpening added to the PKS function.  Automatically sense the ppi the print driver wants.  Improve the print text and borders, and allow flexibility by image and by page.

I would miss some of the transform and new wide angle lens correction capabilty, but....

ANyway, many of the more knowledgable guys have and will provide input.

I think this is a great idea....JOHN
Logged

John
Peter Le
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 08:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

     This all sounds great.....But really this is what should have happened before this move to cloud. I have lost all confidence and trust in Adobe because of the way they went about this. I applaud you Jeff for even starting this thread.....but before I can contribute I have to get over my utter despise for Adobe. There were a million better ways they could have gone about this.....they chose to be utterly Arrogant ! It may take a little while for some of us to get over this.......But thanks again for starting this thread.....it is in the right direction !
Logged
Rory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 08:30:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I would want two things basically:

1.  All the tools for compositing.

2.  A well maintained SDK.

A nice to have is styles - I use them a lot.

Great positive topic Jeff.  Best regards to Eric in trying times.
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 08:57:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Can't think right off hand anything to add to what's already been mentioned, but I do have functionality issues I'ld like addressed regarding quality previews at different zoom levels in relation to speed of edits within LR which I'm assuming function the same as ACR, my current Raw converter.

I've been having to use Photoshop to get truer representation (mainly saturation) of color in previews at different zoom sizes I can't get in ACR. So I'm wondering if these less than accurate zoom previews affect accurate Soft Proofing in LR. Not sure.

I'm thinking of switching to LR and so don't know much about the quality of their previews at less than 100%. In ACR if I apply Color Noise, Chromatic Aberration "All Edges" (I know it's been changed in newer versions) and sharpening, the saturation can be reduced by as much as applying -10 on the saturation slider at 100% view but look as intended at smaller zooms at "Fit In Window" sizes.
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 09:28:52 PM »
ReplyReply

New Photoshop?

While I have the utmost respect and admiration for Thomas and appreciate all he has done for me in my career ... unless he is also in charge of dictating license agreements, I have little faith in this idea. I've been investing in Photoshop for 20 years. Why would I want to take a giant leap backwards now? Sure I wouldn't mind filleting away the dead weight ... but that won't protect us from a future catastrophe such as transpired this week.

I'm sorry but this is neither the time or place to negotiate a paradigm ... if we bend and fade now ... we'll just be back to repeat the process again the next time some smart alec executive at Adobe chooses to push same buttons again later on.

We users are, and have never been nothing more than nameless, faceless entries in a spread sheet for corporations like Adobe. Adobe had revenues in the range of nearly $4.4 BILLION last year ... Do you think we have them against the ropes yet?

The only language they understand is the absence of capital. Currency of the realm. It is only by withholding that which is most dear to them that we as users and customers will ever effect change ... at least a change that will be of benefit.

We would be much further ahead in the process to seek out a new enterprising group of entrepreneurs to reach our goal ... rather than to be doomed with a firm only to repeat the scenario a few years hence ...After all ... those in the know here have already stated we are insignificant and unworthy to expect more.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:55:23 PM by ButchM » Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2013, 10:54:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Cool. The ability to do the fine detail stuff that shows up on a print. Clone, mask, brush, select, erase, sharpen and so on accurately at a pixel level on a selection.  Layers, plug-ins, channels, type tool etc. CMYK and lab conversions a must.
Can we have a moan-free thread please? Pretty please.  Smiley
Logged

Joe S
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2013, 11:09:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting exercise.  Since you seem to want specifics, here's what I'd want:

Bridge:

  • yes, but with better keywording/metadata support (I can't stand Lightroom, sorry Jeff).


I know it's a minority opinion but I agree.  I just can't stand lightroom either.   I have tried a couple times and prefer the camera raw/photoshop set.
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2013, 11:26:06 PM »
ReplyReply

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).

Exactamundo!!!!   Sign me up.
Rand
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7669


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2013, 11:31:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Layers, curves, layer masks, paths, blending modes, plugin support, merge to hdr, focus stacking, background replacement.

Making a version of LR including core Photoshop functionality would be a good idea, even if came with a premium price. I like Photoshop, but I use very little of it.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2013, 11:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Another thing...I'd want to be able to download it from Adobe USA and not be left at the mercy of local representatives who play the cat and banjo with my wallet.
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2013, 11:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Talk of "features" is interesting, but to me the question is architecture.  A new still photography tool kit should be based upon a completely redesigned architecture, and on that new architecture, new features can be reimagined, and some "old fashioned" features can be implemented as compatibility modules.

Dataflow architecture -- of the sort that is used every day in Nuke, of the sort that is being built into GEGL -- is /a virtual machine architecture/ that is suitable for the task.  Upon that architecture, you can build an entire range of "facilities" as conveniences, including -- if you so wish -- old fashioned layers.  But given this architecture, which allows many things undreamt of in legacy photoshop, you would come up with a new wish list.  

Compositing, for example, in Nuke is much better thought out.  The very same concepts can be used for still photography as for video.  Source material can be used and reused for partial renderings or control functions, dynamically or baked-in, and non-destructively to whatever extent one desires.  The inherent parallelism can be exploited for speed increase using any number of available processors, locally, or networked.  

The third-party plugin market would explode with possibilities not imaginable in photoshop.  But for those who wanted it or needed it, a compatibility module could be provided for legacy support of photoshop's existing user base.   Cool
Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2013, 11:52:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for starting this positive, constructive thread Jeff.  I hope everyone can remain positive and constructive.

I agree with the suggestions that have been made here so far.  When I send an image to CS5, it is for adding text, using your progressive sharpening action with a layer (16 bit) mask of course, using content aware cloning, cloning etc, and the occasional head/face/ or smile swap in a group portrait.  I also use merge to HDR and create panoramas.

I suggest calling this app Photoshop Elements Pro, or even Master.  This will help stoke the egos that had the red licked off of their candy by reading and hearing that CS and CC is developed and priced with PROFESSIONALS in mind  Grin

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 11:54:08 PM by Bryan Conner » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2013, 12:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry but this is neither the time or place to negotiate a paradigm ...

Wrong, this is the perfect time to design a new paradigm...Look, Photoshop was never designed to be for photographers but got adopted by photographers en mass to be able to make scans and digital captures optimized where for tone, color or retouching...Photoshop has been a huge success in spite of everything Adobe has over the years, not because of anything Adobe has actually done.

So, now, in this new age a lightweight pixel editing app is exactly what's needed to go along with Lightroom and fill in the gaps in the workflow needed by photographers...

If you don't want to play what if...that's fine, but I warned everybody that I would take a really hard line here...if you want to piss&moan™ about big bad Adobe, you go right ahead, but but not in this thread bud. There are plenty of other threads that have already been polluted...this one won't be. I'll report you to the moderators and you will either be banned or your posts deleted...and if you think I don't have that power and influence with Mike & Chris, I guess you are new here (with three posts to your name) but I'm deadly serious...either pitch in and contribute or go away...you have been warned.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2013, 12:23:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Talk of "features" is interesting, but to me the question is architecture.  A new still photography tool kit should be based upon a completely redesigned architecture, and on that new architecture, new features can be reimagined, and some "old fashioned" features can be implemented as compatibility modules.

I agree...Photoshop is way long in the tooth and is technically hindered by the weight of it's past code structure. While the functionality of the toolset needs to accomplish to right set of needs, the way it's designed and engineered would, by default need to be rebooted. Not unlike what happened with Lightroom. Mark Hamburg (the founding engineer of Lightroom) took a look at everything tat Photoshop did and completely re-imagined how to do it differently–to the point that if Photoshop did something a certain way, he was predisposed to do it differently (sometimes wrong, but generally right). Mark knew Photoshop well since he was the 2nd engineer to work on Photoshop...

How something is done does not need to be based on the past, what important to establish is what need to get done by photographers. I really see this new thing working with Lightroom because LR already has such parametric power and functionality and it would be inefficient to duplicate what LR can do. What needs to be done is to take an image (or images) "finished" in LR and move into a pixel editing environment to do the things that can't be done parametrically. But for me, I would want the results back in LR with as seemless an integration possible.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2013, 12:24:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it would be appropriate to abandon the present user interface and organization of Photoshop, which is the result of 25 years of tacking, wedging, and duct taping features onto a program designed before there was anything like a consensus vision of what Photoshop should be in total.

A user interface something more like LR, please, although LR itself has already suffered some minor duct tape work in its UI.

Also, while I appreciate the database-like rigor LR brings to file organization, I would like the option to also use the old-fashioned, sloppy file handling we see in PS.
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2013, 12:33:16 AM »
ReplyReply

After seeing all these responses, it's pretty apparent that us "photographers" use Ps for a lot more different things than I would have personally expected.  If this new "Lightroom Master Tool Collection" is really going to work in conjunction with Lightroom, which makes a lot of sense..  seems like one of the goals would to keep it from getting huge overall.  Keep it nimble so to speak.  

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to come up with say.. 10 things that we just HAVE to have (I personally don't need that many), and perhaps 5 things we would like to have, and maybe another 5 we don't want to see? Perhaps the numbers I suggested aren't the right starting point, but at least it starts putting some definition on this.

Just from what I've read here:

Needs

1.  Cloning/Retouching
2.  Stitching (which would include layering?)
3.  Stacking (focus stacking)
4.  HDR Merge
5.  Creative Sharpening/Image Detailing
6.  Several mentions of the warp/transform tools
7.  Several mentions of masking/selection tools
8.  Compositing
.....there were several printing related desires, but someone else throw those in.

Wants

...?

DON'T Want

1.  Subscription type licensing  (not being negative Jeff, but it was brought up)
2.  Anything that Lr already does well
?


Edit:  I should have added another section since I saw this mentioned several times

Characteristics

1.  Allows the use of 3rd party plug ins
2.  Perhaps understood, but round trips from and to Lr seamlessly
3.  16 bit and 32 bit support
4.  Default "smart objects" that return to Lr for Raw Editing


Just seeing what all this looks like if we put it in a box.  
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 01:31:24 AM by John Cothron » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2013, 12:46:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Great thread idea for These Trying Times.  Bravo, doood.  : )  It is, however, going to comprise a heck of a resource for competitors' designs.

Yep...but here's the think, if some your talent writes some code that can cherry pick the functionality that photographers need and offer it on terms photographers want, more power to him/her...

But here's the thing, if the elves on ACR/LR teams (not the suits) decide they want to do something, they will do it, and do it really, really well. If photographers leave Photoshop in droves, they will need to look somewhere to replace that functionality and where better to look towards the guy that started this whole thing in the first place. I suspect Thomas has some tricks up his sleeve (actually I know he does, but I can't talk about it).

Be sure you read what Eric wrote in this message.

So, if not Thomas, then if some hot talent comes up with some cool concepts and execution I think that is a good thing. While people paint me as an Adobe apologist, I'm really not...I am however a big fan of the engineering talent Adobe has and the skills and knowledge they have for writing really useful code. If Photoshop isn't the best tool for photographers, I have no problem working towards advancing a tool that is. But if I would bet on anybody, it's the likes of Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan. If they decide to take a whack at doing something, it'll be pretty friggin' cool.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad