Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Dear Adobe: Define "Photographer"....  (Read 574 times)
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


« on: May 15, 2013, 10:40:55 AM »
ReplyReply

With all of the conversation about Photoshop and Lightroom and the what-if thread regarding a redesigned Photoshop for photographers, I'd be interested to find out more about Adobe's thoughts regarding the definition of "photographer."  It seems that defining "photographer" would make designing something for photographers a lot more straightforward with clear direction and purpose.

Some of the discussion regarding Photoshop has noted that it was not originally designed for "photographers" (even though it is called Photoshop, and its creator has a well-known passion for photography and the toolset has many analogs to the darkroom).  In contrast, even with the evolution and adoption of Photoshop by "photographers" over the years, there are many aspects of Photoshop that are not necessary for "photographers - along came Lightroom, which is supposed to be, ostensibly, a unified image editing (?) environment designed for "photographers."  

What does this mean?

Much of the conversation started in this forum about the future of Photoshop, etc. has made it pretty clear that "photographer" means a lot of different things to different people.  I'm not so concerned about whether, for example, what I do makes me a "photographer" or not - I am more interested in what it means to Adobe to design and build tools for their idea of a photographer.

So, what is Adobe's working definition or concept of "photographer"?  The beginning of the conversation about the future of Photoshop, etc. is an opportunity to think critically about how that definition is evolving, and how future tools for the photographer can be invented, reinvented and optimized to embrace and advance this evolution.  It is a sticky situation in which the traditional aspects of photography cannot be eschewed for what is over the horizon, but an understanding of what the minds at Adobe think when they sit down with a blank piece of paper in front of them would be fascinating.

kirk

« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 10:43:03 AM by kirkt » Logged
Gulag
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2013, 01:00:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Since its birth, Photoshop has been largely used by those using powerful desktop/laptop computers for final print output. 23 years later, however, that landscape and user base have become much archaic and smaller in scope. Talking to today's youth, you probably will gain some insights on how digital incarnation will likely be going forward. Adobe's decisive bet on the gigantic and historical switch from paper to screen seems to be working for Adobe's revenue stream so far. Print-based photographer will be increasingly much much smaller market segment for Adobe's overall strategy. Instead of ditching them, Adobe's decided to let them tag along on leash.
Logged

“For art to be art it has to cure.”  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad