5 ms·

I think this is going to be the Photoshop where people seriously start considering a web-based alternative. Not because CS6 will be poor software, but because I

by tomkin 15y ago

I think this is going to be the Photoshop where people seriously start considering a web-based alternative. Not because CS6 will be poor software, but because I think the division among users who use Photoshop for photo editing/professional photography/restoration/stationary/brochure design and those who use it for designing web sites and applications is getting greater. The latter needing less of the options available in Photoshop today, let alone CS6. I say this with over 10 years of experience as a designer/developer – Photoshop needs a Basecamp simplicity-inspired derivative. I think as we move to more institutional, common & predictable UI (if we do), we'll find that we're doing very simple tasks and that those tasks can be taken from Photoshop and automated for the purpose of web/app design and execution. I know there are a few alternatives to Photoshop already, but of all the ones I've seen (yes, even Pixelmator) none of them really go for just the web industry. I think the market for such a tool (hopefully web-based) would be pretty great at this point – and given the audience – using state-of-the-art browser API wouldn't be much of an issue. Long ago, Adobe had this product called "Photoshop Server" or something similar. I believe it was based off of Macromedia's Generator (which generated server-side Flash content). The concept was neat - place variables within a PSD, upload it and allow the server to render out based on what you wanted to show. The problem with this, of course, was that it was proprietary, heavy, expensive and overall pretty crappy. It would be really interesting to see someone create a web-based web design/development application that interacted with some OSS library that most hosting companies would allow (like gd, ning, etc), read .json and interpret data within the image. Probably a bad idea, but how big would a .json-based image be compared to the average jpg? Pretty big, I'll bet. But I wonder with gzip compression how manageable could it be? Would be really cool to define information (text inside of the image, accessibility, SEO capabilities) within a .json-based image. No license required and it would be readable by any human or software. { "dimensions": { "width": 3, "height": 3 }, "data": [ ["rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)"], ["rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)"], ["rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)","rgba(255,255,255,1)"] ] } Yep. That would be huge. I suppose that is a massive digression of the topic but this would be my ideal image format, outside of svg/canvas of course.

batista 15y ago
I think this is going to be the Photoshop where people seriously start considering a web-based alternative. Not because CS6 will be poor software, but because I think the division among users who use Photoshop for photo editing/professional photography/restoration/stationary/brochure design and those who use it for designing web sites and applications is getting greater. The latter needing less of the options available in Photoshop today, let alone CS6. Photoshop is used by creative professionals first and foremost. It's a $600+ software package. (The people using Photoshop that don't need much of it's power are mostly those that use a pirated copy for some basic home use). That said, there is Photoshop Elements already, a cut down version. And there is a web version made by Adobe too. That said, web editors: sucked, and still suck. For some very basic stuff ok. But try even uploading your last 100 12mo pictures you took with your compact camera. Even uploading and editing one by one, it will take ages, usually taking down the browser at some point.
- harlanlewis 15y ago
  _(The people using Photoshop that don't need much of it's power are mostly those that use a pirated copy for some basic home use)._ I disagree. I did pirate a copy for home use - I was a youngling, the version was v5.0 (not CS5), and that early curiosity turned into a career full of purchased Adobe products. Along the way I've learned a lot of new tricks, but my core practices are largely similar to what they've always been. I struggle to think of any other tool or skill that's changed less over that length of time - for me, the new useful bits are largely codifying and refining old manual processes. It's precisely because the core has remained so untouched by age that the simplified version can be translated to iPads and web apps - Photoshop is a classic case of 20% of the features are used by everyone, and the rest is deemed absolutely essential by specific groups. This happens to most successful programs over time. Building Photoshop again for other mediums can't help but discard a lot of cruft while discovering a bunch of significantly new things to do - it's actually a pretty exciting time for image editors as they rediscover purpose and set new charters.
  - batista 15y ago
    Along the way I've learned a lot of new tricks, but my core practices are largely similar to what they've always been. I struggle to think of any other tool or skill that's changed less over that length of time - for me, the new useful bits are largely codifying and refining old manual processes. Well, the "codifying and refining old manual processes" is what software like Photoshop is all about. Where do you draw the line? A lot of stuff introduced AFTER version 5 is used everyday by almost anyone. In fact, Layer Styles (version 6) is the number one requested feature for Pixelmator. Other stuff: fully vector text, camera RAW (7), Shadow/Highlight, Match Color, Lens Blur, Hierarchical layer groups, 16 bit per channel, support for files over 2 Gigabytes, type on a path (8), Smart Objects, Smart Sharpen (9), Smart (non-destructive) Filters (10) And other stuff, maybe not visible, but that we couldn't live without AT ALL, like Intel Mac support, and 64-bit support, plus the "how did we work before" GPU support, all introduced in later versions than 10.

by tomkin 15y ago

batista 15y ago

harlanlewis 15y ago
_(The people using Photoshop that don't need much of it's power are mostly those that use a pirated copy for some basic home use)._ I disagree. I did pirate a copy for home use - I was a youngling, the version was v5.0 (not CS5), and that early curiosity turned into a career full of purchased Adobe products. Along the way I've learned a lot of new tricks, but my core practices are largely similar to what they've always been. I struggle to think of any other tool or skill that's changed less over that length of time - for me, the new useful bits are largely codifying and refining old manual processes. It's precisely because the core has remained so untouched by age that the simplified version can be translated to iPads and web apps - Photoshop is a classic case of 20% of the features are used by everyone, and the rest is deemed absolutely essential by specific groups. This happens to most successful programs over time. Building Photoshop again for other mediums can't help but discard a lot of cruft while discovering a bunch of significantly new things to do - it's actually a pretty exciting time for image editors as they rediscover purpose and set new charters.
- batista 15y ago
  Along the way I've learned a lot of new tricks, but my core practices are largely similar to what they've always been. I struggle to think of any other tool or skill that's changed less over that length of time - for me, the new useful bits are largely codifying and refining old manual processes. Well, the "codifying and refining old manual processes" is what software like Photoshop is all about. Where do you draw the line? A lot of stuff introduced AFTER version 5 is used everyday by almost anyone. In fact, Layer Styles (version 6) is the number one requested feature for Pixelmator. Other stuff: fully vector text, camera RAW (7), Shadow/Highlight, Match Color, Lens Blur, Hierarchical layer groups, 16 bit per channel, support for files over 2 Gigabytes, type on a path (8), Smart Objects, Smart Sharpen (9), Smart (non-destructive) Filters (10) And other stuff, maybe not visible, but that we couldn't live without AT ALL, like Intel Mac support, and 64-bit support, plus the "how did we work before" GPU support, all introduced in later versions than 10.