4 ms·

I've been using Photoshop for 20 years and they absolutely still add features all the time. For example, they just added a ton of AI content fill features and y

I've been using Photoshop for 20 years and they absolutely still add features all the time. For example, they just added a ton of AI content fill features and you could make a debate about how AI is ruining artists, but you can't say that Adobe is doing nothing.

Breza 2y ago
I'll give Adobe credit for integrating AI features into its products without charging extra. I imagine it's not cheap for them to support that much generative AI on an application that has traditionally run 100% on users' local machines. Maybe Adobe's worried about AI making Photoshop irrelevant. Here's the cautionary note from its latest quarterly report: "While we have released new generative artificial intelligence products, such as Adobe Firefly, and are focused on enhancing the artificial intelligence (“AI”) capabilities of such products and incorporating AI into existing products, services and solutions, there can be no assurance that our products will be successful or that we will innovate effectively to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI across our Creative Cloud, Document Cloud and Experience Cloud. If we do not successfully innovate, adapt to rapid technological changes and meet customer needs, our business and our financial results may be harmed."
adzm 2y ago
Pretty much everyone who talks about Adobe stagnating doesn't actually use the suite to it's full extent in the first place, I'm pretty sure. It's glaringly obvious when people talk about competitors; there is nothing near Photoshop. DaVinci Resolve is a good one for video though.
- victor106 2y ago
  Agree 100%. Photoshop is a great product. That doesn't mean that Adobe can follow dark practices to cancel subscriptions.
- queuebert 2y ago
  What's missing in Gimp? How far away is it from being a viable competitor?
  - Athari 2y ago
    Gimp is still far behind. Non-destructive editing, AI selection/filters/fills, CMYK, animation/video, macro recording...
    - anfogoat 2y ago
      Even the features it does have are behind UX so bad you'd rather cram scattered glass down your urethra than use it. Just yesterday I gave Gimp a go again to do some very basic exposure blending and rage quit 10 minutes later. It's impossible to work with comfortably or with any sort of fluidity, everything is either a fight or a drag.
      - mixmastamyk 2y ago
        Sounds like a you problem. I've been using it productively for photo editing and web design for two decades+.
        anfogoat 2y ago
        > Sounds like a you problem. It's a me problem alright, but I'm in no way unique in refusing to put up with the mountain of grief that the Gimp UX is. > I've been using it productively for photo editing and web design for two decades+. I know Gimp must have its share of long term users but they're a miracle to me and I don't know what to say to that. I suppose it's good people reading these threads who are open to giving Gimp a go see there are users for whom it's working out.
        mixmastamyk 2y ago
        Not gonna say gimp is perfect. But, the comment above is a poster child for folks who learned a certain software and refuse to use another with a slightly different interface. I personally learned Paint Shop Pro first, after baby steps of Mac/MS Paint. Later on didn't find Photoshop particularly intuitive... although liked 3.0 on the Mac. It's even worse now according to professional friends. I've used many others over the years and never had a problem with basic to medium features. They all work roughly the same—WIMP. Point, click. Gimp works similarly to every other graphics program, so using it for common tasks is not hard. It's not "full of grief." If you can't do it, you either never learned how to use a GUI program properly[1], proceed by rote, or refuse to consult the manual for more specific tasks. For one thing, it's a helluva lot easier to learn than Blender, which has no chronic troll posts that I've seen. [1] Not uncommon in web times. The original Apple HIGs might help.
matwood 2y ago
Yeah, LR is also a great product. And the subscription turned out to be about the same cost as upgrading every year. There are other tools out there, but nothing comes close with image editing and DAM. The subscription also gets you LR on every device. I think the dark patterns here are garbage, but Adobe has provided a ton of value for those subscriptions.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  > And the subscription turned out to be about the same cost as upgrading every year. Is it common for people to upgrade LR or similar software every year?
  - inferiorhuman 2y ago
    No. Were it common you wouldn't see such a large difference in profit between the rental and perpetually licensed versions of Lightroom. Aside from support for newer cameras new versions have few, if any, compelling features. Performance improvements (LR is slooooooow), improved noise reduction, improved handling of video or non-Bayer sensors… all of that mostly fell to the wayside in favor of things like that AI garbage, improved mobile integration, enhanced geolocation support.
    - matwood 2y ago
      Or the subscription made LR more accessible to people. It also included storage space and made it easy to take and edit images on any device. That may not matter to you, but that is the market now.
      - inferiorhuman 2y ago
        Or the subscription made LR more accessible to people lol, no. The Lightroom CC is the mobile/desktop product. That is and always has been a separate "more accessible" product. Moving Lightroom "Classic" (the desktop only product) to a rental only model simply makes profits more accessible to Adobe. That may not matter to you, but that is the market now. Of course it's the market now, there's no other option from Adobe.

Breza 2y ago

I'll give Adobe credit for integrating AI features into its products without charging extra. I imagine it's not cheap for them to support that much generative AI on an application that has traditionally run 100% on users' local machines. Maybe Adobe's worried about AI making Photoshop irrelevant. Here's the cautionary note from its latest quarterly report: "While we have released new generative artificial intelligence products, such as Adobe Firefly, and are focused on enhancing the artificial intelligence (“AI”) capabilities of such products and incorporating AI into existing products, services and solutions, there can be no assurance that our products will be successful or that we will innovate effectively to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI across our Creative Cloud, Document Cloud and Experience Cloud. If we do not successfully innovate, adapt to rapid technological changes and meet customer needs, our business and our financial results may be harmed."

adzm 2y ago

Pretty much everyone who talks about Adobe stagnating doesn't actually use the suite to it's full extent in the first place, I'm pretty sure. It's glaringly obvious when people talk about competitors; there is nothing near Photoshop. DaVinci Resolve is a good one for video though.

victor106 2y ago
Agree 100%. Photoshop is a great product. That doesn't mean that Adobe can follow dark practices to cancel subscriptions.
queuebert 2y ago
What's missing in Gimp? How far away is it from being a viable competitor?
- Athari 2y ago
  Gimp is still far behind. Non-destructive editing, AI selection/filters/fills, CMYK, animation/video, macro recording...
  - anfogoat 2y ago
    Even the features it does have are behind UX so bad you'd rather cram scattered glass down your urethra than use it. Just yesterday I gave Gimp a go again to do some very basic exposure blending and rage quit 10 minutes later. It's impossible to work with comfortably or with any sort of fluidity, everything is either a fight or a drag.
    - mixmastamyk 2y ago
      Sounds like a you problem. I've been using it productively for photo editing and web design for two decades+.
      - anfogoat 2y ago
        > Sounds like a you problem. It's a me problem alright, but I'm in no way unique in refusing to put up with the mountain of grief that the Gimp UX is. > I've been using it productively for photo editing and web design for two decades+. I know Gimp must have its share of long term users but they're a miracle to me and I don't know what to say to that. I suppose it's good people reading these threads who are open to giving Gimp a go see there are users for whom it's working out.
        mixmastamyk 2y ago
        Not gonna say gimp is perfect. But, the comment above is a poster child for folks who learned a certain software and refuse to use another with a slightly different interface. I personally learned Paint Shop Pro first, after baby steps of Mac/MS Paint. Later on didn't find Photoshop particularly intuitive... although liked 3.0 on the Mac. It's even worse now according to professional friends. I've used many others over the years and never had a problem with basic to medium features. They all work roughly the same—WIMP. Point, click. Gimp works similarly to every other graphics program, so using it for common tasks is not hard. It's not "full of grief." If you can't do it, you either never learned how to use a GUI program properly[1], proceed by rote, or refuse to consult the manual for more specific tasks. For one thing, it's a helluva lot easier to learn than Blender, which has no chronic troll posts that I've seen. [1] Not uncommon in web times. The original Apple HIGs might help.

matwood 2y ago

Yeah, LR is also a great product. And the subscription turned out to be about the same cost as upgrading every year. There are other tools out there, but nothing comes close with image editing and DAM. The subscription also gets you LR on every device. I think the dark patterns here are garbage, but Adobe has provided a ton of value for those subscriptions.

gnicholas 2y ago
> And the subscription turned out to be about the same cost as upgrading every year. Is it common for people to upgrade LR or similar software every year?
- inferiorhuman 2y ago
  No. Were it common you wouldn't see such a large difference in profit between the rental and perpetually licensed versions of Lightroom. Aside from support for newer cameras new versions have few, if any, compelling features. Performance improvements (LR is slooooooow), improved noise reduction, improved handling of video or non-Bayer sensors… all of that mostly fell to the wayside in favor of things like that AI garbage, improved mobile integration, enhanced geolocation support.
  - matwood 2y ago
    Or the subscription made LR more accessible to people. It also included storage space and made it easy to take and edit images on any device. That may not matter to you, but that is the market now.
    - inferiorhuman 2y ago
      Or the subscription made LR more accessible to people lol, no. The Lightroom CC is the mobile/desktop product. That is and always has been a separate "more accessible" product. Moving Lightroom "Classic" (the desktop only product) to a rental only model simply makes profits more accessible to Adobe. That may not matter to you, but that is the market now. Of course it's the market now, there's no other option from Adobe.