Slashdot Mirror
New Photoshop Details Leaked
Odie writes "Oops. Looks like Adobe accidentally let slip the details of the next Photoshop version due on Friday. According to BetaNews, the next version, dubbed Photoshop CS2, is supposed to add several new features such as Image Warp and Vanishing Point, as well as changing around the file browser to allow users access to royalty-free images from five providers for use in their work.
The new version is due in May according to the press release which BetaNews saw."
I went to a Pro Photoshop conference a couple months back where Burt Monroy had a talk. He's an alpha tester for Adobe and people were asking about whether adobe was working on certain features.
One feature he mentioned that was a big one for the next version of photoshop, and something they were having a lot of trouble with, was Layer Filters. Much like the Adjustment Layer, you can apply a filter on a layer and turn the effects of the filter on and off. It's more than the LayerEffects because those are limited to drop shadows and glows and the like, where LayerFilters let you apply a blur or noise or even KPT and third-party filters.
I'm psyched about that. although, I feel that Photoshop is getting quite bloated. My favourite version of photoshop is still 5.5. Too bad it doesn't work in OSX. CS does have some nice features, though...
IllustratorCS is getting a bit bloated lately, too. Runs like crap on lower-end machines. Illustrator used to be the one adobe product that ran well even on older hardware (until version 9 with those Raster Effects).
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks it a bit much when applications software costs more than the OS?
Then again, judging by how popular it is I guess it must be worth it to some people.
It's depressing to see how many people will cough up half a grand on the next release of Photoshop every year or two, even though the new features are very small improvements. They complain constantly about product activation problems, but they don't even consider the idea of using a different product.
And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it, nevermind formed an opinion, nevermind see it as a cause for avoiding the company.
Use something else. Anything else. I've purchased no Adobe software in the past five years (except I discarded an OEM bundled thing that came with my camera). Unfortunately, companies like Microsoft and Adobe has reached a critical mass where they're immensely insulated from consumer backlash: consumers with apathy and ignorance far outspends the consumers with objections.
[
They have a total monopoly in the professional image editing marketspace. There are no other products. Gimp (which I prefer in many cases) can't do half of the things a professional graphic artist needs, plus the UI is too different to efficiently switch. And when looking at photo editing, I havent' seen ANY product that has good RAW support other than Photoshop (and its support is mediocre at best).
I appologize for abusing the thread, but can anyone recommend a decent, inexpensive or maybe free at all, Windows software for printing photos? All I want is cropping tool, borderless printing support (so I don't have to go thru all the "Page/printer setup" options every time), good noise remover (something like NeatImage built in), and some usual simple contrast, color cast, levels adjustment tools. Some basic organizer wouldn't hurt either. I checked PhotoShop Elements, but it's pig slow and totally unintuitive. Finding a "good" printing tool in the suite is a pain. EZPhotoPrint packaged with my Canon printer is kinda ok but lacks any image adjustment options and batch selection/reviewing is brain-damaged. Also the processing filters there ("Image optimizer" or something) result in totally wrong skintones. I presume it won't work with anything but Canon too. I just want something safe to recommend my friends/relatives and of course to use it myself. It's a frustration so far, I hate it when people argue that there are tons of software for Windows 'cos really most of it is crap, frankly. New photoshop is good and stuff for professionals I presume but something for the rest of us with digicams would've been nice. Will there be more user-friendly/faster/proper PS Elements?
Actually, detection is done by finding the very small circles that overlap. These can be found on most currency around the world and were though of by the world bank. Chances are the new bills will have them too. Looks like you are out of luck.
What I've been waiting could best be described as Shake for stills. Many times I find myself wanting to use layer combining to create an mask channel, or use the same alpha channel as the mask for multiple layers (in ways that a masked layer group won't allow). Combine this with Photoshop's existing tools and the Filter Layers that have been alluded to and you'd have a really powerful compositing system. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be offering such an environment.
Hmm. I've got version 7 running on Linux using wine. Wasn't difficult at all. Though real linux version would be nice...
Don't complain about Photoshop's price. It really is dirt cheap compared to other professional grade applications. If you want something cheaper, use The Gimp. It's available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
Photoshop is good. I may have a biasedness toward it, because I learned how to use it with Photoshop 2.0 in Computer Graphics/Advanced Comp Graphics AP in highschool, on a Mac.
Well, let me put it this way: I have been working with digital images for longer than Photoshop has even existed, and I don't think it's "good". I think most of it is useless gimmicks and the UI positively sucks.
Photoshop is quite analogous to Windows: the company was not the first to produce such a product, and their product absolutely sucked when it first came out. Then, they spent years incorporating suggestions from end users, adding features, and becoming a de-facto standard platform for plug-ins. Now, every Photoshop monkey incorrectly thinks that Adobe invented it all. Everybody gets trained on Photoshop and they think anything else is bad. And most of the alternatives have disappeared from the market.
Most people on the "intarweb" with bad photoshop opinions simply warez'd some version, and cant figure out how all of those artists make such pretty pictures
Most people who think that good photographs are created in Photoshop are simply lousy photographers. If you know your craft, you'll need to do very little work in a photo editor.
When it comes down to it, if you do professional graphics, you use photoshop whether you like it or not.
What it comes down to is that you can use for photo editing whatever you damned well want to because the only thing that counts is the result.
And I think you can save yourself a lot of time and frustration by going with a different package, even if Photoshop monkeys are trying to tell you otherwise.
Unless I need to subtract the values of one channel from the values of another channel, save the results of that as a third channel and apply that as a feathered mask to an image. Or if I need to work in CMYK. Or if I need to save an image as a DCS with two spot and one varnish channels. Or if I need to do all three to the same 500 megabyte image. . .
Nothing else does what Photoshop does as well as it does it. Despite my growing anger towards Adobe (can the next version be twice as bloated, please?) Photoshop is one of the few programs for which there is no substitute.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Amen to this. I mean, Photoshop is not bad at all - but it's not the only package around either. And it's gotten bloated as hell. The analogy with Windows is interesting. Its success comes from an agressive marketing strategy *and* the fact that many people use cracked versions. Yeppers guys: I'm pretty convinced neither Windows nor Photoshop would be as successful as it is today it they had not been cracked for years. And you'd be surprised how many professional users use cracked software as well. At the very least, it has helped building a solid user base.
That being said, it all depends on what you call "professional users". Photoshop may be intensively used in the journalism world, but is that professional graphics or mere "image tweaking"?... As for people who really make images for images themselves, as in the movies industry, or photography, they use many other software packages. Some of them are not even Windows- nor MacOS-based...
I wish this were true. I recently purchased a good quality digital camera for my wife, and she works on the side doing photography. Gimp doesn't have 16 bit support nor some other features which escape me right now. When editing digital pictures, I want to be able to use the highest quality possible. Now, we are not a "high-end shop" and Photoshop helps us produce higher quality images. As much as I *HATE* it. It does. It is the only reason I have Windows on my machine right now at all.
Before you say it, yes I have actually joined the dev-mailing list for both gimp and gegl. I would like it to be better and I am going to try and do what I can to make it better.
Andrew Spangler
>I hate to break it to you, but I think Ansel Adams would have LOVED Photoshop.
Yes. I think he would have loved today's digital photography too, now that sensor resolutions on high-end equipment are approaching his demanding requirements.
Adams wasn't a stick-in-the-mud or a fanatical purist. Many purists of the time sniffed at his use of filters, and his 'Zone System'.
He just wanted to devise a process where he could (more or less) guarantee to produce the image in print, that he envisaged when he looked at a scene.
Digital capture and the use of post-processing programs like Photoshop and the superb printing technology available now, make Adam's goal more attainable.
I think Adams would have embraced these technologies wholeheartedly.
:)
It's clear that Adobe is trying to protect their trademark from becoming public. But...
Can Adobe do anything to a non-user (i.e. someone who hasn't agreed to their license) for using "photoshop" as a verb or adjective?
There are two must-have upgrade reasons to get PS CS 2:
1. 64-bit for performance and file size
2. To add your camera if you have a new one.
The first, 64-bit, is noticably missing from PS CS 2. Adobe is saying that CS2 will "prepare for 64-bit" -- whatever that means -- but that it is still a 32-bit app.
The second, is to add support for new cameras that have come out that were not included in the last RAW plug-in. The new Nikon D2X is notably in the list.
While I'm ranting, my other favorite is when I'm asked to remove cracks from driveways, add grass to bare front lawns, and remove visible power lines from photos. I try to explain the ethics of photo manipulation to them (i.e., don't add something that didn't exist in the original photo), but then again, ethics and realtors are like oil and water...
1) Better 16-bit color support. Currently only a small set of filters can be applied to a 16-bit image, the rest require 8-bit conversion.
2) Better integration of the Camera Raw plugin into the existing product. Why can't we just import raw images as 16-bit from the File menu and then enhance them using filters? No-one uses the brightness, contrast and sharpness settings in Camera Raw anyway.
3) Move Camera Raw filters such as color noise reduction, luminance noise reduction and vignetting correction into the filter menu (see above).
4) Improve the noise reduction filters. The luminance noise reduction filter is too weak and the color noise reduction filter is too strong.
5) Increase the feathering limit past 250px.
6) Fix those annoying "pure virtual function call" exceptions. I've seen this a number of times when using actions.