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...
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.
[
Photoshop is designed for professionals, like myself, who make a shitload of money using it. $599 is a drop in the bucket, not even a full day's billing for me. As long as Adobe keeps creating applications like Photoshop thatlet me be creative with little fuss and hassle, I'll keep upgrading my copy.
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'm sure they'd love to have their products run on Linux, but it's quite frankly near impossible for big commercial developers to make anything but high end specialised 3D apps or web apps on Linux.
Something like Photoshop would be an absolute nightmare to port.
Would it be done in Qt, GTK1, GTK2 or raw X widgets? Which printer dialogs would it use -- KDE or GNOME? Which file selectors would it use? How would they keep up, test and fix bugs for GNOME on a 6 month cycle or KDE on a ?? month cycle? How would you have it look nice with the default theme of the desktop?
I can tell you if Adobe ported it the 'slashdoters' would hate it. It would be bloated, slow, buggy and wouldn't fit well into any desktop enviroment. It'd also only be out for x86 and tested on 3 distros max.
The trouble is that at the moment the Linux desktop is moving too fast (with no effort put on old releases of libs or software) at the moment for major software vendors to put out anything but huge 3D apps that are basically their own desktop enviroment, sandboxed from the rest of the system. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing that Linux is moving really fast, because it's getting closer and closer to Windows or Mac calibre usability with every release, but expecting Adobe to port photoshop, a fairly substainal app with tools that move and break every 6 months is not going to happen.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Would it be done in Qt, GTK1, GTK2 or raw X widgets? Which printer dialogs would it use -- KDE or GNOME? Which file selectors would it use?
Sounds like programming on Windows. Would it be done with Win32, MFC, WinForms, Avalon, Adobe's on UI kit? Which of the Windows printer and file dialogs would it use -- the old old ones, the old ones, the new old ones, the Office ones, Adobe's own?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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?
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...