Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web-Based Photo Editor Roundup

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shared-croppers dept.

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech has a roundup of 5 web-based image editing programs. The mostly Flash and AJAX-based webware ranges from simple touch-up services like Snipshot to the Photoshop wannabe Fauxto. They vary greatly in interface and extra goodies; some offer bookmarklets for getting images from a web page you're browsing, some offer artistic or goofy effects for you pix, but all fear the specter of Adobe's online version of Photoshop on the horizon."

11 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Re:For the love of God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in using a web browser like some super whizz-bang do-it-all application framework.

    AJAX & Flash suck, but there's nothing wrong with the thin client idea. It's being held back by MS & bandwidth issues at the moment.

    If Netscape had won back in the day, maybe we would have a better web based thin client framework now, but to suggest that the idea is unworkable is ludicrous.

  2. Online with my CPU? by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay so while its nice to have some basic stuff on a website I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing). Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.

    Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be in the browser because otherwise its not cool.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Online with my CPU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay so while its nice to have some basic stuff on a website

      Mosesjones, I'd like you to meet the vast-majority-of-the-world (tm) who only ever use the basic stuff. They're not going to buy photoshop, they're not going to download the picassa. Hell, they're not even going to ever launch the photo editing software that came with their camera.

    2. Re:Online with my CPU? by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your statement doesn't apply to a single person that would use this website, then. So how does it have anything to do with this at all? If they aren't going to use the software that comes with their camera, they surely aren't going to sign up for a web-based service that does the same but is a lot more hassle.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Online with my CPU? by beakerMeep · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Just because you dont see a market for these types of products doesn't mean there isn't one. as an AC pointed out, though a bit harshly, there are people who want just a few features and would love a quick web editor to fix up some of their pics. In the article it mentioned how a lot of the programs offered easy integration with sites like flickr or some type of browser integration. Certainly there are people who would like this kind of feature -- although for me I prefer photoshop.

      Users have a funny way of deciding for themselves how they like to use technology, and that doesnt always mean the best utilization of multi-core processors. Sometimes it just means a few less clicks to get out the red eye from photos of your dog Floofly.

      /have to say too the incessant AJAX and Flash bashing is tiresome on /. sometimes. And no I dont have a dog named Floofly.

      --
      meep
    4. Re:Online with my CPU? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing).

      Those online apps actually *do* use your CPU. You don't think every brush stroke is sent to a server and back in realtime I suppose.

      Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.

      Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be in the browser because otherwise its not cool.

      The huge benefit of an online app, is you can run it immediately without installation on any computer, anywhere. There are plenty of reasons why you may not want to install an app.

      It may be a one-shot: you need it once to tweak a photo on the go, and don't need it anymore. Or you don't want to pollute the computer of a friend with garbage apps he won't use. Or you may not be *allowed* to install anything.

      Flash 9 runs on OSX, Windows and Linux, all of those are Flash based editors. They do not try to *replace* desktop apps, but are targeting a niche that grows everyday: casual consumers, pro-sumers and mobile users.

      Regarding innovations, there are two kinds of people: those throwing themselves at every fad and trying everything that's "new". And those that just sit bitter aside and comment on how stupid the rest are.

      The latter usually end up doing nothing. I'm not sure how this is better than throwing yourself in the bubble.

  3. Data intensive by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems like a silly place to use a web application, since your photos normally reside on your computer. Uploading a two-to-three megabyte file just to run some simple corrections that are handled by dozens of already available tools (including many free or preloaded ones like iPhoto and Picasa), then downloading it again...

  4. For gods sake why aren't photo editting in java by BlackTriangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Java would be the ideal solution if Sun would get off their asses and A)Make cut/paste work (even if it necessitates putting up a huge "warning this is a security risk" window before letting you do it the first time) , B)Make the allowable heap size MUCH larger for applets , and C)streamline the process of letting users save and load files to their computer (again with the whopping huge security warning windows)

    All of this WITHOUT forcing users to accept certificates to give applets carte blanche, which I never trust on websites.

  5. As... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the head of an image processing and fx software company, I can tell you one thing with certainty: Online apps that transfer photos back and forth and process them online are the very last thing on our list of technologies to be concerned about.

    Why? Because nothing on the net will ever compare to an in-system, RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation. That's on the application end.

    One the user end, these web based apps are meant for your grandmother. And at that, only on days when someone else in her apartment building or upstream on her cable connection isn't downloading "300" on bit-torrent, and there aren't 200 other people on the same server trying to process an image. The entire idea of "thin clients" for image manipulation is one that presumes bandwidth and server power that are not available at this point in time - it's silly, is what it is.

    You can buy a great image manipulation system for about $30 if you simply look hard enough. You'll be able to level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things. Or you can use a web app and move a slider and wait... and move... and wait... and save... and wait... and finally get back your pic. Which you had better hope is what you wanted. When I say you'll get it back, I mean after that "300" download finishes, of course. :-)

    So here's what you should be asking yourselves: What is your time worth?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:As... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can buy a great image manipulation system for about $30 if you simply look hard enough.

      Or you can get GIMP for $0 without looking very hard at all, which is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention and more.

    2. Re:As... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So you're implying, from your very own post, that the GIMP can not "You'll be able to level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things." and that a $30 consumer photo-retouching application can do it better? What planet are you from?