Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Puts Free Photoshop Online
Amit Agarwal writes "Adobe today launched a basic version of Adobe Photoshop available for free online. Photoshop Express will be completely Web-based so consumers can use it with any type of computer, operating system and browser. According to Yahoo! News, Adobe says providing Photoshop Express for free is part marketing and part a strategy to create up-sell opportunities. It hopes some customers will move from it to boxed software like its $99 Photoshop Elements or to a subscription-based version of Express that's in the works."
From TFS:
Except, of course, operating systems or browsers which don't have flash...
Can we invent a new term for sites like these? "Web-based" is misleading -- it makes you think of open standards and compatibility. I propose "Flash-based."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Please, give a better argument than "OSS rulz!". There are perfectly good non-FOSS software out there that won't require you to give up your copyrights (CS3 is probably the best, but it's not the only one) And in this case, you only use your copyright if you make it available on their public galleries. If you are going to promote FOSS, please argue on its more unique merits (I understand that OOo is better for writing books than MS Office)
I can't use GIMP because I NEED CMYK (seriously, how many people on /. need CMYK?) and I'm a professional photo editor (according to GIMP related threads, /. is positively infested with photographic professionals). And because I've spent so long pirating it that I am incapable of learning another UI. Oh, and apparently the name prevents me from using it as well.
Yeah, I know, mod me troll, but this is how about half of the posts on the GIMP related threads read. Most people aren't like that. In fact, I don't know anyone who is. For them and me, the GIMP is great, and free.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I guess this is a good place to point out that GIMP now supports CMYK. My only issue with GIMP nowadays is that the keybinding-follows-frontmost-window/focus feature really doesn't work well and clashes horrendiously with the OS X interface.
Modern Photoshop isn't a picnic either, but I don't spend time actively fighting against the UI to try to get things done like I do with GIMP. I don't care one bit about learning a different workflow, but it shouldn't involve workarounds to the UI itself.
- 16 bit images. Extremely important for preserving dynamic range in an image when adjusting contrast and colour saturation.
- Adjustment Layers. Very, very useful for non-destructive contrast and colour adjustments.
There are probably more but they are the most outstanding in my mind. In short, GIMP is useful for most web and electronic imagery, but less than adequate for print - especially saleable print. As far as other OSS products are concerned - I think Krita supports 16 bit images but last time I tried it, it was still a little flakey. Cinepaint supports 16 bit images and HDR, but have you ever tried to use it? Paint.net is pretty awesome but a little unstable as well, and though it's free I am not too sure about its code's status. I quite like Inkscape though.shaunjohnston.com
I was just checking out GIMP. Maybe I'm just retarded, but I can't seem to find the ability to create layer filters that change based on the content of the layer. I also can't find the slice or save for web tool. Where are the file optimization settings? How do you export as a PDF? Where is the ability to record actions and execute them on folders/files? How do I go to full screen with the ability to drag the canvas anywhere on screen that I want? Where is the ability to dock my tool windows? You actually send RGB files to print? Honestly, GIMP is a great program, but if you really can't see what Photoshop has to offer from a productivity standpoint I wouldn't want you in my design shop.
I think most people dislike the Gimp interface because it's just so different from Photoshop's. Photoshop has been top dog for a very VERY long time and people are used to how it works. Any graphic design software will instantly be compared to Photoshop, Gimp or other.
FWIW I used to use Photoshop on a daily basis, but now I have simple imaging needs, and Gimp is just fine. Sure, it's a pain to learn a new interface, but eventually I figured it out. A lot of professional digital artists I've worked with, if you told them they had to use Gimp instead of PS they would quit.
A great many extremely talented artists have spent their whole career with Photoshop. I can think of no other software with such an insurmountable market share.
Can we invent a new term for sites like these? "Web-based" is misleading -- it makes you think of open standards and compatibility. I propose "Flash-based.
Too specific. There's all kinds of junk like this, say sites that only work in IE, sites that require Silver-Light, etc. Sites that would be more usable as a desktop app in the firstplace, but sacrifice that for the sake of the 'web' moniker (with no significant additional benefits).
How about 'Compatible Rendering Abandoned Proprietary On-Line Application'?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
>>CMYK, Pantone in particular but mostly it's down to the horrible interface that GIMP comes with. >>Gimp is basically a programmers idea of how a creative tool should look.
>The two missing features I'll give you.
>Although one is just a licensing issue,
>and the other is only relevant if you are working on images that are intended for print
For photographers and other professionals doing graphics work, CMYK and color accuracy are deal breakers. Excuses don't matter to people who build their careers on a tool, if GIMP doesn't have what they need to do their job, then they won't consider using it.
There's a reason why people pay enormous sums for copies of photoshop even when there's plenty of cheap or free tools that do 60% of what photoshop does, and that's because every pro is going to have at least one feature missing from the 60% product that is a total show stopper for them.
This is a lesson on half assed software, that's good enough for the developer that wrote it, but not good enough for the market. Coding to your personal needs isn't good enough for products that are going to non developers. Linus doesn't say "well, there are some problems with Linux on big IBM mainframes, but I don't personally use a mainframe, so I won't work on that fix." When you are serious about software, you talk to the people that will be *using* your software, and you code to *their* standards in addition to your own.