There is no open option. I used to be able to select copy and then paste in the address bar and it would paste the image url. From there I could copy that and then paste that url anywhere. Doesn't seem to work any more.
That's because you're 'press & hold' is on a .png. If you 'press & hold' a .jpg you'll get the familiar pop up panel (PUP?)
- URL
- Open
- Open in New Tab
- Add to Reading List
- Save Image
- Copy
The URL you can't copy, but if you open it in a new tab you can copy it from that tabs address bar, nee, omni-something.
.png. The mother of all fuckups, as this site is still shyte, with 22MB articles because it has a few pics in them. I'd rather see the continuation of Huddel but the replacement of .png by .jpg than hoping to see Huddel being replaced with ...something. Anything. Though now typing it out, I prefer to get both: .jpg and new forum software.
I don't think the app is targeted to "pro photographers". Once iCloud is activated I think it will be fine for 98% of users. All of the photos I take are in the Recently Added album of the photo app.
The removal of the camera roll leaves users without the ability to positively manage the source files. Apple, under this current file management system, makes no distinction between photos taken on a device and those moved to a device via iCloud. This is a huge problem. We need to know where the source files are and we need the ability to manage their locations. Making automatic uploading and downloading to and from the cloud the only behavior when iCloud is turned on is unacceptable. It makes managing resources on the device impossible, opens the user up to potential copyright issues by trusting Apple with images they don't want in the cloud, causes managing images from multiple cameras and devices practically impossible and basically neuters the user's control over his/her own files. I'm a pro photographer and I move a lot of photos around. Even if Apple had rolled out this whole system intact it would still be a horrible, insulting and deeply broken "solution." It needs to be re-evaluated and fixed. Otherwise people like me will be forced to move to some other system for organizing, editing and storing images because this disaster is never going to work.
They have two images there. I think the problem in in the coding of the web page. There are many way to get an image to show up on a web page including embedded hex. Some images just don't have URLs because they are loaded through Ajax, JS, generated dynamically, etc. Others are background images or CSS images. I'm not sure why some images react differently on iPhone, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with PNG alone.
I'm not sure why you dislike PNG files. I find them quite handy since they support 24 bit transparency. The size really depends on the web design skills of the page coder. For example one website posted some PNGs that were about a meg each at something like 800 x 600 px. I copied one and exported it through Photoshop which reduced the size to 200kb. The image looked perfect, indistinguishable from the original. Sure JPGs can compressed more, but they start to look like crap with all the artifacts.
They have two images there. I think the problem in in the coding of the web page. There are many way to get an image to show up on a web page including embedded hex. Some images just don't have URLs because they are loaded through Ajax, JS, generated dynamically, etc. Others are background images or CSS images. I'm not sure why some images react differently on iPhone, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with PNG alone.
Good explanation. Indeed, one can easily save a .png to their (cough)Camera Roll(cough) Photos on iOS.
I'm not sure why you dislike PNG files. I find them quite handy since they support 24 bit transparency. The size really depends on the web design skills of the page coder. For example one website posted some PNGs that were about a meg each at something like 800 x 600 px. I copied one and exported it through Photoshop which reduced the size to 200kb. The image looked perfect, indistinguishable from the original. Sure JPGs can compressed more, but they start to look like crap with all the artifacts.
Oops. Sorry for not elaborating on that. I have nothing against PNG on itself; I just don't understand why this website is using 1.x ~ 2MB images. Some people read this site over cellular and might have a slow connection, or a data limit to consider. Some people at home are still on DSL, and an article like this one with these large images was over 12MB. That's simply ridiculous so I wrote the author of one of these articles about it. He got back to me saying that this was his mistake and it would be fixed. 1) it's still not fixed and 2) why do all authors publishing on this site use these extreme large images? It's got to be some webmaster screwing things up here.
The irony here is that this site is reporting on 'all things Apple', a company that takes great pride in their eye for detail, yet completely ignored by this site. I think the people who work here don't have any Apple products, have never used them and have no eye for detail, a complete lack for quality and are totally ignorant on its audience.
I'm a pro photographer and I move a lot of photos around. Even if Apple had rolled out this whole system intact it would still be a horrible, insulting and deeply broken "solution." It needs to be re-evaluated and fixed. Otherwise people like me will be forced to move to some other system for organizing, editing and storing images because this disaster is never going to work.
I suspect Photos use case scenarios were not designed with pro workflows in mind.
To me, any photo editor in iOS enabled for extensions should use the Photos library as the repository of all the photos. So that these other apps do not keep their own photo library independently from the Photos app. This would make syncing between the iOS and the OS X platforms seamless using the iCloud Photo Library, and the syncing can be done not only with the original proofs, but also with the edited versions of the photographs, regardless of which photo-eidting app has made those edits.
I think they do -- in my Photos app I have new folders named after my photo editing apps. I did not create these folders.
iOS 8 brings with it an awesome new ability to pull filters, editing tools, and lots more from your favorite photo editing and filter apps. However, it requires that developers support the feature in order for it to work. Luckily, there are already a handful of really great ones available that can give you a wide range of tools to use without ever having to leave the Photos app. So if you're only concerned with the best iPhone apps where photo extensions are concerned, these six apps should definitely be on your short list!
litely
Litely has some of the best subtle filters that aim to enhance your photos rather than change them completely. Not only can you access them all inside the Photos app now, you can also hop into the Litely app when you want a better idea of how filters impact your photos in order to see split screen views, crop however you'd like and even more.
If you want a selection of tasteful filters that aren't overdone right at your fingertips, get Litely.
Is there an option to duplicate your pic before you start editing it? Or save the edited version as a separate image? Basically I want to be able to keep the original image separate from the edited version.
Comments
That's because you're 'press & hold' is on a .png. If you 'press & hold' a .jpg you'll get the familiar pop up panel (PUP?)
- URL
- Open
- Open in New Tab
- Add to Reading List
- Save Image
- Copy
The URL you can't copy, but if you open it in a new tab you can copy it from that tabs address bar, nee, omni-something.
.png. The mother of all fuckups, as this site is still shyte, with 22MB articles because it has a few pics in them. I'd rather see the continuation of Huddel but the replacement of .png by .jpg than hoping to see Huddel being replaced with ...something. Anything. Though now typing it out, I prefer to get both: .jpg and new forum software.
That's because you're 'press & hold' is on a .png. If you 'press & hold' a .jpg you'll get the familiar pop up panel (PUP?)
PNG files show the pop up panel with "Open" as an option. You can go to the Potable Network Graphics page on Wikipedia and try it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
They have two images there. I think the problem in in the coding of the web page. There are many way to get an image to show up on a web page including embedded hex. Some images just don't have URLs because they are loaded through Ajax, JS, generated dynamically, etc. Others are background images or CSS images. I'm not sure why some images react differently on iPhone, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with PNG alone.
I'm not sure why you dislike PNG files. I find them quite handy since they support 24 bit transparency. The size really depends on the web design skills of the page coder. For example one website posted some PNGs that were about a meg each at something like 800 x 600 px. I copied one and exported it through Photoshop which reduced the size to 200kb. The image looked perfect, indistinguishable from the original. Sure JPGs can compressed more, but they start to look like crap with all the artifacts.
Good explanation. Indeed, one can easily save a .png to their (cough)Camera Roll(cough) Photos on iOS.
Oops. Sorry for not elaborating on that. I have nothing against PNG on itself; I just don't understand why this website is using 1.x ~ 2MB images. Some people read this site over cellular and might have a slow connection, or a data limit to consider. Some people at home are still on DSL, and an article like this one with these large images was over 12MB. That's simply ridiculous so I wrote the author of one of these articles about it. He got back to me saying that this was his mistake and it would be fixed. 1) it's still not fixed and 2) why do all authors publishing on this site use these extreme large images? It's got to be some webmaster screwing things up here.
The irony here is that this site is reporting on 'all things Apple', a company that takes great pride in their eye for detail, yet completely ignored by this site. I think the people who work here don't have any Apple products, have never used them and have no eye for detail, a complete lack for quality and are totally ignorant on its audience.
I suspect Photos use case scenarios were not designed with pro workflows in mind.
I think they do -- in my Photos app I have new folders named after my photo editing apps. I did not create these folders.
hi,
iOS 8 brings with it an awesome new ability to pull filters, editing tools, and lots more from your favorite photo editing and filter apps. However, it requires that developers support the feature in order for it to work. Luckily, there are already a handful of really great ones available that can give you a wide range of tools to use without ever having to leave the Photos app. So if you're only concerned with the best iPhone apps where photo extensions are concerned, these six apps should definitely be on your short list!
litely
Litely has some of the best subtle filters that aim to enhance your photos rather than change them completely. Not only can you access them all inside the Photos app now, you can also hop into the Litely app when you want a better idea of how filters impact your photos in order to see split screen views, crop however you'd like and even more.
If you want a selection of tasteful filters that aren't overdone right at your fingertips, get Litely.
Is there an option to duplicate your pic before you start editing it? Or save the edited version as a separate image? Basically I want to be able to keep the original image separate from the edited version.
My app adds an extension to Photos for one-tap duplication of photos for this very purpose.
Good thread ! helpful for me ..