Any chance the next version of Photoshop will take advantage of core image to allow the creation of non-distructive filter layers? I'd love be able to add a blur layer that leaves the underlying layer intacts and that can be adjusted, or even removed, at any time.
Comments
It won't. Something soon will, but it's under NDA Extraordinaire.
Question, Are we talking Insanly-Analy-NDA-Extraordinaire, lawyers, guns, money, lawsuits, subpoenas, constitution trampling, whips, chains, nipple clips and the like (not that I'd connect any one company to that level of insanity)
D
Are we talking entirely new image editing application or Photoshop plugin? If the former, then I think the odds of switching over are somewhere between zero and none.
Why? Because it doesn't have 'Photoshop' in it's name? Nobody Special indeed...go back to Nowhere Land.
Nobody Special indeed...go back to Nowhere Land.
Wow! Harsh. I don't think that's deserved.
I think the fact of the matter is that Photoshop's learning curve is so steep (especially for advanced features) that it would make switching over unappealing to most people. It's not like changing word precessing apps.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But my opion is not baseless.
Why? Because it doesn't have 'Photoshop' in it's name? Nobody Special indeed...go back to Nowhere Land.
You're a fucking idiot because Photoshop is a Carbon app and Core Image is Cocoa-exclusive for now.
You're a fucking idiot because Photoshop is a Carbon app and Core Image is Cocoa-exclusive for now.
You should tell Apple.
You can use Core Image from the Cocoa and Carbon frameworks by linking to this framework.
You're a fucking idiot because Photoshop is a Carbon app and Core Image is Cocoa-exclusive for now.
I'm a fucking idiot...but certainly not for the reason you listed above.
Nobody Special, yes, sorry, it was harsh...I just hate it when people put down other people's efforts of producing a Photoshop competitor because "it's not Photoshop". It makes no sense *not* to want a competitor in that market. Sure, people won't switch overnight but some people may be sick and tired of using Photoshop and forced to pay the Adobe Tax every couple years because Adobe couldn't clue itself in when Apple announced to them OS X was coming or when Apple try to clue Adobe in on the fact that they were moving to Intel and *fast*. I feel very sorry for people that don't need a new version of Photoshop but don't have a choice but to pay because they decided to move to OS X or they decided to move to an Intel-based Mac.
Wow! Harsh. I don't think that's deserved.
I think the fact of the matter is that Photoshop's learning curve is so steep (especially for advanced features) that it would make switching over unappealing to most people. It's not like changing word precessing apps.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But my opion is not baseless.
Who's to say that a competitor would have as steep a learning curve as Photoshop?
Different programs that do the same thing can be laid out differently.
CI doesn't run on Windows and Adobe isn't interested in two completely separate code trees for it's application.
No, Photoshop will not use Core Image. Why? PS code is ruthlessly and independently cross platform. Platform independent to the extent Adobe uses it's own memory swap-space model rather than rely on the different swap models for each OS it runs on.
CI doesn't run on Windows and Adobe isn't interested in two completely separate code trees for it's application.
Yup. And exactly why they are in no hurry for the next version until Vista is out.
It won't. Something soon will, but it's under NDA Extraordinaire.
Now this is very good news for the platform. If PS had any competition at all, we'd be using the Universal Binary by now.
I'm not a hard-core PS user. If a competitor can come up with 75% of the features in Photoshop in a Cocoa version by MWSF, I will gladly buy it instead of upgrading Photoshop.
Let the revolution begin!
I understand you can't talk about the app, but can you give a definition of "soon" to us?
Hey Greg,
I understand you can't talk about the app, but can you give a definition of "soon" to us?
Supposedly around when CS3 comes out, but I'm a bit skeptical. Even though it's only going for a subset of Photoshop's features, that's quite a lot of work.
No, Photoshop will not use Core Image. Why? PS code is ruthlessly and independently cross platform. Platform independent to the extent Adobe uses it's own memory swap-space model rather than rely on the different swap models for each OS it runs on.
CI doesn't run on Windows and Adobe isn't interested in two completely separate code trees for it's application.
Which is stragely why the Adobe apps for Windows have so much trouble allocating memory ... ?
I believe you, but it's strange. Perhaps it's because Windows has so much more interrupt latency than OS X does, and hence it's much slower to allocate. This is just a hypothesis.
Supposedly around when CS3 comes out, but I'm a bit skeptical. Even though it's only going for a subset of Photoshop's features, that's quite a lot of work.
To gain any traction, it would need to at least be announced and previewed on the web before the Intel Photoshop is announced.
Although to start, I suppose we're talking about a competitor to Photoshop Elements, really.
I've always thought Quark should be the one to build a simple Photoshop clone and release it for free a-la-iPhoto.
Bundle it with Xpress, perhaps buy Freeway Web design and begin to seriously compete with the Creative Suite offering.
I've never figured out why they didn't buy Macromedia when they had the chance.
Anyway, I only use a very small subset of PS features. If an alternative was faster, prettier, and substantially less expensive, I'd drop PS fast.
Having less junk in it would make the competitor faster and simpler to use. I'm stoked!
My use for Photoshop revolves around minor image cleanups, adjusting brightness/contrast, cropping and converting to and from RGB and CMYK. The other stuff is nice, but not necessary.
While high-end designers will continue to need Photoshop, there are a lot of us who could get by with something a lot simpler.
Ditto.
My use for Photoshop revolves around minor image cleanups, adjusting brightness/contrast, cropping and converting to and from RGB and CMYK. The other stuff is nice, but not necessary.
While high-end designers will continue to need Photoshop, there are a lot of us who could get by with something a lot simpler.
I guess I'm one of those "high-end designers"
I haven't upgraded to CS2 because it's just so much fluff, and nothing has been substantially improved, not to mention I read about the many issues it has.... crashes, etc.
If someone could provide genuine competition to Adobe Phototshop, I'd expect Apple to give it a run for it's money.
Part of my confusion with Quark is that it would seem they've already done a lot of the work.
They have implemented PSD import, transparency, masking, advanced colour management and a lot of other relevant features into Xpress 6 & 7. So they know how to do this.
How hard would it be to package a basic image editor with Xpress, and make it available separate as an iApp for $99.00?