Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks 197
sfcrazy writes Adobe is bringing the king of all photo editing software, Photoshop, to Linux-based Chrome OS. Chrome OS-powered devices, such as Chromebooks and Chromeboxes, already have a decent line-up of 'applications' that can work offline and eliminate the need of a traditional desktop computer. So far it sounds like great news. The bad news is that the offering is in its beta stage and is available only to the customers of the Creative Cloud Education program residing in the U.S. I have a full subscription of Creative Cloud for Photographers, and LightRoom, but even I can't join the program at the moment.
How important is that at this point? (Score:2)
I know that Photoshop gets a lot of attention from the WINE community but that doesn't necessarily translate to people who want to buy licenses for running it in Linux.
Re:How important is that at this point? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
none really. The only photoshop holdouts need CMYK or are unable to learn a new interface.
I only use photoshop because of all the free plugins that do what I want without having any skill at all. Butt hen I also think that my horribly out of date CS3 is just fine.
IF there were a lot more free plugins for GIMP that made it easier for us poseurs without any skill look good, it would surpass photoshop quickly.
Re:How important is that at this point? (Score:5, Insightful)
You ignore the fact that there have been many many in-depth criticisms of GIMP over the years, from people who have taken the time to ensure they understand that its the tool that is lacking rather than their understanding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. He just doesn't take Lemming trolls at face value.
Most people whining about GIMP and putting Photoshop on a pedestal are amateurs and consumers that would never actually pay for a copy of Photoshop ever.
Photoshop is a lot of cost for questionable marginal benefit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a graphics editing pro, and I can assure you that there is no comparison. I've used GIMP in the past for free classes I've taught for beginners (mostly just because it was free). But I stopped after I started getting complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW) and about the shitty interface (and it is *epically* shitty, make no mistake about it) and the buggy implementation.
So GIMP is a joke for pros (don't even make me laugh by even beginning to compare it to Photoshop
Re: (Score:3)
See you've just proved me correct.
complaints from users about the name (VERY unprofessional and immature, BTW)
the shitty interface (and it is *epically* shitty, make no mistake about it)
the buggy implementation.
These all scream "ME DONT WANT TO RELEARN ANYTHING"
Which is okay but it's not GIMP's fault that it isn't a Photoshop clone.
Re: (Score:2)
A very solid product would see a huge uptake. If they could get the keyboard shortcuts pretty close to 1:1 with PS, that alone would have a lot of pros looking seriously at GIMP, since that is a huge part of the workflow if you're trying to move fast.
So many keyboard shortcuts are memorize
Change the name already! (Score:2)
I don't always do graphics work, but when I do, I use the GIMP on Linux.
In my opinion, the open source community is practically perfect. Even with your once-in-25-years bug like Shellshock, I prefer having control over my systems, and access to the internals if I ever really need to. If I had unlimited power to direct the course of the open source community, and funds to match, I wouldn't change anything: just give me more of the same.
With one exception.
Can we start a petition for this? A Kickstarter? A lyn
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but no you are wrong.
My wife has spent a lot of time learning GIMP, Photoshop, and Photoshop elements.
GIMP is much better than elements but is not as good as Photoshop.
She still uses GIMP for some projects and recommends it to people that are just starting out or do not have the money to spend on Photoshop but GIMP is not a good replacement for photoshop.
GIMP is actually a good tool and a great value for the price but it is not a replacement for photoshop. Your comments about lemmings is a good exampl
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are going too far the other way. GIMP on windows and Linux are not bad at all. GIMP on OS/X is really hard to use probably because GTK for OSX really lags GTK for windows.
GIMP is good enough for a lot of people and it is much more powerful than photoshop elements.
If you need Photoshop then you need Photoshop. Gimp is a really powerful program and not terrible to use but it is not Photoshop.
Re:How important is that at this point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so...
I won't refute that GIMP still needs some work, both in terms of overall usability, and to be at least on feature-parity with commercial grade software like photoshop, but I expect when actually you try and explicitly list the alleged many shortcomings of GIMP, you might find that it's a lot closer to being fairly comparable to Photoshop than you first thought.
In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software. And I'd be willing to bet that of these features, many may already be in the pipe, and slated for GIMP 3.0 (although there is no ETA on that... and it might still be a while yet)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How important is that at this point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi, professional artist here. Your latter point, at least from my perspective, is correct. I know Photoshop really well, but since I make my living doing this work I am not biased in a way that'd prevent me from using a free tool. Let me be extra clear: It would hurt me to be fanboyishly loyal to be any particular app. I do pick up and mess with GIMP from time to time, but it has two critical omissions from Photoshop that make it unusable in my field. First, it lacks adjustment layers. Second, it lacks Smart Objects.
These are both features intended to do non-destructive editing of imagery. Let's say you have a tree with green leaves. You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue. If you put a picture of a different tree below that layer, its leaves would turn blue, too. If you took that tree and made it a 'smart object', you'd effectively be snapshotting that image and every operation you do causes it to regenerate itself. In other words, if you shrank a Smart Object down, then scaled it back up again, you'd get all its original detail back.
If you're creating imagery it doesn't take long for these two features to change your workflow in such a way that you gain a HUGE time savings. In fact I have created several templates to speed up the generation of images I do that I just plain cannot do in GIMP. Realistically speaking that is enough man-hours lost that I'd actually make a greater profit paying for Photoshop than I would saving the cost of the license in favor of GIMP.
With that said, I'd be *very* happy if you told me that version 3 would add these features. I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are genuinely interested knowing what is in the pipe for the future of GIMP, you may be interested in taking a look at this [gimp.org] for a summary of features that are slated for the next or upcoming versions of GIMP. You may notice that many tasks are dependant on completion of GEGL implementation (something that is definitely slated for being in the next release). Once GEGL support is fully in, significant features such as user-defined color spaces, non-destructive editing, and smart objects will become
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that this one (from your link) is patently wrong:
"6. Batch processing through automated actions is far superior in GIMP. Because photographers often need to do repeatable actions to large groups of images, this feature alone is worth its weight in gold."
I am a photographer and although I use LightRoom heavily, I use the batch rules in PS for my concert work, I can get very detailed with little trouble in PS. I did try to switch to gimp (or more accurately, tried it out) and found this to be sorel
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you! You've given me reason to sit up and pay attention when 3 rolls around, I appreciate that.
I would recommend against showing the more diehard Photoshop fans that link, though. It won't get you anywhere because what it really needs to be is a list like this:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.
Programmatically accessible from command line scripts (if you're not hep to the ImageMagick fu):
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/... [gimp.org]
and other languages
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/... [gimp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Just wanted to thank you for the links. I was especially pleased to find that Python is supported!
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to add one gripe. Creating an outline for text in GIMP requires creating a selection from the text, creating a new layer, growing the selection to the outline size, and filling the selection with the new color. WTF? What if I want to change the text now? I have to redo those steps all over again because the outline is in no way associated with the text. It's just a separate object. That's absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this discussion on slashdot before, mostly the one thing that keeps me from GIMP as a semi-pro photographer is the UI. I've used PhotoShop since the 7.0 debut up to CS3 and a brief poke at PS-CC, so I know the UI and where I expect to find stuff for my workflow... hell I could do the tasks I need to while asleep by now. GIMP on the other hand - and if you will excuse the graphic ( pun fully intended ) description - looks like the UI designers chowed down on all the UI elements and threw up on the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently...
Dude, you've named more than two features yourself. Jesus.
Nobody's saying that GIMP isn't a capable program, but for certain things that are quite common & useful for pros (like adjustment layers) the GIMP ain't there yet. The lack of adjustment layer functionality BY ITSELF pretty much excludes GIMP from being used in pro workflows. And as you yourself point out, GIMP will not be able to implement many features until fully ported to GEGL - which is not a small task.
Further, features such as Filte
Re: (Score:2)
Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.
And I'm not saying that everyone should use GIMP now if it doesn't meet your needs... I'm only saying that people who've been suggesting that GIMP is, in terms of the actual number of features, sorely lacking compared to photoshop are mistaken. The problem is not quantity, it is that the few features which *ARE* missing are critical to some people,
And that's okay.... I'm just pointing out that GIMP is getting there.
But hey....
Re: (Score:2)
Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.
So what? They are features that are listed separately on the GIMP road map, which I cut/pasted into my post.
But hey.... if you want to continue to shell out hundreds of dollars every few years for an upgraded version of photoshop indefinitly, who am I to argue that you should keep your money?
I am more than happy to shell out hundreds of dollars every couple of years for a product that saves me scores of hours of work compared to a free alternative, and I'm just a hobbyist. If you're a pro, it's really a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, GEGL will definitely be in the next version of GIMP... second of all, once GEGL is complete (which is again slated for the next version of GIMP), virtually all of those additional features will suddenly become feasible to implement where the previous architecture of GIMP made them untenable (and why no progress has been made so far, or often very little), and they will probably come into play quite quickly afterwards, You may be right that not very many may get in for the next version, but b
Re: (Score:2)
Most people whining about GIMP and putting Photoshop on a pedestal are amateurs and consumer
Methinks the text you quoted was meant in the context of the text I quoted. So, you pretty much just made the point jedidiah was trying to make. Derp.
Re: (Score:2)
You ignore the fact that there have been many many in-depth criticisms of GIMP over the years, from people who have taken the time to ensure they understand that its the tool that is lacking rather than their understanding.
Photoshop, although not as bad as GIMP, isn't exactly a pinnacle of user friendliness either.
Re: (Score:2)
....
Photoshop, although not as bad as GIMP, isn't exactly a pinnacle of user friendliness either.
Photoshop's UI is abysmal. It is, however, consistent. A PS user from 1990 can pick up CS 2014 and get around pretty easily. It's also an efficient work flow. Especially if you like keyboards.
But easy it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
This, right here... and it ain't just Photoshop, either.
In the CG realm, you have people who learned "3DS Max", or "Poser", or "Modo", but few of them could tell you what a vertex really is, let alone half-edges, collision-detection, subdivision, and etc. A few folks do go out of their way to learn the fundamentals (which makes switching between tools less painful), but they're a distinct minority.
Part of the reason why you see so much of this is because every software house has their own oddball idea of wh
Re: (Score:3)
Really, you think professional 3d modelers don't know what a vertex is? Really?
I mean, I can get that they might not understand how vertices are processed by a rasterizer, but that's not what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
3D modelers know what a vertex is, what I think he means is that, in some cases, perhaps they don't completely understand the mathematical formalism of the thing, and just have an intuitive feeling for what it is -- "the thing that's the corner of my thing."
Of course, there is the perspective that you shouldn't need to understand the "fundamentals" or nuts and bolts reifications of things, because that's what the software's for, to take all of these mathematical games and put them in a box, out of the way i
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you think professional 3d modelers don't know what a vertex is? Really?
They have an idea as to what it might be ('a mathematical point in cartesian space' would be the description given if you're lucky), but, say, how it behaves under subdivision and which SubD algorithm produces the best results for a given use case is another story entirely. That's why I put the word "really" in the sentence you took your question off of.
Let me give a more concrete example: Raytracing. Sure, they'll know how it would (mostly) behave in their given suite (depending on which render engine(s) t
Re: (Score:2)
Same would be true for any other application, including GIMP.
FWIW, I prefer Photoshop. I can just about manage to get things done in GIMP, but it's not a pleasure; the UI is an utter mess. Not talking about it being different from PS, but about it being an utter mess all on it's own merits.
And I would love for old Paint Shop Pro to return instead of the crappy instagram-like PSP it's degraded into.
Seriously; why did they Corel mangle PSP so badly?
Old PSP was truely "Cheap Photoshop without the color managem
Re: (Score:2)
I can just about manage to get things done in GIMP, but it's not a pleasure; the UI is an utter mess.
On what platform?
I find that GIMP's UI is just fine with a proper window manager. On OS X it's very painful, though, and I would expect the same on Windows (dunno, I haven't used Windows in about 15 years).
Re: (Score:2)
Both Windows (7) and Linux (Ubuntu 14 and Crunchbang).
The problem with the UI isn't with window managers or other technical parts; it's the design of the UI.
The way an excessive amount of buttons are seemingly randomly slapped together in a toolbar.
The way dialogs and popups don't follow platform styling.
The way it defaults to a multi-window environment.
I prefer to use an open source alternatives (like Audacity and Inkscape) whenever I can and most are easy enough to use.
GIMP is so close yet so far away, al
Re: (Score:2)
Both Windows (7) and Linux (Ubuntu 14 and Crunchbang). The problem with the UI isn't with window managers or other technical parts; it's the design of the UI. The way an excessive amount of buttons are seemingly randomly slapped together in a toolbar.
Meh. I don't think it's that random and in any case I have no trouble whatsoever with finding the buttons I need on any platform.
The way dialogs and popups don't follow platform styling.
Who cares? Okay, so it's prettier if it follows the platform styling, but the style has no impact on usability.
The way it defaults to a multi-window environment.
This is only a problem if you lack a good window manager with proper focus-follows-mouse behavior. On Linux, I prefer the multi-window environment. It's much more flexible, especially if your workflow includes needing to interact frequently with other apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Focus follows mouse is very rare, I'd say 1% of linux desktop users which themselves are 1% of desktop users. For the last 10 to 15 years focus-on-click has been the norm or at least the default (it even was on Motif Window Manager, which works like Windows 3.1 but with xterms in place of the Program Manager)
That said, on linux environments you have "focus of the scrollwheel follows mouse" and that's very handy, not only to scroll windows or tabs but to change global sound volume without clicking too. So fo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How is a VLAN "cheap"?, I guess you could do that because by chance he had the right specific model router and used the switch integrated to it. Also to me it's not clear. A Windows 2K box shouldn't have access to the internet (maybe that's what you done, I hope)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that people learn Photoshop, they don't learn the fundamentals for the tool.
I'm not sure how that would effect sales. Are people who learned Photoshop without understanding how it works really be likely Linux users? I think the overlap on those sets is vanishingly small.
So they switch to GIMP and then find it's horrible because their skills don't transfer and they cry on the internet that "GIMP SUX" because they don't want to relearn anything.
First of all, I can tell you that I have used a significant number of Photoshop tutorials in GIMP to do various functions and found that they work just fine.
Second, the most critical (by frequency of use) tools in Photoshop are the technical adjustments - color, levels, curves, etc. They work the same in GIMP
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this applies. How many businesses are running Linux workstations and need Adobe on them? Again this seems to me like a likely very small set. I don't see the absence of Adobe software in Linux as being a critical impediment to Linux migration for businesses who want to do that, either.
<consultant mode>
Well, I'd put it in a 2x2 matrix with low/high impact, low/high corporate usage. High/highs is stuff like your office suite, a lot of people use it and quite a lot. Low/high are things like time sheet recording, people need to do it but it's a very minor part of their work day. Both of these you generally need to have good solutions for since you'd be wasting so many people's time otherwise, the heavily used of course more so. Low/lows you don't really need to care much about, unless
Re: (Score:2)
I used GIMP for many years. Since it came out, pretty much - I remember using version 0.54 in the '90s. When I started getting more into photography I used Gimp with the UFRaw plugin. Again, I was using the thing for well over a decade at this point.
Then I had a fairly big photography project and tried a trial version of Photoshop+Bridge+Adobe Camera Raw. It was /instantly/ easier to use AND more powerful than GIMP and any raw processor on Linux. My workflow with it is incredibly smoother and faster.
Nowaday
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that it's not fair to say "GIMP SUX" because it's a great program, I also don't feel that it's fair to say, "the only reason professional graphic designers aren't using it is because they don't learn the fundamentals of design and don't want to relearn."
I'm not sure what the current state of the GIMP is, but for a long time, it didn't even have proper CMYK support, which is tremendously important for doing professional print media. Also, I can tell you from a lot of testing a few years ago,
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but those people don't even know Photography basics. (I know a couple)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just found Pixelmator, looks interesting. Know any good sites with comparisons between PS and PM? I might do the trial and see how it works...the thing that made me a bit apprehensive, is that on the PM site, they are showing off in tutorials all the "click and it is done for you" stuff predominately.
I had to actually DIG through the site to find out about curves, and layer masks, often the meat of a serious workflow...not one touch instagram filters.
Nice, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I went with GIMP years ago. I was able to use many of P-Shop's brushes and actions as-is, and I learned GIMP's actions and interface.
Mind you, I'm not a graphics pro by any means (though I am a heavy hobbyist in CG graphics, and GIMP is invaluable to me for postwork and touch-ups.) Even when I moved to using a Mac for most of my farting-around, the first thing I went for was GIMP for OSX. Just as most actual professionals stick with Photoshop (in spite of the brain-dead subscription model they have these days) because they learned on it, I do the same thing with GIMP... and it works just fine for me.
Now in the professional realm, PShop makes sense to have a Linux port. Strange thing though - a huge percentage of professional CG work is done in Linux nowadays, and has been for awhile, so I'm surprised that it's taken them this long to get around to it.
(now if only the hobbyist CG software shops (I'm looking at *you* Poser and DAZ|Studio!) would get off their asses and make a Linux port...
Re: (Score:2)
Now in the professional realm, PShop makes sense to have a Linux port. Strange thing though - a huge percentage of professional CG work is done in Linux nowadays, and has been for awhile, so I'm surprised that it's taken them this long to get around to it.
For computer generated graphics custom workflows and creating tools to animate things others can't have has been the driving force. There's plenty of complex interactions between models, textures, animations, physics simulations and various like creating a whole army from a few parameterized models and AI. No tool does everything well and often there's some secret sauce you want integrated into the workflow. Photoshop on the other hand mostly seems like a one-stop shop, you hand a skilled person the image a
Re: (Score:2)
> open source is use to copying the work of other people then trying to claim it as their own.
Troll much?
Re-implementing an idea so it is free for everyone is far cry of trying to "claim it as their own."
Open Source has it problems -- hijacking software is not of them.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of work is so old by now that it should be in the public domain. Copyright was never meant to be a new form of property or a means to extract tolls from end users until the end of time.
The point of both copyright and patents is to encourage the creation of ideas/inventions that EVERYONE can use.
"copying the work" is the intended ultimate result.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the point of copyright and patents are to offer a limited monopoly on an innovation so artists and inventors can make a buck off their work.
No, that is the mechanism. The goal (point) is to have people making stuff. There are lots of ways to do it, but the Founding Fathers felt that IP was the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, we are talking past one another. I'm on your side. Copyright indeed has been corrupted.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you do it?
Because it would involve asking DAZ or Smith Micro for the respective proprietary source codes first, then getting permission to release the results. Both applications are currently ongoing products (DS is at 4.6 now, and Poser at "Poser Pro 2013" last I checked.)
DAZ Studio is doable - I used to work for them as a dev back when 1.0 was released, and they IIRC still use C++ and Qt. Could likely pull it off the OSX branch with only a little effort.
Poser is not so doable; they use a wide variety of weird crap
Isn't this streaming? (Score:2, Informative)
I only looked at it quickly yesterday, but it seems like they're just streaming it, a bit like how they stream games on platforms that don't support them. Not so hot to work offline, but if its just an added service to existing subscriptions, it can have some use.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it mean to stream an application? Data can be streamed, but an application is interactive.
Proprietary shit comes to proprietary platform... (Score:2)
how is this news for nerds?
Chromebooks do not run Linux, they run the Chrome OS, for God's sake!
When Adobe Photoshop truly comes to the plain vanilla distri, then we can start putting up articles on here.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really missing is that ChromeOS is made to be a lightweight almost terminal system with nothing but the basics installed.
The article even mentions that it will be "Streaming" Photoshop from the cloud - which makes more sense for a ChromeOS program:
Today, in partnership with Adobe, we’re welcoming Creative Cloud onto Chromebooks, initially with a streaming version of Photoshop. This will be available first to U.S.-based Adobe education customers with a paid Creative Cloud membership—so the Photoshop you know and love is now on Chrome OS. No muss, no fuss.
Even though Chrome OS is linux based, this version of Photoshop looks to be web based so it could run on anything that has a modern web browser.
Re: (Score:3)
By streamed, does that mean it's a javascript version? (would be much slow, unstable, less feature complete), NaCL? (sort of native code, Google proprietary stuff, I don't know what APIs it uses)
Other? my first understanding was it's some thin client stuff instead!
So it would indeed run on the servers (as regular Photoshop x86-64 version) and you'd better have a fiber optics connection or be on a university LAN. Both for the latency and for the slow uploads and downloads of big image files.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a rich man's VNC? well optimised, adequately compressed, using RDP or similar in the first place. Perhaps it's some "hybrid" setup, when cattering to one app you have full control of and you control the client too, you might be doing a few optimizations and adding a bit of logic. When clicking a menu, the pixel contents of the rectangular drop-down menu area might be cached or even pre-loaded, instead of doing simple VNC-style streaming every time.
For file transfer, I would think that HTTP (HTTPS) tra
Re: (Score:2)
"Plain vanilla distri" for debian or redhat?
Re: (Score:2)
...nerds are required to run Linux now and not care about any other OS or platform?
Look, I run Linux on my desktop, and have since well before distributions or version 1.0 of the kernel came out. I run quite a few servers and all of them are running Linux. My media center PC is running Linux. All my computers except one run Linux.
Does that mean I can't think ChromeOS is a cool idea, or at least interesting? Does that mean I'm not allowed to use Photoshop when I'm indulging some of my other hobbies, because
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, lets pretend I wrote F/OSS.
Re: (Score:2)
ChromeOS is Linux. It's just not a GNU based Linux.
Pulp Non Fiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no more Photoshop. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been paying for Photoshop CC since it's been available, because I can finally get a legal copy of Photoshop (and for $10 a month). Yes, it's subscription-based, but it installs the actual software on your computer, so I don't know where you're getting the web-based thing from.
Re: (Score:3)
Half correct. Adobe's Creative Cloud software is subscription software, but it is not web-based. The "cloud" bit in the name is just buzzword bingo; the apps are installed and run locally as Windows/OS X executable binaries, just as they always have, with check-ins to confirm that you've paid your protection money this month.
Of course the subscription aspect is reason enough for many people to walk way from Adobe (as I have). I know many illustrators have turned to the Manga Studio for comics production,
Whatever happened to ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GIMP runs better then ever on Linux (Score:2)
Have you seen the new interface since, I dunno, the last few weeks (using Ubuntu 12.04)? It is radically different than before, and much more along the lines of something that a typical Photoshop/Elements user could adapt to as being similar without much hassle. All those past critisizms of GIMP that I've read here on /. no longer seem to apply. Sure, pros will want Photoshop for the hours they spend time with it, but if you've just got a handful of graphics to manage for the website or whatever, GIMP all t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a website developer. I crop images. Work on logos a bit. Try to improve the colors. I have also sold my work as a graphics professional for many years already; and I have an extensive portfolio. And I take pride in the fact that when I service a contract for a client, there's no need to add the cost of the Adobe CC suite to the budget, although on a short term contract basis this argument has been greatly diminished due to monthly cloud pricing. Mostly I get paid to code.
Glad things are working out for
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a quote from my post you replied to:
Not everyone has requirements like yours while many others are still working professionally with graphics and require good tools. Meanwhile GIMP keeps improving and fixing its faults.
Re: (Score:2)
And since you AC care to challenge my career in publishing production let me give you some advice, that I realized and adopted for myself years ago.
There's the difference between print publishing and electronic publishing. You know it for what it is, but I'll elaborate, and to make my point, I'd have to say your photoshop work falls into the Print Category (for this example anyway), and there's nothing wrong with that. I've spent my time with the CLUTs and calibrations, before the technology of Lithography
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
While GIMP is fine for quick edits -- it lacks essentials features that Photoshop has.
Having to use a _plugin_ for Layer Effects is _lame_. It should work out-of-the-box!
http://registry.gimp.org/node/... [gimp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think that people who use GIMP SHOULD make a donation to GIMP development. So, I am not advocating people just expect this stuff to happen by itself.
Photoshop alternative (Score:2)
If you have a Mac, Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] is a very decent alternative to Photoshop.
Yawn... Not sure why we need it (Score:2)
Now get Illy and inDesign and I'll convert (Score:2)
I'll hop on board the Linux train if Illustrator and inDesign make the switch too. I mean, Microsoft's doing its best to push me away from Windows so ya, if Adobe is going to put their flagship application on Linux, I'll seriously consider switching out. I'll even wear a Penguin t-shirt to prove my loyalty.
I do wish CorelDRAW would come over too though since I come from a sign design background and much prefer it over Illustrator but I would hunker down and take a few courses to really get good at Illustrat
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and inb4 Inkscape...
Um, not natively... (Score:2)
This isn't a port. It's streaming the application. It is actually running on their cloud, so you could do the same on Linux, Windows, whatever.
This is just another part of them moving to a cloud-based model. No big deal.
Proprietary garbage (Score:2)
This is NOT good news AT ALL. This is a closed source application which means it is designed to take away your freedom, basically, you have no capability to read or to modify source code that runs on your computer if you want to do so. Worse, its a cloud application, which means that your data is stored, transmitted over the net even when you don't want it to be, which means you really dont have control or ownership of your own data. Its also not a port to real Linux, but instead, to Chrome.
Real Linux distr
Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)
All you anti-corporate, pro-open-source Linux users can rejoice! Google has finally brought you the corporate-owned, closed-source Linux desktop of your dreams!
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
I still am not ready to buy into the Adobe CC thing, I don't like the idea that if I have a lot of PSD files, I've done work on, I may refer back to, say as templates for my business albums, etc...that if I quit paying rent, that I can no longer open and use my files I created.
I bought into the CS6 Production Premium Suite of tools...and so far, I've not see anything Adobe has done or added that is so groundbreakingly compelling that I would give up my standalone as long as I want them (in VM's if need be for OS changes) and use them.
I'm actually wondering if Adobe keeping the 'deals' running for so long is and indication that not quite as many have flocked to CC as they imagined. But regardless of that, I don't wanna rent my software, who's to tell when once they have you hooked, they start raising the prices? Also, what's to keep the fire lit under them to innovate once everyone is paying monthly and there is no stand alone option any more?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
I still am not ready to buy into the Adobe CC thing, I don't like the idea that if I have a lot of PSD files, I've done work on, I may refer back to, say as templates for my business albums, etc...that if I quit paying rent, that I can no longer open and use my files I created.
If you have a .psd or better yet a .tiff file, you can open it up in all of it's glorious layered goodness in any one of a number of programs. Of course, if you are looking at a Photoshop specific manipulation or feature, you're unlikely to be able to do it in anything other than Photoshop. However, as you point out, there are not all that many late model Photoshop effects that are to-die-for.
I bought into the CS6 Production Premium Suite of tools...and so far, I've not see anything Adobe has done or added that is so groundbreakingly compelling that I would give up my standalone as long as I want them (in VM's if need be for OS changes) and use them.
I would agree. I have CS6 happily sitting on my hard drive, but also have a current subscription (hint: if you try to cancel, they give you the old price back. At $29.00 a month for the entire suite it can be a steal, depending on what you use).
I'm actually wondering if Adobe keeping the 'deals' running for so long is and indication that not quite as many have flocked to CC as they imagined. But regardless of that, I don't wanna rent my software, who's to tell when once they have you hooked, they start raising the prices? Also, what's to keep the fire lit under them to innovate once everyone is paying monthly and there is no stand alone option any more?
Hard to say. Adobe's SEC filings look pretty good. Other companies are jumping on the subscription band wagon which suggests that either it works or they're desperate. I suspect it's a little of both. It costs very little to add a customer (it's not like Adobe spends any money on customer support....). If they can get some rate of conversion to Endless Subscription, they've made some good money. If the user drops out after a while, well, they've made some money.
Remember, CS is professional software. They don't make much off us one of hobbyist / low grade professional shops. They make money on the big guys. And subscriptions make accountants happy for some weird reason. Further, Adobe, bless it's pointed little metallic head, really has made inroads into listening to professionals. You don't have to upgrade a version. Downgrading is easy. Running every version ever made (after 6) is easy.
Customer support still sucks, but it is Adobe.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems they could offer both standalone along with subscription based and catch more of the crowd...
I mean for now, they still offer Lightroom as standalone or part of CC, why not PS, Premier, AI, etc?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I had mod points but I had already commented on this article so I couldn't mod you up but this is gospel. Halle-fuckin-lujah brotha!
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, Corel's doing this sneaky renting bullshit too but they're just doing in peace meal with individual features. Coreldraw X6 was the QR code generator. X7 introduced a Hide Object feature. Both are "greyed out" unless you're a standard or premium member. Standard members don't pay but preemies do - aka, RENT. They'll continue to tie in more features this way also over time. Corel's not getting off easy on this one by any stretch.