an interesting article on photoshop and where it is going

[DanK]

from the NY Times. I hope it lets people past the paywall.

[Suzan J]

Hi Dan: I was able to access this article from the link you provided. I think Adobe was quite clever in adopting the subscription plan. Although I hate the idea of "renting" applications, I would never, never, have purchased Lightroom and Photoshop outright because the up front cost was just too much and I could not justify it with my relatively simple amateur needs. The monthly payment is just easier to absorb.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Dan! I knew this year was the 25th anniversary but I didn't realize that today (February 19) is the anniversary to the day.

From the article: "Because subscription revenue comes in over time, the change also took a toll on Adobe’s bottom line. Its annual net income declined 65 percent in 2013, and it fell 13 percent last year."

While that's true, like so many statistics those facts are deceiving when taken out of context. To partly put Adobe's financial health in context, stockholders' equity slightly increased in 2013 and 2014.

[Thlayle]

Interesting article: the history of Photoshop is as interesting as where it might be headed in the future. Just the fact the we are reading the article from a web page post by the NYT informs us about Photoshop's future.

[DanK]

Interesting article: the history of Photoshop is as interesting as where it might be headed in the future. Just the fact the we are reading the article from a web page post by the NYT informs us about Photoshop's future.

Randy,

The link takes you to a website, but the article was in the main paper this morning, in the business section.

Dan

[John 2]

I posted the same link earlier Dan. There seems to be no problem accessing it from the UK.

[Thlayle]

Randy,

The link takes you to a website, but the article was in the main paper this morning, in the business section.

Dan

No doubt it was. Like Photoshop, they have moved to digital media that can be accessed on all sorts of devices. And like Photoshop, it's an adapt or die situation.

[chauncey]

Aah...Photoshop...were it not for Photoshop I would have quit photography long ago. Taking a pretty
picture continues to escape me but...with the help of PP, I can sometimes create a pretty picture.

[IzzieK]

Have been with Photoshop for a long time now but I have not really warm up to CC...

[HaseebM]

Thanks, Dan! I knew this year was the 25th anniversary but I didn't realize that today (February 19) is the anniversary to the day.

From the article: "Because subscription revenue comes in over time, the change also took a toll on Adobe’s bottom line. Its annual net income declined 65 percent in 2013, and it fell 13 percent last year."

While that's true, like so many statistics those facts are deceiving when taken out of context. To partly put Adobe's financial health in context, stockholders' equity slightly increased in 2013 and 2014.

And over time their annual income will soar as more subscribtions come in.

[NorthernFocus]

The rapid explosion of smart phones, tablets, etc. has really turned the tech world on its ear. Interesting times.

I have a wi-fi only tablet with 2560x1440 screen resolution. It seemed like a good idea. But it seems neither beast nor fowl. Most apps are written for smartphones and don't utilize the screen potential. And if I use it to surf the web in "desktop mode", it does act like a PC with that resolution which means that stuff shows up so small that I'm forever zooming in to navigate then back out to read, look at photos, etc.

Similarly with the few photo editing apps that I've tried so far are geared toward lower resolution screens. I'm sure it won't be long till the market fills the gap. In the meantime, it is still an awesome device.

[jcuknz]

I copied this from the version I read this morning ... I resist subscribing to the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/te...=52497011&_r=0

[Black Pearl]

The rapid explosion of smart phones, tablets, etc. has really turned the tech world on its ear. Interesting times.

I have a wi-fi only tablet with 2560x1440 screen resolution. It seemed like a good idea. But it seems neither beast nor fowl. Most apps are written for smartphones and don't utilize the screen potential. And if I use it to surf the web in "desktop mode", it does act like a PC with that resolution which means that stuff shows up so small that I'm forever zooming in to navigate then back out to read, look at photos, etc.

Similarly with the few photo editing apps that I've tried so far are geared toward lower resolution screens. I'm sure it won't be long till the market fills the gap. In the meantime, it is still an awesome device.

What are you using?
I have two iPads and regardless of the screen resolutions they display things at a usable and equal size. Huge numbers of the apps are custom written for the iPad - I think I only have one that is scaled from the iPhone app - and the editing apps I have make full use of its capabilities.

[Black Pearl]

As to Adobe then I'm with Suzan in that I could never afford their software outright so the CC package with Lightroom and Photoshop for a few pounds per month has been a life changer for me.

[Manfred M]

The article was an interesting read, but I'm not sure I really learned anything new. To a large extent, Adobe is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

1. Photo editing is not easy; one requires a lot of knowledge, experience and fairly deep pockets to do what I would refer to as "advanced editing". That really means that the total audience is limited to a fairly select group of serious amateurs and professionals that need the capabilities that Photoshop has;

2. There is a large group that realizes that the images that they take need to be "cleaned up", but either don't have the time nor the inclination to learn advanced editing techniques. A tool like Lightroom is really all they need. One of the commerical portrait / wedding photographers I know told me that he spends less than 30 seconds on virtually all of his images; and that includes taking the shot, processing it and then creating the output. Yes, if you buy a large print for lots of $$$, he will spend the 10 or 15 minutes in Photoshop, refining the image.

3. The vast majority of photographers figure SOOC is more than good enough, and if fact, their smartphone is all they will ever need. Talk to them and their next "investment" is more likely to be a "selfie-stick" rather than any editing software. That online software like Picassa or the built in "stuff" on their tablet or phone is as sophisticated as they will ever get; no audience for Adobe here.

There is certainly an iPhonograpy movement that effectively rejects sophisticated cameras for serious work. Frankly, that doesn't work for me; not enough creative control ability.

If we look at photographers historically, Ansel Adams was the exception; photographing and printing all of his own work. The other greats like Henri Cartier-Bresson and Yousef Karsh handed their film over to someone else to process and print their work. I think the latter two photographers are more "representative" of most of the photographers I know; they'd rather be out there shooting, rather than sitting in front of a computer screen, processing images.

[Black Pearl]

Another thing to consider is many day-to-day photographers who go out and make a living want to do so in as easy and simple a way as possible. Absolute quality isn't always the be all and end all.

When roll film replaced sheet film they switched - when smaller formats offered 'enough' quality they switched - when automation in both exposure and focus came about they switched - when digital hit a point where it was 'good enough' they switched - when a mobile phone which is on you every second of every day can take a 'good enough' image, be tweaked if necessary and transmitted anywhere in the world a few moments later photographer switch or at the very least take advantage.

A top end DSLR is still a mighty tool to be reckoned with but if you are out and become a entangled with a newsworthy, happening at that moment, event then an iPhone can be the better tool to have if you want to take, share and profit from one of your pictures.

[Shadowman]

I probably would have adopted Photoshop decades ago but never had a computer fast enough or powerful enough to handle all the algorithms, now that my computer matches the requirements needed I've found other less powerful versions to do what I need to do.

[IzzieK]

Since my D810's NEF files are not recognized by Photoshop CS5, I tend to use On One more...I like it but there are still other features that is very limited with it...or I have not explored it deep enough...

[NorthernFocus]

What are you using?...

I'm on an Android tablet. App development trails Apple device apps a little ways. I'm sure that gap will close. Most of the apps I'm referring to are non-photo related. I was really excited about getting a marine nav app so I could quit taking the laptop on the boat. But so far they are all still for android phones.

Honestly I started poking with photo editing apps but the ultra screen rez is counter productive. Plus the hassle of downloading. I'm thinking of getting a wireless external HD and will likely try it again.