Adobe Photoshop CS4 Interface and Screenshots

O.K., I have to stifle a yawn here..... Honestly, this is looking more like a graphic designer app than a photography app. While simple clean UI is nice, I would rather they put some effort into ACR to get the colors right and the artifacts out when processing files from some of the higher end cameras. Sorry to sound like a complainer here, but Adobe continues to be several steps behind in what they should be offering. Still the most powerful image manipulation tool around, but still too obtuse for speed....especially if the Mac version remains 32-bit for yet another go around. Jeez....Apple was pushing 64-bit before Windows in a real, working OS, so what is taking Adobe so darn long to get things working for probably their larger install base? Sad, sad, sad.

LJ

Agreed. Now that I am on the Mac, I will wait for 5 to get 64 bit processing. I mean what's the point otherwise?

Buying it is not mandatory

:thumbdown::thumbdown:

DougDolde said:

Buying it is not mandatory

:thumbdown::thumbdown:

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, Doug. The one caveat came when Adobe started to bundle ACR/Bridge/PS. While the logical combo in their line-up, the CS3 version, which contained ACR 4 was required, unless you wanted to forgo all the advancements of ACR 4 and any added updates. That becomes a critical element for lots of folks. And in my cynical thinking, I am waiting for Adobe to eliminate the "reasonably priced" upgrades for anyone but users of the last version. So folks with CS or CS2 would not be able to upgrade to CS4 without the full-fare of CS3 also. And following that premise, folks now using CS3 on a Mac may not be able to get just the upgrade to CS5 without paying for CS4 in some way. I said I was a bit cynical here, but I sure hope I am wrong.

LJ

What about the notion that they are working to make Lightroom rather than Photoshop the eventual place where you can do everything for photography. In that regard a CS4 interface looking more like one that works for graphical design makes logical sense. In that scenario, the most used Photoshop tasks (for photographers) would be implemented into a Lightroom and in a photographers interface/workflow? I know for all of those using C1 and other programs you will scream but that does seem to be the direction.

I tend to agree with Terry regarding the future of lightroom. Photoshop is a must have tool for print and web designers as well as photographers. However, it does a lot of things that photographers might not consider "production" oriented. If Adobe can bring Lightroom more into line with the requirements of professional photographers who want production capability over ultra-detailed processing options, then that would make sense to me.

As far as the cost of updating goes, the entire Creative Suite has evolved into a potent package. Every version is more stable and more powerful than the last. Nothing even comes close and for my money, it's worth every penny.

I'd love to see what Terry mentioned being true, but I'm afraid that Adobe really wants to force us to still use Photoshop for alot of final touches on the images vs. Lightroom. That way they can sell two programs, with Photoshop still being much more expensive.

I agree with Ray on this. Lightroom still lacks the ability to handle plug-ins in order to complete many of the finishing touches one now does in PS. The LR architecture has made that a bit difficult. (Aperture found a way around that by allowing plug-ins, but it does not look like LR has that same flexibility from a programming standpoint. Hope they change that.)

So, you do have a choice.....get LR and only be able to process things to a certain point before you also have to buy PS to finish the job, or just buy PS to do all the work, but in a much more cumbersome, slower and bloated app. Either way, Adobe wins by selling both apps to the photog, when only PS is really needed, or LR could be used, but remains incomplete. How many folks have only LR and not PS also? Of those folks, how many are wanting to do more advanced image retouching but just cannot?

LJ

I agree with you in today's world but I was speaking about the future. Lightroom 2 is on its way and local adjustments are coming with it. The original post on this thread was about the new CS4 interface and the dicussion was how it was moving to a graphics persons workflow. That isn't here yet either so I think there is more to come as to what Adone has in mind for photographers.

LJL said:

I agree with Ray on this. Lightroom still lacks the ability to handle plug-ins in order to complete many of the finishing touches one now does in PS. The LR architecture has made that a bit difficult. (Aperture found a way around that by allowing plug-ins, but it does not look like LR has that same flexibility from a programming standpoint. Hope they change that.)

So, you do have a choice.....get LR and only be able to process things to a certain point before you also have to buy PS to finish the job, or just buy PS to do all the work, but in a much more cumbersome, slower and bloated app. Either way, Adobe wins by selling both apps to the photog, when only PS is really needed, or LR could be used, but remains incomplete. How many folks have only LR and not PS also? Of those folks, how many are wanting to do more advanced image retouching but just cannot?

LJ

Click to expand...

Terry,
You have more faith than I do in Adobe at this point. The interface on CS4 looks like it will be a bit of a headache for photographers that use the app a lot, and have a lot other tools within it. For graphic design folks, it is less cluttered and stuff, but what was Illustrator and InDesign, the other Adobe apps really for? PS has slowly become the super-app, and in the process, has lost some of its identity, I think. LR may, or may not fix the problems for the photographer by carving things out that are more image process related. Until LR allows layers, handles various gradients, and other stuff that is now done in PS, it will only be a first-step development app, and not a complete workflow tool. Now, if your work does not require the added efforts, it could be a great stand-alone.....after it gets all the things you are mentioning. The local adjustments stuff is nice....I use the Nik tools in both PS and Aperture now and think it is helpful. If LR can manage those, then it might be more complete, but right now it does not, and the new version has not suggested that to change.

Sorry, I did not want this to get so far off-topic, or sound like a LR bash. We were talking about Adobe, CS4 and what the may or may not mean to the photographer. LR is part of that "solution set" that Adobe has cobbled together, so it gets dragged in. It just seems like Adobe has found a way to charge folks a lot more and still not give them what they need in a single app.....LR lacks the finishing tools, and PS lacks the speed and organizational ability, plus non-destructive editing that LR has. No perfect app yet. The bigger downside or sorts is that all of the OEMs are tweaking their apps to do the things LR is sort of doing now, and then pass files to PS for completion. If the image development/conversion tools in LR and ACR do not improve, that activity is sure to continue and even grow. C1 folks and other go to PS to finish things, not LR, so PS is still a needed tool....but now looking less photographer oriented in this new interface. Just my thoughts on this.

LJ

If I'm not mistaken, the new interface is an option you can select. If you prefer the existing workspace design, you will still be able to use it in CS4.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm an unabashed Adobe fan. I've made a very comfortable living using their products and they have done nothing but get better over the years. Digital photography and its requirements are a relative latecomer to the use of Photoshop which has been around for many, many years and has a market that may in fact include more users who aren't using it for photo processing than those that do.

I don't see anything sinister or greedy in the development of both apps (LR and PS). Together (in my opinion) they represent the pinnacle of current technology. They have both undergone tremendous development in step with the digital photography evolution. In the grand scheme of things, compared to the cost of digital cameras, lenses, ink jet paper, ink, etc., their cost seems like quite a value.

Which is not to say that having one, perfect, Uber App might not be a good thing. Maybe some day.

Tim

I like the look of it.

Tim,
Not disagreeing with your reasons at all. I too have been using PS for a long time, and admit that there is nothing that does what it can in so many areas. I am all for improvements and stuff, and realize that their user base is not only photographers. I guess I am just not as big a fan of how they have been doing things lately, and charging quite a bit for apps that have not undergone all that much change, just having stuff piled on top. These are big and complex apps, but they need a complete code rewrite to reduce the bloat, take advantage of the hardware upgrades, and offer things in a more inviting way to the user. Maybe this is a step in that direction with CS4. I really do not know. What I do know is that I will probably not upgrade this cycle, as CS4 will not show any improved performance on my Macs, and CS3 is doing much of what I need now. LR has never attracted me, being an Aperture user from its start.

Anyway, I hope folks find it attractive and use it as they see fit. It just seems that the constant upgrade cycle from Adobe lately has not been offering all that much more, but is costing a lot more. As you say, the UI is an option, so that is good. Just wonder how much is sacrificed for that? More fancy, but still no ability to use more than 3GB RAM on a Mac. Seems like they are really missing something, especially given the increasing size and complexity of graphics files lately, and not just photo images.

LJ

LJL said:

What I do know is that I will probably not upgrade this cycle, as CS4 will not show any improved performance on my Macs, and CS3 is doing much of what I need now.

Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiments However IF CS4 was 64bit for Mac, I'd be all over it.

I guess my history is clouding my vision. All those early versions coupled with wimpy processing from those bygone days left some scars. Crashes, spinning beach balls, poor text handling, etc. By comparison, today's apps are solid performers.

I don't have the instant recall type of intellect (and I'm too lazy to do the research) but the improvements to stability and versatility alone have been worth the price of admission IMHO.

As for 64 bit... It's not clear to me that there will be a huge performance gain from that. I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as 2 times faster.

But I can respect your position. Your needs may be somewhat different from mine. Since the Adobe stuff along with other applications like Quark (hey, you want an example of an arrogant, bloated, behind-the-times software company? Check out Quark XPress!) are my bread and butter, I have made it a policy to automatically upgrade with each new version. In the long run, it has been easier for me.

Best,
Tim

Good point Tim. I'm not sure I need 64 bit to solve my issues, but more likely improved coding with what they already have...

For example, I have a newer Mac Pro with 8 really fast processors, a lot of RAM and some of the fastest SATA2 drives you can install, and I still have to wait inordinately long times when CS3 goes to scratch! It is clear to me that CS3 scratch times are reading and writing at maybe 30MB/sec when at the worst case my drives are capable of 80 to 100, and in the best case I still have 5 or 6 Gigs of RAM available and shouldn't need to scratch anyway! So what's with that? Clearly there is a coding issue that is not allowing CS3 to take advantage of the throughput available...

The other point is I have always bought into the upgrades for the added features, because most of them were items I wanted. So if photomerge is improved to the point where it competes with Autopano Pro, and/or the HDR merge tool improves to where it works as well as the third party programs, by all means I'll upgrade too. But just for a new interface that allows me to optionally tab multiple images and hide my Mac desktop a la the Win version, that frankly isn't enough for me to justify a $200 upgrade fee...

This is exactly my point, Jack. There are some fundamental things that need to be overhauled in the underlying code for these apps that has been very, very slow in coming, while the cosmetic stuff keeps being done and offered as upgraded versions.

Hey, maybe looking at prettier UI is what is needed while we keep watching the spinning beachball, while the scratch disk is feverishly humming away (but NOT at full throughput, as you note), and so that we can feel like maybe we wasted some money on all that hardware for PS ;-) (Hey, earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I was a bit cynical about this. Just staying true to form.)

LJ

I can certainly understand the desire to take full advantage of the Mac Pro's power. I have one too and have scratched my head a few times wondering why a process is taking so long on a system that's pretty state of the art. So, yeah, faster will be better. The whole carbon to cocoa thing is unfortunate but will someday be nothing more than a tiny postscript in Photoshop history.

As for $200 for nothing more than a GUI upgrade, I can't imagine it. It might be the only thing the press release discusses, but I will be really surprised if there aren't some deeper/more powerful enhancements.

But like I said, I've been drinking the Kool Aid for a long time.

TRSmith said:

As for $200 for nothing more than a GUI upgrade, I can't imagine it. It might be the only thing the press release discusses, but I will be really surprised if there aren't some deeper/more powerful enhancements.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right, and if so I'll upgrade. I drank the Kool-Aid for a long time too, but couldn't stomach it after the Macromedia merger. Now I'm more of a "show me" kind of guy