The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Interface and Screenshots

LJL

New member
Dale,
That is a good post, and has been talked about for a while. I think the point remains....as PS is written today with its obtuse code and slow callings, it cannot and will not work appreciably better on 64-bit addressing machines. The code needs the overhaul to take advantage of multi-processor, multi-thread, wider RAM bandwidth, etc., offerings that the newer machines have.

LR will get some boost, and that is great. But LR is NOT PS. It still lacks a lot of finish work capabilities, so PS is still required by a lot of folks.

In the end, until Adobe bites the bullet and starts a serious recoding and streamlining of the apps (which it is doing for some things, or so they are telling us), faster machines are not going to matter much when running the app. So while some new UI or a few improvements to some tools is very welcomed, as Jack mentions, it still falls short of what most users are really needing and wanting.

The entire application architecture needs to be revamped, not just added to as it has been for years. Even Apple has recognized this as they start on their new OS X "Snow Leopard".....it will be slimmed down for faster and more efficient operation. They are doing the same with apps like Aperture and Final Cut. Why can't Adobe think about this approach and get cracking? They have lots of very capable and skilled programmers that surely understand that. The overarching plan and design for the future is what seems to be lacking.

LJ
 

Dale Allyn

New member
LJ,

I agree with you. Bloat is the bane of all applications, as are kludges using legacy code in lieu of re-writes. Adobe is large enough that they should have a dedicated team working on a ground-up replacement which does not involve these incremental "patches".

I don't use LR and don't care for Aperture, so of course I'm wishing they would do something great with PS/ACR/Bridge. I like the tools in Bridge and the ACR process, but modern image files really tax the current versions of Adobe software. Perhaps LR 2.0 will win me over, or at least convince me to adapt to the LR approach. Frankly, I'm most comfortable in PS, but large, layered files prepped for my printers at 600ppi (Canon ImagePROGRAFs) are hugh and take a long time to save, export to a print plug-in, etc. I can stay off the scratch disk most of the time, but it still grinds slowly at times.

I acknowledge that I need to upgrade my hardware, but some of the sluggishness is due to other limitations in the app.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I agree. I am just so shocked that they are not making it 64bit. It's not like they haven't had time to do it. Apple went 64bit in 2003! High end servers and workstations were long before that, so it was obvious that it was coming to personal computers. Now the fact that practically every computer system sold in the world ships with a 100% compatible 64bit operating system, you would think that they might decide to get around to adding support for it. 4GB is not a lot of RAM when you are working with MF scans or 12-40 MP files.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Stuart:

In fairness to Adobe, Apple swapped from Carbon-64 to Cocoa for Leopard. This created a stall (supposedly) for Adobe. AFAIK the issue is Adobe claims that Apple swapped platforms, but Adobe still built LightRoom on Cocoa, so why couldn't Adobe step up and build CS4 on Cocoa instead of Carbon? In the end, the companies are pointing their fingers at each other, but it does kind of look a convenient excuse for Adobe to defer 64bit architecture for CS-Mac until the next revision.

However you slice it, most Mac users call it a STUPID move by Adobe to not create a full 64-bit Leopard version of CS, especially given the huge migration of imagists from Win to Mac since Vista.

Cheers,
 

PeterA

Well-known member
There are massive scale economies in delivering pretty software and semi 'forced' upgrades. Marketing hype is a far bigger driver in this equation - when combined with the coercive practise of forcing upgrades one way or another.

the second best way to hedge out the cost of this upgrade cycle is to own some Adobe shares.

The best way is to opt out. It is really interesting for me to note that personally the only new features in CS3 that I think were worthwhile from a photographic point of view was the much improved stitching.

I am very happy with Phocus as my blad raw machine and file prep. I am switching from Canon to Epson over the next few months and there are very good rips available for printing here. Aperture is a nice 'potential' web display and book/album display prep engine - still surprisingly slow - however at least it shows Hasselblad files.

NO third party raw processor does as good a job as the stuff that comes from teh back manufacturers - despite their clunkiness.

I am NOT a fan of Lightroom - because it just reminds me that it is a dumbed down basic photoshop from 10 years ago - with the database engine that Photoshop SHOULD have - WHY they need to separate the programs is obvious - because they can. :ROTFL::ROTFL:

I guess what I am saying is that in order to remove the constant upgrade and relearn new interface cycle - I am dumbing down my approach to:

1. Raw processing via MFD back software
2. Export via Tiff straight to print OR
3. Use CS3 for any layer work and finessing (how much of this is just a poor copture in the first place?? ) LOL
4. A DAM strategy that involves Lightroom OR Aperture as my database. ( hence my interest in Aperture because it does deliver the promise of a one stop shop. IF they added layers to their capability it woudl make the program MUCH more powerful) I cant be bothered with getting my mind around all the fancy ways these progs apparently dont change raw file and just code change your changes - who can remember what six months later

Am so tired of geekdom..so very tired of fancy this and fancy that - I wish Photoshop didnt have 10 ways to do anything - it is way past the point of BLOATWARE.

What a pity there isnt an alternative that delivers teh basic tools in elegant stable fashion. HEY!!! maybe that is photoshp's next program?? LOL

Pete
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
It's difficult to opt out of photoshop. It is really the only way that I am aware to produce exhibition quality prints at home (using a printer anyway). I have not seen anything else that can equal its combination of sophisticated adjustment layers, sharpening algorithms and color-managed printing software. I would love to hear about other things, but at the same time, I frankly don't feel like learning how to use another damn program, so I certainly agree with you there Peter.

I learned photoshop elements
then I learned photoshop 7.0
then I learned minolta's scan software
then I learned CS2
then I learned Monaco EZcolor
Then I learned FlexColor
Then I learned Capture One
then I learned CS3
Then I learned Eizo ColorNavigator
Then I learned Lightroom
Then I learned LeafCapture
Then I learned CaptureShop
Then I learned CaptureNX

It an endless parade of bloatish hell. Note, I do not own all these, but between testing cameras, owning different things and assisting, I have had to compile a working knowledge of how to use all this crap. I just wish that they could be more consolidated.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I wish each maker would supply their raw processing algorithms as a plug in to photoshop and I wish photoshop had the database included ( Lightroom). Yep I agree Stuart - too much geek software in my life over the last few yers - I am so over it all.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Well for me, I structured my image database long before interactive cataloging software was even a pipe dream. And at least the C1 4.1.1 workflow is reasonably similar to LR/ACR workflow -- close enough to get the hang of it pretty quick anyway. So I never adopted LR's cataloging and can let go of it pretty easily. Gets me back to C1 or ACR for raw and CS3 for localized image adjustments. Not too shabby a situation for this old dog :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well for me LR seems to be very short lived. When i switch hard drives here pretty soon I may just take LR off my machines. Less is more. My issue with LR as it always has been is red and with every camera Leica , Nikon and now the Phase backs Red. Besides that ACR and LR are just ugly and underexposed with my Phase files and the kelvin temps are off. i do a lot just by kelvin temp. so it just is not working. Some more improvements with C1 and I will be happy but it was always a great program for almost any camera i shot with regards to the output , always very clean. Functionality is the needed improvements. Once again i am looking at a huge shooting gig in a couple weeks that i will shoot maybe 2k in images and again i will need speed and need it fast , so we will see how that goes. This time though i will make a custom WB so i won't have to play around with that for all the shooting it will be the same stage and lighting per say.
 

robsteve

Subscriber
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.


Best,
Tim
Tim:

If you get a chance, try the Lightroom Beta in 64bit. It seems to be much quicker at things like importing images and rendering the previews.

Robert
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Tim:

If you get a chance, try the Lightroom Beta in 64bit. It seems to be much quicker at things like importing images and rendering the previews.

Robert
Thanks for reminding me of that Robert. I've been using the 2.0 Beta since it was released. I've become used to it since then, but I do remember my initial reaction was that it felt speedier. So I admit that faster would be better in PS.

Speed gains are somewhat elusive however, at least for me. For example, technical specifications for the next and newest processors etc. can sometimes give one the impression that processing times will be markedly different once you buy the latest model of computer containing them. My own experience is that those speed enhancements become "absorbed" pretty quickly. In fact in many cases, you don't realize the improvement until you try and work on an older, slower system. Generation to generation, the differences are often noticeable, but not a match for the marketing hype.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate a faster rendering of something like "smart sharpen" in the next PS release. But my own work does not require the batch processing of hundreds of enormous images. In fact, I work on one at a time. The speed enhancements will come and they will be welcome, but I'm not holding my breath or popping my cork until they do.

Tim
 
Top