Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

TIFF superior over PSD

Nov 9, 2013 9:18 AM

Hi, I came across this link.  What interested me was one comment, TIF format is a superior format then PSD.  What is the community opinon on this ? I sorta agree !

 

Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.

TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.

TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?

PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.

Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.

And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.

Look, I'll make it REAL simple...

TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad

Ok?

 

I hope this helps with your understanding of why ACR/LR has "difficulties" with PSD.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2013 9:25 AM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    Interesting.  I would definately agree with using Tiff for archiving - not sure about a work in progress.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2013 6:37 PM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    PSD is best for creation in Photoshop and integration with Illustrator and InDesign. Tiff is best for maximum compatibility for example programs that can't properly read PSD, and while tiff can contain layers, it is flattened in cases like printing and archiving.

     

    Gene

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2013 7:31 PM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    Adobe controls (owns) both the PSD and the TIFF format.  It's difficult to believe Adobe has any interest in favoring one format over the other one; but I have great respect for Jeff Schewe.  He would know many things I don't.

     

    I stopped using TIFF out of frustration with how long TIFFs take to save and to open (yes, I've followed Jeff's instructions, but PSDs and PSBs still save and open faster on my machines).  I stick to PSD and PSB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 5:24 AM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    Actually PSB is Photoshop default and all Auto Save recovery files are saved in PSB files Tiff file size limited is low compared to PSB.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 8:00 AM   in reply to JJMack

    I stopped using PSD when I started using Lightroom. LR requires that layered PSD files be saved with 'Maximize Compatibility,' which adds a flattened copy of the image to the file increasing its size.

     

    I still use PSD with InDesign layouts when  placing images with layers I want to turn  on/off from inside InDesign. Examples are product brochures that have common body text and layout, but different pictures. The PSD file has each product image on a different layer, which I can select from inside the one InDesign file based on the print request. You can't do this with TIFF files.

     

    I'm sure there are other examples of PSD benefits, but 99% of my PS work ends up as a TIFF.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 1:30 PM   in reply to trshaner

    For many of us, LR doesn't exist.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 2:04 PM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    For many of us, LR doesn't exist.

     

    Amen to that.  Real Photoshopers don't do Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 3:30 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    I've been using PS since 1996 and currently use Design Standard CS6, Lightroom 5, and numerous other non-Adobe apps. I use Bridge to manage all my project assets, but  my camera raw images are processed and cataloged in LR.

     

    I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing and have you actually tried using LR? I am interested in your responses because of numerous issues I encountered with LR5 and lack of improvements to its other modules.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 5:42 PM   in reply to trshaner

    I do not use LR or the Bridge for organizing my images the OS file system is OK by me. Both LR and Bridge have some performance penalties when you first bring images into them. Lightroom needs to import then into its Library databases recording  infotmation and thumbnail into them.  Bridge also sort of imports images into its cache which can be centralize or distributed into your image folders. Once in a while I may use the bridge as a metadata editor.  LR is not an image editor it more and image developer with some local adjustment. You need an image editor if you wish ro remove objects or make a composite where you add objects. If you use Photoshop and open RAW file into it as smart objects and you want to adjust it ACR will open not LR. Also in Photoshop CC ACR is a filter the can be use one any later.  I do not need two  user GUI for Adobe RAW Conversion Engine. In fact I prefer one.

     

    If your a Photographer and you shoot in a studio LR may well fill all your needs. All three programs have their place. In reality Photoshop is all I need.

     

    I just hope Adobe see the market place is segment in the major area Home, Small Business and the corporations. That the home and many small business have no need for Adobe suite. All they want is what Adobe is now calling Photoshop for Photographer. That Adobe make that affordable for the masses. Photoshop is a bargain when you consider the cost of you equipment an print consumables.  I spend more on Photo Paper and Ink then I do for my digital darkroom.  Photoshop is a monster. Most users only use a small subset of the beast. It cost Adobe a fortune to maintain Photoshop and evolve it.  But when you only use a small subset you do not want to pay to the Cadillac when your using the Ford parts that go into the Caddy. There is money to be made selling the ford to the masses.  Adobe please keep Photoshop a bargain....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 6:23 PM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    I've been using PS since 1996 and currently use Design Standard CS6, Lightroom 5, and numerous other non-Adobe apps. I use Bridge to manage all my project assets, but  my camera raw images are processed and cataloged in LR.

     

    I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing and have you actually tried using LR? I am interested in your responses because of numerous issues I encountered with LR5 and lack of improvements to its other modules.

     

    Yes I am a professional photographer, and though the bulk of my work is commercial product type shots, I do several events every year which might involve >1000 shots to process.  I bought and paid for LR3, and have installed LR5 through a CC subscription, but I just don't get on with it, and prefer to use Bridge and ACR.  The biggest issue for me is the LR interface which while similar to ACR, I find does not flow so nicely.  Plus I might like to use a PS edit in about 5 to 10% of the images.  My system was built for NLE with Prem Pro, and I have no delay states in my Bridge/PS workflow, so I like working this way.

     

     

    For cataloguing my DAM is to name each job with ‘yyyy_mm_dd meaningful name’ and use the excellent Windows 7 search facility to locate the folder and files.  I don’t use tags, but do give shots a star rating in Bridge, although I find Bridge too slow to use as a primary search tool.   I used to sometimes resort to searching my flickr stream for images, which would give me a date taken so I could find the folder containing that image on my system, but flickr is now next to useless since they ruined the UI.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 6:52 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

     

    If your a Photographer and you shoot in a studio LR may well fill all your needs. All three programs have their place. In reality Photoshop is all I need.

     

     

    I read that and though it a good point. Then I thought again, and realized that while Studio work is well enough controlled to need almost no editing regards exposure, it is likely to need a lot of the sort of editing only doable in Photoshop.  Models need retouching, and product work needs lots of fine tuning, and at the very least, clients usually want a cut out to use in web pages and advertizing layouts, so that precludes LR.

     

    The job I covered over the weekend involved bright sunshine one minute to heavy overcast the next, shooting under cover and outside using two cameras constantly changing my position and shooting angle.  I find it pretty much impossible to batch process that sort of job, so LR would have no advantage over Bridge and ACR.   (These are the non equestrian shots from one day of the same job last year.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 7:56 PM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    …I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing…?

     

    Photoshop, of course.  What a bizarre question…

     

     

    trshaner wrote:


    …and have you actually tried using LR…

     

    Of course I did.  I hated it.  I detested the libraries-like paradigm and the interface.  More importantly, there's absolutely nothing you can do to a single image in LR that you cannot do in Photoshop, while there are a gazillion things that you can do to an image in Photoshop that you couldn't even dream of doing in LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 9:07 PM   in reply to station_two

    Are you sure about that Station? ISTR a recent mention of LR5 having a feature that PS and ACR does not.   Just tried a quick Google and couldn't find anything though.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 9:35 PM   in reply to station_two

    I've never found any love for LightRoom either.  I don't feel a need to abstract the storage and maintenance of my files into a database.

     

    For me I integrate everything on my Windows system with Explorer, using a subdirectory organization process to keep them all straight.  I open raw images in Camera Raw and process them to whatever needs I have in Photoshop.  The one thing I don't have a strong need for is to run through a whole lot of images quickly; I'm more of a "quality over quantity" type of image processor.

     

    I know I'm not really mainstream in my thinking, but it works great for me.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 10:45 PM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

     

    there's absolutely nothing you can do to a single image in LR that you cannot do in Photoshop, while there are a gazillion things that you can do to an image in Photoshop that you couldn't even dream of doing in LR.

     

    Correct, but missing the point. Lightroom is about workflow organizing. You'll learn to appreciate that when you process several hundreds of shots, on a tight deadline, on a daily basis. If you do one by one, correct, there's no point in Lightroom.

     

    And there's another thing. I'll make myself the most unpopular person on this forum with this, but I think I can handle it. Here's something I recently wrote on the Lr forum:

     

    If you consider yourself primarily a photographer, sticking to Lightroom only will probably improve your work. The problem with Photoshop is that it becomes all too tempting to think "I'll fix that later" instead of getting the shot right to begin with.

     

    If you take a look over in the PS forum you'll see lots of threads like "how do I remove these reflections", "how do I clean up this shot", or the all-out "how do I fix this picture". In all cases, almost without exception, the answer is take ten minutes extra and do it right the first time...Photoshop encourages laziness and bad habits, by its very nature.

     

    <ducking and running>

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 10:55 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    in future I'll ask the world to stop while I set up my tripod, arrange several scrims and reflectors to fix the sun not cooperating with the shot, and ask the subjects to keep that perfect expression on their faces while doing all that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2013 11:32 PM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    It is stated that psb files can only be loaded up by Photoshop - not entirely true. Photoline can also open and save psb files. I have opened 10GB psb files in Photoline without a problem.

     

    The problem with tiff is that it is limited to up to 4gb for a file. A truly open format that supports 8/16/32bpc and layered files beyond 30.000 pixels would be OpenEXR - unfortunately Photoshop does not natively support multi-layered EXR files. Ironically, Photoline does support this out of the box.

     

     

    StrongBeaver wrote:

     

    Hi, I came across this link.  What interested me was one comment, TIF format is a superior format then PSD.  What is the community opinon on this ? I sorta agree !

     

    Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.

    TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.

    TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

    TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?

    PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.

    Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.

    And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.

    Look, I'll make it REAL simple...

    TIFF = Good
    PSD = Bad

    Ok?

     

    I hope this helps with your understanding of why ACR/LR has "difficulties" with PSD.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 1:29 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    twenty_one wrote:

     

    …correct, there's no point in Lightroom…

     

    This is the only part of your post that makes any sense, and it is of course taken out of context.

     

    I make photographs, I don't do mug shots or product shots; I don't consider myself an archivist, a filing clerk or an administrative assistant.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 4:38 AM   in reply to station_two

    Thank you all for your responses. I wasn't trying to stir up a PS vs LR fire-storm, merely trying to understand how others who don't use LR work.

     

    I started my career in design engineering in 1968 and did all of my computer work in IBM 360 assembly language using IBM punch cards and paper tape. I also developed an interest in professional photography around the same time. I have plenty of experience doing things at the "nuts-and-bolts" level, but as a design engineer I was tasked with making things that worked faster and cost less a la Moore's Law.

     

    My first experience with PS was in the mid-1990s, when I changed careers and moved into sales & marketing. The company I worked for was MacWarehouse, the largest seller of Apple aftermarket equipment and the call-center for Apple Direct. We worked very closely with Apple, Adobe, Microsoft and other major software developers who all offered reseller purchase programs. Needless to say I had access to and used just about every single graphics application available. I moved into technical product marketing in 2002 and was tasked with creating brochures, catalogs and other marketing literature using Acrobat, InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop.

     

    My point is that when LR was introduced in 2007 I jumped on it and haven't regretted spending less time using PS since. With all its warts LR is a very time-efficient, fairly well organized, all-in-one DAM. There are many things LR can't do, but the gap has closed significantly between LR1.0 and LR5.2.

     

    I would love to see Adobe create a  "professional" version of LR that included ALL the CC apps integrated under one seamless GUI along with an efficient and useful version of Bridge for organization. Don't say it isn't possible–The first computer system I worked on in 1968 was a six-foot tall 19" rack with a whopping 64KB of core memory and no mass storage (AKA disk drive)!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 9:14 AM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    StrongBeaver wrote:

     

    Photoline is a good photoshop alternative; there is more flexibility in photoline then in PsCC. I don't use Lightroom I do use CameraRAW, sometimes. 

    If Photoline is a good photoshop alternative and is flexible the Photoshop CC.  Why then is Photoline not the Gold Standard of Image Processors. It more likely you use a small subset of Photoshop feature and Photoline feature cover the subset of Photoshop features you use. However I have seen you over in the scripting forum the last time I looked Photoline could not be scripted it only had action support.  Have you given up on scripting Photoshop?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 10:59 AM   in reply to JJMack

    If Photoline is a good photoshop alternative and is flexible the Photoshop CC.  Why then is Photoline not the Gold Standard of Image Processors.

    Microsoft proved over and over that one does not need to build a better widget in order to capture marketshare. If Mac computers were better than PCs, wouldn't they be the gold standard in computing? If...the list can go on.

     

    There are a lot of reasons why Adobe products are the so-called gold standard in the industry. None of those reasons have to do with being the best in-class. Take a look at Illustrator, it's by far not the best illustration application on the market.

     

    PhotoShop, I believe, is the best product Adobe has ever made (well, I cannot get along without Acrobat). For the majority of users, PhotoLine would be far beyond adequate. For people replying on PS plug-ins and automated scripting? Not so much. But as an image processor? More than anyone needs for less cost--upgrades are roughly what a single CC payment is.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 11:19 AM   in reply to MW Design

    I agree. Equating market share with quality is sheer nonsense.

     

    Ferrari and Lamborghini are not worried about market share.  The volume of Toyotas sold is irrelevant to them.

     

     

    MW Design wrote:

     

     

    …PhotoShop, I believe, is the best product Adobe has ever made … For the majority of users, PhotoLine would be far beyond adequate. For people replying on PS plug-ins and automated scripting? Not so much. But as an image processor? More than anyone needs for less cost--upgrades are roughly what a single CC payment is.

     

    Also agree 100%.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 2:22 PM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    I agree. Equating market share with quality is sheer nonsense.

     

    Ferrari and Lamborghini are not worried about market share.  The volume of Toyotas sold is irrelevant to them.

     

    Ferrari and Lamborghini make their money from the rich. Lamborghini makes a $4,000,000.00 USD priced model all are handmade for the customer to the customers specks no two are a like. Lamborghini also has to turn away customers for they can not produce the quantity the rich want.  

     

    Adobe does not make custom version of products to customers specks. Mass producing a products versions is not a manufacturing problem Adobe has now even solved their distribution and packaging process.

     

    While Photoshop is a Mercedes Benz class Image processor Adobe has always made it available to the masses with a Ford price tag.

     

    As Adobe moves its  Mercedes Benz class Photoshop into the Rolls Royce class.  I would not like to seeing Adobe making their Roll availed to the corporate customers with a Ford Price tag while they charge the masses a Cadillac price tag.

     

    For all the masses want is Adobe old stripped down Benz with Adobe's update image processing features. I also don't want to drive a fleet of moped scooters. Like my Benz... New stripped down models are not planned and my Benz is ageing.

     

    Home users do not need web tools with social media available these days like Facebook, Google + and others. Small business don't have the resources, manpower and talent to create their own marketing web site. If they want a web present they will most likely contract that out.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 3:06 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    If Photoline is a good photoshop alternative and is flexible the Photoshop CC.  Why then is Photoline not the Gold Standard of Image Processors. It more likely you use a small subset of Photoshop feature and Photoline feature cover the subset of Photoshop features you use. However I have seen you over in the scripting forum the last time I looked Photoline could not be scripted it only had action support.  Have you given up on scripting Photoshop?

     

    Photoline does not do any video or 3d stuff (well, there is some primitive 3d tool). Also, the brush engine for digital painting is not really comparable: it is more or less on par with the older Photoshop versions, before the updated brush engine. It is, however, compatible with most Photoshop brush libraries.

     

    So in this sense: yes, Photoline covers a subset of Photoshop: image editing. And in this regard it does an extremely good job, with tools that are mostly (95%) on par with Photoshop. Up till 14 months ago I used the full scope of functionality in Photoshop for professional photo work, web work, graphic design and 3d texturing. I have used it since version 3 in my work. In September last year I decided to stop using Adobe Photoshop for my work, as I discovered alternative tools that just work much better and are more efficient.

     

    In terms of workflow Photoline offers a much more streamlined and non-destructive layer stack. I used all of Photoshop's image editing features, and use most of the techniques described by Marguilis for image colour correction and enhancement. And Photoline's approach works BETTER than Photoshop for general and detailed image editing (in my opinion).

     

    For example:

    - no need to switch image mode when you wish to work with the curves in Lab mode. This is part of the curves: a neat dropdown allows me to work in RGB, Lab, HIS or HSV colour mode.

     

    - far better control of layer opacity and effect control due to a -200 up to +200 opacity slider. You can easily invert a layer's blend mode effect this way. Or double its effect

     

    - cloned layers update in realtime. And source layers can be moved to their own page. Multiple views can be setup, and changes in the source layers in one page update in realtime on other pages. Very handy to organize your work. Arguably works better than "smart objects".

     

    - layer masks act like regular layers. The amount of freedom this allows you in your workflow is staggering: group layer masks together, apply adjustment layers, layer effects - the sky is the limit. Completely non-destructive, and you can add as many bitmap and vector layer masks per layer as you want. And these can be cloned as well, and reused anywhere in your layer stack or pages!

     

    - and of course, any layer and layer mask can be individually set to 8/16/32bpc and any image mode.

     

    There is also no need to convert layers to smart object for them to work with non-destructive adjustment layers. Just apply them. Edit the contents in place - why force me to open a smart object in a new window that will not update in real time in the original comp? Just silly.

     

    Anyway, Photoline is Photoshop sans 3d and video. With a much improved layer stack workflow.

     

    Granted, the one thing really missing is scriptability, unfortunately. No scripting in Photoline. I have mentioned this lack of control to the Photoline devs, and hopefully they will address this in the future. At the moment I use ImageMagick for more complex batch image processing jobs instead, but I do hop this will be amended in a newer version of Photoline.

     

    For digital painting work I now use Krita - the brush engine in Krita is insane, and blows Photoshop's brush engine out of the water. As it happens, Krita applies the same layer paradigm as Photoline, so they feel like sister applications.

     

    For 3d painting and texturing work I generally use 3dCoat. Photoshop's 3d is pretty horrendous as it is, so I already moved away from that a long time ago.

     

    For web work Photoline is better than Photoshop, since I can work in pages. Optimization I do with freeware tools such as Color Quantizer. Photoshop's web export is rather bad, so additional tools are required to take care of proper optimization.

     

    Besides, the point I am making is this: Photoshop tries to be everything to everyone nowadays. It has lead to fragmented development, and at the same time it can never hope to be as good as specialized tools. More bugs are introduced due to bloat and legacy code that has to support extraneous features that are good, but not great (3d everyone?). At the same time less time is spent on the core functionality that made Photoshop so great in the past as an image editor. And it is starting to show.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 3:25 PM   in reply to Herbert2001

    Herbert2001 wrote:

     

    the point is: Photoshop tries to be everything to everyone nowadays. It has lead to fragmented development, and at the same time it can never hope to be as good as specialized tools. More bugs are introduced due to bloat and legacy code that has to support extraneous features that are good, but not great (3d everyone?). At the same time less time is spent on the core functionality that made Photoshop so great in the past as an image editor. And it is starting to show.

    Amend

     

    Still ACR continue to make Photoshop a better image editor....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 3:40 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

    Still ACR continue to make Photoshop a better image editor....

     

    Ditto for LR, which uses the exact same ACR core, providing the exact same functions, using a much more user-firendly GUI, at a much lower price-point than PS.

     

    As Mark Twain wrote, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!"

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 3:40 PM   in reply to JJMack

    ACR is a seperate product, that could easily be made available to CS6 users, or even as a individual product. Adobe, for obvious reasons, has no interest whatsoever in doing that.

     

    It's nice to see that ACR is now a filter in Photoshop CC, but honestly: Raw Therapee does a comparable job, and also works non-destructively.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 3:53 PM   in reply to Herbert2001

    I don't want to drive a fleet of application, I like a single application like Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 4:02 PM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    StrongBeaver wrote:

     

    Very well written.  Kudos.

     

    I never heard of Krita, I think I fell in Love and to think I haven't even installed it yet It looks like a solid Photoshop alternative, or a companion to my Ps 5 I haven't gone deep into Photoline yet, the interface could use some work.

    I agree that the default look is rather unattractive, especially with the colourful icons. Fortunately, Photoline's GUI look can be completely transformed now (icons can also be scaled in three steps). Here is my setup:

    Untitled.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 4:09 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    I don't want to drive a fleet of application, I like a single application like Photoshop.

    Well, it depends on the type of work you perform.

     

    If you want to do a small brochure in Photoshop you are out of luck, because it does not support multiple pages, and you will have to drive both Photoshop and InDesign or Illustrator. In Photoline it can be done in the same application.

     

    It all depends on your workflow, I guess. It's good to have alternatives these days!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 8:17 PM   in reply to Herbert2001

    If one is a skilled driver they can do many things with Photoshop you might think impossible.

     

    Most home users just want to enhance their images. If they want a tabletop book they upload their processed images to one or more if the web site the will  print books, posters or anything else they want.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,924 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 8:54 PM   in reply to StrongBeaver

    StrongBeaver wrote:

     

    Most home users just want to enhance their images. If they want a tabletop book they upload their processed images to one or more if the web site the will  print books, posters or anything else they want.

    ?

     

    Blurb does an InDesign plugin that I imagine would make book production fast and easy.

    http://www.blurb.com/video/blurb-book-creator

     

    There are probably others.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2013 10:23 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack wrote:

     

    If one is a skilled driver they can do many things with Photoshop you might think impossible.

     

    Most home users just want to enhance their images. If they want a tabletop book they upload their processed images to one or more if the web site the will  print books, posters or anything else they want.

    In that case they would be better off getting Pixelmator ;-)

     

    Or use Instagram, perhaps?

     

    Anyway, I'd like to prevent a "my app is better than your app" discussion here. I am very pragmatic in this: use whatever works best for you and fits your budget!

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points