×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

Platform-independent, I hope (4, Insightful)

darien (180561) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192846)

So long as it's not written in ActiveX or anything dumb like that, this could be good news for Linux on the desktop. Can't install the latest version of Photoshop? Who cares, just use it online!

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (3, Funny)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192854)

I believe the correct phrase would have been

"Can't bittorrent the latest version of Photoshop......"

 

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18192862)

What technology do you expect it to be written in then? I see ActiveX, Flash as being the only *real* options for pulling this off. Maybe a Java Applet.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (3, Interesting)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193474)

What technology do you expect it to be written in then? I see ActiveX, Flash as being the only *real* options for pulling this off. Maybe a Java Applet.

ActiveX and Flash are far from the same thing. The main problems with ActiveX is its windows only and its insecure. You also forget to mention java.

As far as being windows only, Flash and Java have the problem of requiring closed source bytecode interpreters, but run on other platforms. They are both relatively secure as well. Both have interpreters available for linux so you will be able to run this on linux.

I really hope this gets implemented as a J2EE delivered webapp with a flash frontend. Flash has the potential to be a platform of choice for rich web apps, and I think whatever R&D comes out of delivering photoshop as a flash app will translate into newer flash developer tools. I see this as the Flash equivilant of putting a man on the moon in terms of positive side effects.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Insightful)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193620)

Sun Java is in the process of going GPL, and there's also Apache Harmony, GNU Classpath, and GCJ. I wouldn't put it past Adobe to do a pure Java Photoshop. I've never known Flash to be a platform for intense serious work myself, though Adobe may know something I dont, given they own the thing

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Interesting)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194034)

I've never known Flash to be a platform for intense serious work

I was going to say you're bang on and that Java might be a good vector ... but then you reminded me

(Adobe) own the thing

and I suddenly saw a whoooooooole marketing vector for Adobe to leverage. I wouldn't at ALL be surprised to see a Flash front end for this. If they can put out a showcase app like PS in Flash, it makes one hell of a bragging right and would literally move flash into the "serious" class of programming languages. On that note ... I don't think that it's going to be a self contained app of that sort.

Personally, I think this will be thin front end with all the real work happening on the server side. PS is a heavy app, I can't imaging sitting through a 20M download to get a "web" version launched.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194240)

Hmm. A bitmap graphics editing application built with a vector rendering engine. I wonder if anybody posting here has actually *used* any of these products, let alone developed an application like this.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194696)

Keep in mind Adobe develops Flash. I've heard they're working on a .NET like stack with Flash, JavaScript, and a few other things. Another post mentioned it somewhere in this topic. They could have the Death Star* of web application stacks, and this is just Alderaan(sp?).

*Let's hope they better protect the exhaust port

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (5, Insightful)

dankenstein355 (995487) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192876)

Rather use GIMP to be honest. Anyway, performance will be way too slow for any image of a reasonable size over the web. Why bother? Or am I missing something here?

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193014)

Or am I missing something here?

Yes. GIMP is crap.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1, Troll)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193036)

And Photoshop-as-a-web-app won't be crap? I don't particularly care for The GIMP either, but it's a darn sight better than a web implementation of an image editing app.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (5, Insightful)

miyako (632510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193148)

I'm guessing that while performance might suck for large images, anyone doing real graphic design and photography will have a real version of Photoshop. This is probably intended for people who want to be able to quickly design some small graphics for use on their website.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193232)

>This is probably intended for people who want to be able to quickly design some small graphics for use on their website.

Photoshop Elements!

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193490)

Photoshop Elements!

I tried, but I can't find the periodic table pulldown. Hell, I can't even specify "Cobalt Blue" in the colour picker...

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193262)

Actually I think this could be very handy for people who get sent a .psd file by some "designer" who doesn't even think to send you a jpg or png that you can actually VIEW. So you open the web app, convert the file to something you can actually view and you are done. That's assuming they make it useful enough to export to other file formats.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193656)

Im pretty sure GIMP on *nix, Preview on OSx as the sister post mentioned, and the freeware Photoshop Album on Windows can handle PSD

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194874)

I do use GIMP a lot actually and I got a PSD the other day where it showed up in GIMP terribly and was all the wrong colors. I had to install Photoshop (which said something about a non-standard color something, and I accepted it) and it looked fine in Photoshop. All that to create a PNG! But just to be clear, I did try GIMP first.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1)

dosquatch (924618) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194404)

Irfanview. It slices, it dices, it opens every image format I've ever had to throw at it.

Question about Gimp bashing... (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194944)

Every time gimp is mentioned, some graphics guy stops by to remind us that it can't do "real" work. Okay, probably they're right and I'm not a real graphics guy, but I wonder: seriously, how many people *need the 7 or 8 things that photoshop does well that are not (yet) possible or very good in the Gimp. 2%?

Sometimes the GIMP bashing reminds me of when billgates was ragging on the OLPC for not having a hard drive and a big heavy expensive battery.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193184)

I imagine, as in strongly suspect that your scratch file and image will be stored locally, with the tools to manipulate that image being hosted online.

Likely there will be local instances of the tools spawned as needed, then destroyed when you're done with them.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (1)

soliptic (665417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193898)

performance will be way too slow for any image of a reasonable size over the web

You can say that again.

I've been working on some CD artwork for the last couple of weeks. My documents arent particularly large or complex - we're only talking roughly 1500 pixels square, 30 or 40 layers - I don't think any of my saved PSDs topped 120MB. The software was crawling like an absolute dog. Frankly it's a bit of a joke - I've got 2.4Ghz / 1GB RAM, and I can record 8 channels of 24bit/96khz audio whilst playing back another 30 channels of audio and a stack of VST instruments and DSP effects, no problem at all. But I open one lousy hundred meg psd and suddenly it takes 2 minutes to switch application? What gives with that? The audio stuff should be way more demanding than a small photoshop doc. Doing this over the web is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard, if it takes my computer 20-30 seconds to fully refresh my view when I drag a layer as it is, imagine how long it would take by the time it's sending everything round the world and back again.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18194264)

You should probably get more RAM. That 120MB file will take up much more than 120MB of RAM once its open and if you are running Windows thats probably 400ishMB of RAM devoted to just the OS. If you were only using photoshop and didn't have a web browser open or playing music at the same time that leaves 624 for that file. Photoshop was probably very heavily using swap space. I have 2GB of RAM and I know a file of that size will fill up my RAM within a few minutes of working on it. All those undo iterations get stored somewhere, either swap file or memory.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (2, Insightful)

clodney (778910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194480)

1500 pixels square? As in an image of 1500 x 1500 pixels?

Lets do the math

1500 x 1500 pixels = 2.25 million pixels
4 bytes per pixel = 9MB per layer

30 layers = 270MB of image data.

That doesn't count memory consumed by the undo system, which can quickly get very large.

Plus the amount consumed by Photoshop itself.

Plus the fact that rather than composite 30 layers on the fly whenever a window is invalidated, there is undoubtedly some amount of paint caching going on, probably the equivalent of several more layers worth of data.

The 120MB that the file consumes when stored in some compressed format on disk is just the tip of the iceberg here.

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (3, Interesting)

tijmentiming (813664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193052)

[shameless]
Hey I created some sort of javascript drawing tool. You can edit images other people created. And draw new ones:
Here I blog about it: http://the-timing.nl/blog/2006/10/wiki-art-has-a-n ew-editor [the-timing.nl]
This is the actual application: http://wiki-art.fokdat.nl/ [fokdat.nl]

And it works in Opera, Firefox, IE and Safari!
[/shameless]

Re:Platform-independent, I hope (3, Informative)

Arleo (16712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194030)

Photo editing services on the web already exist for several years. Years ago I played with a photo filter tool on the Nikon website. You could apply all sorts of funny filters on your foto's, like cartoon filters and so on.

Now there are several (free) services available, like myImager [myimager.com], Phixr [phixr.com] and Pixenate [pixenate.com]. Image processing is done at the webserver. A preview of the image processing result is shown on the web page and the final image can be downloaded at full resolution. So no rocket science at all. Just some clever web programming. I think there is space for a big player (Adobe, did I hear the G-word?) to create a more advanced web based image processing service. I think it could be very popular and a real concurrent for light weight photo editing tools.

A short review of some of these tools can be found at the "Ditigal Inspiration" weblog [blogspot.com].

GIMP online 7 years ago (4, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192872)

This is nothing new. There was an online version of GIMP [slashdot.org] available 7 years ago. It wasn't a commercial success, but with today's hardware and bandwidth prices, and with a modern AJAX interface, would it stand a chance now? Adobe obviously seem to think so.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (2, Insightful)

grapes911 (646574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192898)

It might not be a new idea, but you can't possibly compare the resources of Adobe with the resources of GIMP.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (5, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192920)

Whenever people Photoshop comes up at Slashdot, people mention Gimp. But Gimp is not a substitute for Photoshop as far as professional users are concerned. Gimp is like so many OSS projects, a rat's nest of messed up code, no real road map, and half-assed implementations "features".

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193018)

Besides, Photoshop is already "online" for most people (P2P). Anyhow. I don't mind paying 150$ for the upgrade (that's how much CS2 cost me) for something I use so much (I'm very much into photography). GIMP may be free, but it's not quite Photoshop (I would rather take any old version of Photoshop or even Paint Shop Pro over it). Worst GUI *EVER* of any open source app I've ever used or seen -- all of it (don't know if it's because of GTK or something, but it's fugly, feels clunky, and just sucks badly). And it's lacking a lot of the basic features which we're taking for granted like Camera RAW.

I'm sick of people saying "GIMP!" as their answer to Photoshop all the time. That's like saying a wheelbarrow is a perfectly good replacement for a truck. It might work for some people, but not for the vast majority of its users.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193154)

.. and from the comments looks like most of the gimp-bashers haven't tried the recent versions of it.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (1)

Sanguis Mortuum (581999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194866)

Which seems to be the reply when anyone says anything negative about any open source application...ever...

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193118)

Agreed,
The GIMP is just that, a gimp, a crippled, stinking, half assed, stupid dwarf, better left gagged and bound in the back of Zed's boutique.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0, Flamebait)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193150)

I take it you use a fully paid, licensed version of Photoshop then. Or are you one of these people who likes to steal software, and then claim that the truly Free competition is not up to scratch ?

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193292)

read the posting... He wrote he pays 150$ for the upgrade version...

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193170)

Whenever GIMP comes up on slashdot some up-their-own-arse "professional" (who
likes to italicise "professional") comes on and bangs on about how bad it is.
Admit it -- you just want an excuse to buy a high end Mac, the colour goes with
your stash of cocaine.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18194330)

I must be snorting bumps off my rectum again, but who in the ad/marketing industry (Photoshop's core consumers) uses GIMP? No one. I imagine people may use it (professionally) for non-professional grade work (publishing their own works, DIY graphic applications, instances where budgets are too tight to hire a designer). Been in an agency for 15 years and never heard of GIMP. My assumption is that most in my position haven't heard of it either. But based on everyone's love of it, I'm sure its not that bad.

How Photoshop Online functions will determine its success. (duh) If it functions just like the current local version (but with an online subscription key) then it will do well. If its designed to run off Adobe's server and the user needs a constant on internet connection, then it will take a relatively long time for adoption. It would create a major sea change in web access if Adobe moves all their products to an online server scenario.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (2, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193174)

Gonna have to call bullshit on this one. The one thing that GIMP is missing is a CMYK implementation (which will be in 2.3, they say). Then, it will be ready for professional printing.

Granted, you will probably still need Photoshop to do glossy full color magazines, but the vast majority of professional printing is pamphlets, newspapers, and junk mail and other low quality bulk print jobs, for which the GIMP is just fine. In the future, Photoshop will have to target an ever-decreasing niche.

Take care

-mat

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193454)

Even if you make the assumption that seems to continually sink the FOSS crowd, that the proprietary app you are chasing will stand still while you catch up, I still think you are wrong.

I looked at GIMP, again, somewhere around the unstable 2.3 release. It still does not have enough color management to be taken seriously by graphic artists. Layers aren't as well implemented as any Adobe product, they remain difficult to line up and as far as I could tell don't support non destructive effects. It is also limited to 8 bits. That alone will keep it out of any serious studio.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193494)

Someone is a little out-of-touch with what photoshop is typically used for.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (4, Informative)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194020)

There's a lot more than a "CMYK implementation" needed to replace Photoshop. You need suppport for ICC color correction, a lossless "base" color space (e.g. L*a*b), high-bit-depth support, monitor/scanner/device calibration support, 6+ color separation support, PANTONE color library support, and a hundred other professional-level features.

GIMP is good for making JPEGs that target the web, where color fidelity is (lamentably) disregarded. And of course personal photo editing. GIMP's true competition at this point is Photoshop Elements, Paint.NET, Paint Shop Pro, and other "prosumer" tools.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (1)

Muramasa (534108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193342)

Um, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of anyone who uses Photoshop in professional capacity switching to an online version anyway. People on Slashdot are all using pirated versions of Photoshop and aren't using any of its professional features, they could just as easily use The Gimp.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (who cares?) (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193744)

Sure, for a large segment of professional users, Gimp isn't there yet. On the other hand, there exists a decent size subset of professionals for which Gimp works perfectly well. Claiming Gimp is not used by and unuseable by professionals is completely false. In fact, many professional users of Photoshop pass on Gimp simply because documentation and quality of tutorials on Gimp suck so badly; not because Gimp is incapable. In other words, Gimp is perfectly useable by many professionals and is frequently used by professionals. In my opinion, the only reason it is not used by more is because the lack of quality documentation, tutorials, and workshops which are geared toward the professional. Photoshop has all three; documentation, tutorials, and workshops.

I'm assuming professional photographers still qualify as "professionals"?

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (2, Insightful)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192976)

You are implying that Gimp is Photoshop, or at least that Gimp is equal to Photoshop. It is not. This _is_ a big deal.

[Trying to avoid Gimp-zealot flame: There are things that Gimp does better than Photoshop (the histogram comes to mind) and Gimp certainly is the best freeware graphics program out there, but Gimp is in general not as good as Photoshop when it comes to functions and usability]

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (1)

Constantine Evans (969815) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193048)

This isn't really Photoshop either. According to the article, it will "be even simpler than Photoshop Elements", and "is likely to be offered via a partner", which appears to imply that it will be tied to some service, as Adobe has done with Photobucket in the past.

The article used as the source for the linked article, which is much more informative, makes it rather clear that the product is meant to compete with programs like Picasa.

Re:GIMP online 7 years ago (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194724)

Gimp certainly is the best freeware graphics program out there.

No it's not - it's the best zero cost graphics program, but it's not "freeware." It's "Free Software," which is very different.

Next business opp. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192880)

Once it is offered, someone from the Third World would offer services to touch up the photos, clearing the background and adjust the color balance etc on the web using the free adobe photoshop. Already I have seen ads from people willing solve CAPTCHAs for less than a dollar an hour. Homework service for school children is also popping up. If only someone would invent a lawnmower that could be driven remotely via the net ...

Re:Next business opp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18194364)

Anyone from the 3rd World already has a pirated Photoshop CS2...

Re:Next business opp. (2, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194700)

If only someone would invent a lawnmower that could be driven remotely via the net ...

Disguise it as a game, put it on the web in a flashvideo, call it LAWNMOWER EXXXTREME or something with lots of X'es. Kids love X'es. Market it on popular websites kids these days visit.

Rules of the game:

  • you're not allowed to leave the lawn, or you insta-lose
  • if you finish under 10 minutes you get the bonus level "Backyard Wilderness Lawnmowing Extravaganza"
  • if you manage to mow down the neighbours cat who keeps pooping on the doorstep you get bonuspoints

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!!

I can't wait (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192894)

This means that Microsoft will follow by putting their much loved 'MS Paint' online.

Re:I can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193246)

Don't knock MS Paint. There are times when it's the right tool for a job. It's limitations force experimentation, and it's definitely not bloatware.

MS Paint online (3, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193320)

This means that Microsoft will follow by putting their much loved 'MS Paint' online.
"Funny", huh? It's already been done [canvaspaint.org], albeit not by MS themselves.

Re:I can't wait (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193442)

> This means that Microsoft will follow by putting their much loved 'MS Paint' online.

C'mon out of the cave, dude...

It's actually Adobe's answer to this: http://www.canvaspaint.org/ [canvaspaint.org]

MS Paint is already being used online by millions of people in the Third World countries!

Anyone remember Photo Deluxe? (4, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192912)

Didn't take reading the article to figure out that any version of Photoshop that was both online and ad-supported was more likely to be a very cut-down service and greatly different/simplified from the boxed versions.

I used to use an app from Adobe called "Photo Deluxe". It was based on the Photoshop engine, but with the interface totally changed and cut down (more so than Elements). I wouldn't have considered that Photoshop, and I suspect that this online service will be even more simplified. Calling it Photoshop is likely just a branding exercise.

I don't get it... (4, Interesting)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192956)

Seems like it will be an interesting experiment in software as a service, but media editing seems to be a bad fit for the "software as an online service" model due to the high bandwidth & processing demands. The math has to be done either on the user's end (which would be bad for folks with low spec systems, who i see as the primary target for this business model) or on Adobe's systems (which will cost them money, decreasing their bottom line). Anyone with experience in the field have any compelling reasons why one would chose to use adobe's online photoshop rather than just using picasa [google.com] or gimp [gimp.org]?

Re:I don't get it... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193374)

The math has to be done either on the user's end (which would be bad for folks with low spec systems, who i see as the primary target for this business model) or on Adobe's systems (which will cost them money, decreasing their bottom line).

Not really, processing power is cheap. Bandwidth is alot cheaper than it used to be now as well.

I have used photoshop a bit so I can offer some advice as to why people would use it too, the next version of photoshop may not run unless you have a legal copy and as many people have already said, there are alot of things photoshop does that Graphic Designers need and isnt offered by the likes of Gimp (cant speak for picassa as I thought it was just a photo sharing service). If a Graphic Designer was prevented from taking a work copy of Photoshop home (currently the norm) and installing it on their home PC this web based product would get used more than you think.

It would be very easy to prevent users from taking work copies of software home too. You simply use some sort of activation service like Microsofts Genuine Advantage. Like it or not this is going to become the norm on most high end business software over the few years. It fits in well with the software as a service pricing model that more and more companies are implementing.

You pay your money and are given free updates and support for a specified period, after that the software will disable (but even if it doesn't most businesses would not like running software they depend on with no support options if it goes wrong). I understand this will be unpopular here as alot of people will be running at least a little bit of pirated software. I once added up all the pirated software I used to enable me to work from home and it came to about double the value of the PC it runs on.

This sort of web service will enable us to continue to use the software we are used to in the office without having to buy an additional copy for home use (when the licensed version of software prevents this).

Re:I don't get it... (1)

halo1982 (679554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193694)

It would be very easy to prevent users from taking work copies of software home too. You simply use some sort of activation service like Microsofts Genuine Advantage. Like it or not this is going to become the norm on most high end business software over the few years. It fits in well with the software as a service pricing model that more and more companies are implementing.

Yeah...Adobe has been doing activation since CS1...people will find their way around it when CS3 comes out within a matter of days, just like always.

But I'm looking forward to dropping $1200 on CS3...cause I'm an adult now and I have to start paying for software. Sigh. Oh well, I always say "if I really like an app I'll buy it" and now it's time to put half a paycheck where my mouth is :-/

Re:I don't get it... (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193874)

I agree that it would be a good idea in the situation that you're proposing, where it's a pay service and full version software, then Adobe would effectivley be providing a centralized "floating licence" server to allow those who purchase a license to use the full version software from anywhere they can connect to their server. However, Adobe is planning on a version of the software even more stripped down than Photoshop Elements and releasing it as an ad-supported free service. This is why i used the comparison to picasa and gimp, They're not as powerful as Photoshop, but they're free and get the job done. (picasa has simple to use image editing software in addition to their hosting service. My father likes using it because the UI is very intuitive and it doesn't require much technical understanding of either photography or image editing.)

Where is the CPU? (5, Insightful)

bjb (3050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192990)

OK, so I upload my 20MB PSD file and run a gaussian blur on it. Who's CPU is doing that? Unless it is ActiveX (Win32 only) or a Java plug-in (most likely not super efficient on raw CPU features), is it going to be hosted on their servers? Javascript won't handle it very well, I'd have to think.

Probably not going to be a huge deal, but those real-time previews of CPU intensive filters are nice on the machine local installation; only hope those make it to the online as well.

Re:Where is the CPU? (1)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193050)

Actually, Java is extremely efficient at low level functions like those required to apply filters to images.

Re:Where is the CPU? (1)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193076)

As with Ajax, your local machine will likely do the work by one method or another (Java? ActiveX plugins?). "Online" in just a web delivery mechanism for their software, with a possible remote server backend for storage and configuration.

Re:Where is the CPU? (5, Insightful)

lpontiac (173839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193128)

This is Adobe. They'll write it in Flash. Expect an application that'll run locally in the Flash runtime (which will happily have optimised image composition routines to do stuff like a Gaussian blur), but with the web used to deliver the application inside a browser, and possibly with online storage and/or public sharing of your work tied in.

Re:Where is the CPU? (1)

filet0fish (1002137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193238)

I'd put my money on it being written and delivered using Apollo. That's the new platform they are developing that merges Flash and HTML and runs in both the browser and on the desktop. They explain it better than I can on the adobe labs site (labs.adobe.com I think). I think that's on track for launching in about 6 months, and Photoshop would make a great killer app to push the platform to lots of computers.

Re:Where is the CPU? (4, Funny)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194642)

Oh yes that's logical. They'll entirely rewrite one of the most complex C/C++ apps ever written - in Actionscript.

Re:Where is the CPU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18194702)

It will probably be written in Adobe Flex (which essentially is flash). I used Adobe Flex on my last two projects and it is awesome for RIA's. Its fast, small (a large app was only 500k), and has a lot of similarities to .NET. This would be my guess as to what Adobe plans to use as a platform.

As for processing power, Flex is quite fast and can handle large data sets. It also communicates very good with Web Services. Adobe can go either way on which side of the application they want to handle the image processing. My vote would be client-side.

Flex - http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/ [adobe.com]

-Ryan C

Re:Where is the CPU? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193422)

OK, so I upload my 20MB PSD file and run a gaussian blur on it. Who's CPU is doing that? Unless it is ActiveX (Win32 only) or a Java plug-in (most likely not super efficient on raw CPU features), is it going to be hosted on their servers? Javascript won't handle it very well, I'd have to think.

Probably not going to be a huge deal, but those real-time previews of CPU intensive filters are nice on the machine local installation; only hope those make it to the online as well.

I don't remember anyone said it should necessarily run from your *browser*. That said, Flash can do blur and lots of blending modes at native C speeds, as it has those implemented at its core.. If you run it from a tiny (1MB) exe shell, it will also access your local files directly and being able to save back there... Hm, tiny local shell for web apps, does that sound familiar?

Oh but yes! It's Adobe's very-soon-to-be-released Apollo platform! Combining PDF, JS/CSS/HTML and Flash into a runtime, much like a little .NET framework...

And suddenly the offer starts looking dead serious and possible.

Re:Where is the CPU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18194864)

Hey, your sig is showing its age...

Feh, just reduce the price (1)

nurhussein (864532) | more than 7 years ago | (#18192998)

I'd buy it. I use OS X, and Photoshop would make a nice addition.

For OS X is good, for Linux even better. But either way, just reduce the price and I'm sure they'd get more users.

Re:Feh, just reduce the price (1)

marsonist (629054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193058)

Uhm... Photoshop is a native OSX app. The online version's addition to the Mac world is no more or less substantial than it's addition to the Windows world. I'll reserve judgement on how good this is for Linux users until I see it. Adobe has made little effort to court Linux users in the past and I seriously doubt they will go out of their way this time round.

Re:Feh, just reduce the price (1)

BohKnower (586304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193362)

Actually, Linux only gained a nice flash player after Adobe purchased Macromedia. Linux Flash Player 9 can do everything that the windows player do with the same results, this is because Adobe does care about Linux. I red on Slashdot one time that Adobe was willing to create a Photoshop version for Linux, using winelibs, which I think is crap, but is a good move for us.

Re:Feh, just reduce the price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193426)

Adobe has made little effort to court Linux users in the past and I seriously doubt they will go out of their way this time round.

I wouldn't either. In a world where people sure extreme terms such as "microsoft tax", do I really want to take a gamble on putting out an app that is several hundred dollars where you have a bunch of know-nothings that claim that GIMP is just as good?

It's not a serious market. I wouldn't gamble on it's potential.

Re:Feh, just reduce the price (1)

maggard (5579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193722)

Feh, just reduce the price

Adobe did - it's called "Photoshop Elements". The features most mere mortals (as opposed to Photoshop Gods) use at a price appropriate to our budgets.

That you've not heard of it leads me to assume you probably don't have much need for sophisticated image editing and are as unlikely to buy a $75-$100 product as you are a $300-$500 one.

In the browser? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193068)

Is this going to be a standalone application or is it going to compete with the hundreds of other online image editing applications?

I say hundreds and I do not lie. There are hundreds of online java and javascript image editors. Some of them are quite fancy. I have usde one or two of them in the past when visiting family locations where they have no suitable software available.

We do not need another online editor. I would be interested in downloading a small 50mb file to do basic functions though. Adverts or no adverts, I wouldn't care.

Ownership of work? (1)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193072)

I somehow don't doubt that Adobe may try something sneaky along the lines of claiming ownership of any works created using Photoshop online.

Re:Ownership of work? (1)

Handlarn (911194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193244)

That wouldn't work for any type of software since it would render the software completely useless. Something that evil could hardly be hidden in the EULA either without the whole world knowing it within a couple of days, and by then no one would use the service anymore. It would be suicide for their business plan.

I'm pretty certain the reason they're doing this is because the pirating of Photoshop is huge with non-business users, and they'd rather release a stripped version with ads to prevent a few from using pirated versions and at the same time get some revenues through ads.

Surely a bad idea? (1)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193098)

I'm no image editing bod but surely this is a crap idea? Aren't most 'serious' photoshop images enormous and any stuff done to them requires big resources? This is not an ideal combination for a web app.

There's the casual use I suppose but if you're not doing something uber-serious then you don't need photoshop - the gimp or similar will do just fine.

Am I missing something?

Re:Surely a bad idea? (3, Informative)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193198)

Photoshop has a solid identity in the market, even among casual photographers. Walk into a camera shop and mention GIMP to some random person looking at the point and shoots and you'll probably get punched in the eye. That same person almost certainly recognizes what Photoshop is and does.

I'm a professional photographer but I am far less Photoshop oriented than most of my peers. But it is an indespensible tool. I've tried dozens of other apps, online and off, and even for my relatively simple needs Photoshop has no replacement. Not even other less expensive Adobe products like Elements or Lightroom. From the way the article reads this online version won't actually have the same features as a local version of Photoshop. My guess would be that it would be better named after Elements or Lightroom but neither of those have the kind of ubiquitous name recognition that Photoshop does.

How convenient! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193276)

The embedded ad images will provide the perfect raw material to deface when trying to come up with clever parody images to post on b3ta, Fark, Something Awful, and the like.

really? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193286)

I somehow doubt they will be able to pack the full goodness of photoshop into an online site. One of the best ones I have seen so far is lunapic.com [lunapic.com]. It's got all the basic edits, lots of effects, and it's pretty fast too.

Linux port would be easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18193336)

And it would also have the advantage of being able to be sold!

1) Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Java Java Java Ajax Ajax Ajax
2) ????
3) Profit!

Yea, right.

File Size? (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193388)

Sounds great for casual edits and what not, but serious users of Photoshop usually work with huge files, like 10, 20, 50, hell 100's of megabytes. Bandwidth, lag, connection reliability, etc. will be a serious issue for anyone doing serious Photoshop work.

Dangerous trend. (1)

jacekm (895699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193412)

I really hope, they will fail for whatever reason. I see the same danger here as with DRM. Photoshop might have a GIMP ersatz that might be sufficient for many ocassional users, but there are many software packages that are either commercial only or their free counterparts are not that good. The online distribution is just a first step to make it pay-per-use in the end. JAM

What do you use Photoshop for? (2, Interesting)

woadlined (1054792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193592)

Photoshop is great photo-editing software - the best.

For Web graphics, Fireworks is much better - more functional, more flexible, and with a much lighter footprint.

Fireworks is like a mix between Illustrator and Photoshop. You can use vector drawing tools and you can use bitmap drawing tools. You can do so without having to load behemoth programs that hog resources greedily.

If you're at all interested in efficiency, if you want to get the job done quickly, if flexibility sounds good to you...Fireworks ends up being a great option for web graphics.

Once again, for a print job, or for high resolution photo-editing, Illustrator and Photoshop are the best. They are capable of web graphics, however clumsily, but why not use the right tool?

A stripped-down, ad-strewn Photoshop? Why? For what reason? For the tasks that I'd want Photoshop, I want it to be fully powered. If there are lesser tasks, there are far and away more efficient tools.

If they follow this by pulling the plug on Fireworks, which I wouldn't put past them, then they will be doing themselves and us a great disservice.

Adobe Photoshop "Online Edition" (1)

maggard (5579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193622)

Cluephone ringing!

Of course online isn't the appropriate place to edit "professional" material, ie giant files, projects requiring esoteric plug-ins, local fonts, a multitude of resources embedded in the image, etc. The "professionals" will do what they always do: Purchase the right tools and get on with it.

However for non-"professionals" this is an interesting development. There are already other online photo-editing sites out there, using Java applications or clever Web 2.0 AJAX-ey stuff (and probably some older technology upload-and-refresh ones) but Adobe does have the brand name everyone knows and they do have a good concentration of code, coders, UI folks, etc. to pull it off with.

As others have pointed out it'll probably be in Adobe's Flash product, which already has a lot of basic image manipulation built into it. If it will be entirely client-based or if there will be backend processing will be interesting to find out.

From a business perspective how much Adobe will tie this to other services like photo storing & sharing, buy-a-tea-towel-with-the-picture-on-it, etc. is the big question. Will Adobe just have 3rd party banner advertising or will they build in hooks for 3rd party services, the tea-towel sellers & such? Will those services require licensing deals with Adobe or will Photoshop Online be a 'web service' open to other websites to integrate as part of their own offerings a la Google Maps.

I'm looking forward to Photoshop Online, if only as another tool in the progress towards increasingly sophisticated online client applications. They don't seem ready to entirely supplant desktop applications yet, but for occasional-use situations they're already viable, and this is just one more category soon to have multiple 'real' options.

This could be a handy tool (2, Interesting)

temcat (873475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18193972)

for estimating the market for alternative platforms like Linux. They look how many people use their online app from under Linux, and then decide if this is going to justify the investment associated with porting.

Yay - no more online updating (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194572)

I use Photoshop Elements, the cheapo version of Photoshop you get when you buy some scanners or cameras (a scanner in my case). The first couple of times I tried to use it I would get the splash screen, and then it would go out to the Adobe site to look for "updates," suffer bandwidth latency issues, and crap out. A little Googling found a site that tells you how to disable that "feature," which I did immediately.

The only good thing I can think of with regard to an online Photoshop site is that the software will always be up to date, unless Adobe's products can't access their own update site from in house. The fact that Adobe products need their own update manager, which always seems to run poorly and slowly in my experience, worries me with regard to their software.

Upstream Bandwidth ?? (1)

altek (119814) | more than 7 years ago | (#18194760)

Not sure what the percentages are, but I'd say there's a very large percentage of people out there (especially with cable ISPs) who have very throttled upstream bandwidth. I know, because I'm one of them. The average digital camera today puts out an image that is like 5MB, and that's jpg compressed!

Or are the actual controls just being downloaded to my computer, and running locally? That would seem to make more sense.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...