Adobe Puts Free Photoshop Online

Amit Agarwal writes "Adobe today launched a basic version of Adobe Photoshop available for free online. Photoshop Express will be completely Web-based so consumers can use it with any type of computer, operating system and browser. According to Yahoo! News, Adobe says providing Photoshop Express for free is part marketing and part a strategy to create up-sell opportunities. It hopes some customers will move from it to boxed software like its $99 Photoshop Elements or to a subscription-based version of Express that's in the works."

This is ... complicated

[Tribbin]

This is:

a. one less reason to stick with Windows
b. one less reason to switch to linux

Fucking Flash.

[SanityInAnarchy]

From TFS:

will be completely Web-based so consumers can use it with any type of computer, operating system and browser.

Except, of course, operating systems or browsers which don't have flash... [photoshop.com]

Can we invent a new term for sites like these? "Web-based" is misleading -- it makes you think of open standards and compatibility. I propose "Flash-based."

Why not just use The Gimp?

[Snipor]

The Gimp is free and works great. I haven't used Photoshop in years.

? Questions.??

[Zymergy]

Why is it ONLY Flash 9 based?

Why not download something locally that checks in for updates and new features only but runs locally? (Sometimes I require the ability to edit images in the field while only having a remote EDGE Cell Connection.)

Why is it so DOG Slow?

How do you turn on the decades-old proven standard Photoshop tool bars?

Why does it require my images to be uploaded to be edited? (I do not want any of my copyrighted media to cross the line of possession demarcation.)

Does Adobe use retain share or gain any legal use of my uploaded images?

Am I the only one noticing this "service" appears to be only intended for amateurs in image manipulation?

How is this ANY better than the FREE GIMP?? http://www.gimp.org/ [gimp.org]

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[calebt3]

Please, give a better argument than "OSS rulz!". There are perfectly good non-FOSS software out there that won't require you to give up your copyrights (CS3 is probably the best, but it's not the only one) And in this case, you only use your copyright if you make it available on their public galleries. If you are going to promote FOSS, please argue on its more unique merits (I understand that OOo is better for writing books than MS Office)

Re:Why not just use The Gimp?

[serviscope_minor]

I can't use GIMP because I NEED CMYK (seriously, how many people on /. need CMYK?) and I'm a professional photo editor (according to GIMP related threads, /. is positively infested with photographic professionals). And because I've spent so long pirating it that I am incapable of learning another UI. Oh, and apparently the name prevents me from using it as well.

Yeah, I know, mod me troll, but this is how about half of the posts on the GIMP related threads read. Most people aren't like that. In fact, I don't know anyone who is. For them and me, the GIMP is great, and free.

Re:This is ... complicated

[wizardforce]

a makes sense, b just begs the question wtf?

will be completely Web-based so consumers can use it with any type of computer, operating system and browser.

what does this have to do with not using linux? it was my understanding that one of the major reasons [read excuses] people used for not moving away from windows to linux was that their apps from windows would only work in windows, removing that obstacle for certain adobe software would seem to make it one less reason *not* to use linux [damn double negatives]

Re:You will lose your copyright on your pictures..

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Of course, if you need free stuff, there is always The Pirate Bay.

That statement and the one in your comment's title seem incongruous somehow...

Re:Why not just use The Gimp?

[Em Adespoton]

I guess this is a good place to point out that GIMP now supports CMYK. My only issue with GIMP nowadays is that the keybinding-follows-frontmost-window/focus feature really doesn't work well and clashes horrendiously with the OS X interface.

Modern Photoshop isn't a picnic either, but I don't spend time actively fighting against the UI to try to get things done like I do with GIMP. I don't care one bit about learning a different workflow, but it shouldn't involve workarounds to the UI itself.

Re:Already Free

[blhack]

it is not professional grade (I may be simplifying it), not something you can turn in to a professional printing company, but for the hobbyist and/or FOSS fan, it's enough.

This would be news to every printing company I've ever worked with.

Re:Already Free

[g00nsquad]

This has been repeated ad nauseum, every time a GIMP or Photoshop article has found its way to slashdot.

• 16 bit images. Extremely important for preserving dynamic range in an image when adjusting contrast and colour saturation.
• Adjustment Layers. Very, very useful for non-destructive contrast and colour adjustments.

There are probably more but they are the most outstanding in my mind. In short, GIMP is useful for most web and electronic imagery, but less than adequate for print - especially saleable print. As far as other OSS products are concerned - I think Krita supports 16 bit images but last time I tried it, it was still a little flakey. Cinepaint supports 16 bit images and HDR, but have you ever tried to use it? Paint.net is pretty awesome but a little unstable as well, and though it's free I am not too sure about its code's status. I quite like Inkscape though.

Re:Already Free

[Anonymous Coward]

What print professionals do you work with? I would like to avoid them.

Re:Already Free

[mixmatch]

I was just checking out GIMP. Maybe I'm just retarded, but I can't seem to find the ability to create layer filters that change based on the content of the layer. I also can't find the slice or save for web tool. Where are the file optimization settings? How do you export as a PDF? Where is the ability to record actions and execute them on folders/files? How do I go to full screen with the ability to drag the canvas anywhere on screen that I want? Where is the ability to dock my tool windows? You actually send RGB files to print? Honestly, GIMP is a great program, but if you really can't see what Photoshop has to offer from a productivity standpoint I wouldn't want you in my design shop.

Re:Already Free

[2nd Post!]

If you don't tell us the font, family, weight, etc, how are we supposed to judge which is more correctly rendered?

Re:Already Free

[InlawBiker]

I think most people dislike the Gimp interface because it's just so different from Photoshop's. Photoshop has been top dog for a very VERY long time and people are used to how it works. Any graphic design software will instantly be compared to Photoshop, Gimp or other.

FWIW I used to use Photoshop on a daily basis, but now I have simple imaging needs, and Gimp is just fine. Sure, it's a pain to learn a new interface, but eventually I figured it out. A lot of professional digital artists I've worked with, if you told them they had to use Gimp instead of PS they would quit.

A great many extremely talented artists have spent their whole career with Photoshop. I can think of no other software with such an insurmountable market share.

Re:Already Free

[g00nsquad]

This doesn't matter to a hobbyist crowd with a vested interest in promoting some manufactured cause in the name of its pet software.

CRAPOLA

[bill_mcgonigle]

Can we invent a new term for sites like these? "Web-based" is misleading -- it makes you think of open standards and compatibility. I propose "Flash-based.

Too specific. There's all kinds of junk like this, say sites that only work in IE, sites that require Silver-Light, etc. Sites that would be more usable as a desktop app in the firstplace, but sacrifice that for the sake of the 'web' moniker (with no significant additional benefits).

How about 'Compatible Rendering Abandoned Proprietary On-Line Application'?

Re:Already Free

[sentientbrendan]

>>CMYK, Pantone in particular but mostly it's down to the horrible interface that GIMP comes with. >>Gimp is basically a programmers idea of how a creative tool should look.

>The two missing features I'll give you.
>Although one is just a licensing issue,
>and the other is only relevant if you are working on images that are intended for print

For photographers and other professionals doing graphics work, CMYK and color accuracy are deal breakers. Excuses don't matter to people who build their careers on a tool, if GIMP doesn't have what they need to do their job, then they won't consider using it.

There's a reason why people pay enormous sums for copies of photoshop even when there's plenty of cheap or free tools that do 60% of what photoshop does, and that's because every pro is going to have at least one feature missing from the 60% product that is a total show stopper for them.

This is a lesson on half assed software, that's good enough for the developer that wrote it, but not good enough for the market. Coding to your personal needs isn't good enough for products that are going to non developers. Linus doesn't say "well, there are some problems with Linux on big IBM mainframes, but I don't personally use a mainframe, so I won't work on that fix." When you are serious about software, you talk to the people that will be *using* your software, and you code to *their* standards in addition to your own.

Re:Already Free

[novakyu]

I don't know much about the subject, but not being able to work CYMK color channels seems an awfully big impediment to doing work intended for print.

Because working with CMYK converted in real-time to RGB by your monitor is great for matching colors for the printed work?

Forgetting for the moment that more than half of Photoshop functionality doesn't work for CMYK images, since most effects and filters will work only in RGB mode, RGB to CMYK conversion is best done at the print shop, since it's bound to be very device/media-dependent.

And really, do you trust anything other than the proof pages, or better yet, the final product when you really have to match colors so carefully that the fact that you can't do RGB to CMYK conversion yourself is hurting you?

Granted, this is one of the things GIMP lacks that it might be nice to have ... but there are a hundred more things that ought to have higher priority than this. Show me a professional who works exclusively in CMYK, and I'll show you someone who just needs a good RGB to CMYK conversion table, not a fancy photo-editing application like Photoshop.

Re:Already Free

[tsjaikdus]

I think it is sad what they've done with PSP8. PSP5 used to be very easy to use, then they've added all kinds of junk and created a really frustrating program.

Re:Already Free

[Tanman]

Want me to go on?

Yes, please do. Lets continue to compare and contrast things that either show that you don't like how photoshop implemented a feature, or how you cannot find a feature vs. how GIMP is missing features completely.

Re:Already Free

[JohnBailey]

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought.. Gimp has such a horrible interface because it isn't a direct clone of Photoshop. So the reverse is also true. Photoshop has such a horrible interface because it isn't Gimp. Apart from the 16 bit colour space, personally they seem pretty similar to me.

Absolutely and unconditionally wrong on all counts.

Why? I freely agreeing up front that Photoshop has some features that Gimp does not. The colour space is a big problem for quality of output, and both Cinepaint and Krita go up to 32 bit colour, so there is no technical limitation to having this feature. I also agree that the other features that are not currently present in Gimp can be show stoppers for the person who needs that particular feature. So no argument there either. There are things that Photoshop does that Gimp can not do at this point in time.

The fact that they are not included in the current version however, does not mean they are never going to be included. Either part of a new version of Gimp, or as a fork. Being open source, there is nothing stopping some interested parties doing exactly that. And While I'm not holding my breath, It isn't impossible. I'm not even suggesting the Gimp is competing with Photoshop in the professional graphics market, or that Gimp is better for all tasks.

But I am questioning the snotty "Bwahaaaa... Gimp's interface is shit" comments that keep popping up with nothing tangible to back them up.
Without a good argument the issue is reduced to one laughing at another kid because he has different laces in his over priced, but otherwise identical trainers. In other words, a non argument.

So give me examples of how the Gimp interface is horrible and the Photoshop one is so wonderful that do not rely on familiarity with one over the other. It is a fair question.

Remember, we are talking about the interface alone, so the buttons that are pushed, and the controls. Not colour space options and the like. Lack of features is a different subject, which I agree Photoshop wins ever time. Nebulous does not make for justification of the statement "the gimp has a horrible interface". And familiarity with only one does not make for an unbiased comparison.

If it makes it easier to understand my question.. Imagine you have been hired to improve the interface of Gimp. You are not allowed to add new features to the application, but you can, if it makes the thought experiment easier, assume this is some alternate universe where the two apps are feature identical. You are allowed to change any interface aspect you like. The only limitation is that you can not make it a direct Photoshop clone.

The point that I am trying to make is that if all the technical things that make Gimp out of the question today were fixed, such as the pantone palette, the colour gamut, and the CMYK support, and anything else you might like to throw in. There would still be hoards of graphic design wannabes who would use some vague "but the interface is crap" argument that can never be countered because the only real problem is not that one is inferior to the other, but that one is different to the other. Inferior can be worked on, but different is a personal preference. Consensus is impossible.