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."

Already Free

[Frosty Piss]

I thought Photoshop was already free. Why would I want a Web-based version?

Re:Already Free

[chexy]

If your on a windows system why not use Paint.net http://www.getpaint.net/ [getpaint.net]

Re:

[glwtta]

Doesn't even support pressure sensitivity with tablets.

Oh and the Flash-based thing does? Impressive!

I've been happily using Paint.NET for the sort of trivial, software development-related image editing needs that I used to use, uh, "extended evaluation" copies of Photoshop for. It covers the basics quite well.

Re:

[gauauu]

Paint.net falls way short of the Gimp when dealing with large images. While any image editor will have slowdown with extremely large images, Gimp does a good job of remaining responsive, showing progress, etc when dealing with these images. Paint.net just freezes for long periods of time.

I found this out while my wife was trying to get into digital scrapbooking. They make these images that print to 12x12 sheets of paper, with zillions of layers. Paint.net failed the task miserably, while the Gimp did su

It's not actually web-based either.

[Reverend528]

From the site:

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Re:

[timeOday]

Darn, I was hoping they re-implemented Photoshop in 100% pure HTML 1.0.

Re:Already Free

[i_liek_turtles]

Actually, for photos I use emacs.

Re:

[blhack]

Gimp is NOT Photoshop, nor is it even remotely comparable. Inkscape, though a nice program, isn't quite up to the same bar as Illustrator (though it can most certainly get the job done). And InDesign is the best, with Scribus and Quark being in a close second.

Probably a flame, but I'll bite.
What specifically can you do in Photoshop that I can't do in Gimp? Its probably just a matter of what you're used to. I grew up on gimp. If you stuck me in front of a Photoshop rig, there is very little chance that I would be able to do ANYTHING with it.
As far as Inkscape, have you used version 0.46 yet? Its really really good. It just came out a couple of days ago, so I suggest you check that out. Honestly, people talk about firefox, or gimp being great examples of wh

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a flame, but it is the dealbreaker he is talking about when it comes to GIMP vs Photoshop: GIMP's inability to do CMYK or something along those lines. So 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.

It's cropped up often enough in these type of GIMP vs Photoshop stories.

Re:

[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:

[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 ma

Re:Already Free

[wellmington]

Probably a flame, but I'll bite.
What specifically can you do in Photoshop that I can't do in Gimp? Its probably just a matter of what you're used to. I grew up on gimp. If you stuck me in front of a Photoshop rig, there is very little chance that I would be able to do ANYTHING with it.

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.

Re:Already Free

[JohnBailey]

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. I'd add the fact that Gimp only does 8 bit colour, while Photoshop does at least 16 bit which is much more important than the two omissions you mentioned.

But can someone tell me what exactly is so terrible about the Gimp interface?

This is a genuine question, as I've used both, and don't find either particularly difficult to get my head around. But then, I'm not a power user when it comes to graphics packages. No doubt the differences would be pretty important to someone using either one day in day out.. But I've never seen anybody actually cite examples of the terrible Gimp interface in anything but the vaguest terms as opposed to the silky smooth and obvious ways of doing the same thing with Photoshop.

Re:

[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,

Re:

[sydneyfong]

I'll give one. Not long ago using the Gimp crop tool involves selecting an area, and when you begin selecting the area a window pops up, sometimes obscuring your view of the image, and thus you have no idea what you are selecting.

To be fair they finally replaced that interface with a new one that's so much better. I have no idea how they do crop in photoshop though....

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:

[nametaken]

Well, I know you're waiting for some to say that it has a lot to do with what you're used to, and that's true, but Gimp can be pretty aggravating. Most of the functionality in GIMP is buried in right-click menus (nothing contextual about them), instead of visually obvious toolbars and top menus. I don't know if GIMP has a quick macroing feature like PS, but if it does I never did figure out how to use it. Photoshop's pathing is much easier to work with, IMHO. The tool boxes bother me... oddly large and

Re:

[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.

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

[g00nsquad]

By the way - as a supplement to the comment above, here is a simple example of the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit colour:

Benefits Of Working With 16-Bit Images In Photoshop, Page 2 [photoshopessentials.com]

Re:Already Free

[g00nsquad]

That's fine but off-topic. You asked what specifically Photoshop can do that GIMP cannot, I responded with two items, which you then attempted to bin by relegating them to the status of irrelevant. I shoot stitched panoramic landscapes and I would say the largest transition in image quality for me was when I made the jump from using 8 bit jpgs as my base exposures to 12 bit Canon RAW converted to 16 bit TIFF. 16 bit image support is very relevant to me, not so relevant to you, but its relevance to either of us individually doesn't negate its value.

Re:

[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 s

Re:Already Free

[Ferzelic]

I can't seem to find the ability to create layer filters that change based on the content of the layer.

Current versions of GIMP don't have filter layers. Valid point.
(Though they are only a convenience, in that you can achieve the same effects with regular filters, just not in a non-destructive way.)

I also can't find the slice

Image -> Transform -> Guillotine.
If you want it to create the HTML code for you as well, there are several plugins you can download (eg Py-Slice).

or save for web tool.
Where are the file optimization settings?

Save as -> GIF, PNG or JPG. Adjustments are in the save dialog.
Toggle the preview checkbox for lossy-compressed formats such as JPG.

How do you export as a PDF?

I'll grant you there's no built-in function for it, but I also can't conceive of a useful reason for doing so.
Converting a single bitmap image into a PDF is a grossly inefficient operation for no benefit.
(Where the file format can sensibly be exported to PDF, most open source software does provide it; eg Inkscape.)

Where is the ability to record actions and execute them on folders/files?

Instead of macros, GIMP is fully scriptable. Considerably less convenient, but much more powerful.
(Of course, in an ideal world GIMP would support both.)

How do I go to full screen with the ability to drag the canvas anywhere on screen that I want?

Uh, View -> Fullscreen? Middle-click drags the canvas.

Where is the ability to dock my tool windows?

Drag the dialog to a dock window. You get two by default: the main toolbox and Layers/Channels/Paths.
You can have one or many. Predefined sets are available under Dialogs -> Create New Dock

You actually send RGB files to print?

Another valid point. Lack of proper color control is a well-known deficiency with GIMP.
(It does now support color profiles, but it's a bit of a hack.)

I wouldn't use it for professional print purposes; but for my personal artwork, yeah, I have sent RGB for print. I've got a local print shop that does a really good job of converting screen-space color. Good enough for my needs, and it's not like my home PC has a color-calibrated monitor anyway.

Lack of CMYK support and 16-bit+ color are real legitimate complaints against GIMP. I'll grant you filter layers too, as they would be handy (and are in development). Most other complaints are just unfamiliarity with the interface.

Here are my three main gripes about Photoshop's interface:

• Why is undo (ctrl-Z) single-level by default? If I'm using a tablet, one pen stroke usually ends up as multiple steps. Why do I have to hold down ctrl-ALT-Z?
• Why am I forced to select something before doing most operations? If nothing is selected, surely it's logical I want to do it on the whole image.
• What is Photoshop's equivalent to "Alpha to Selection", which I use all the time? (I'm sure it has one but damned if I can find it)

Want me to go on?

Re:

[piojo]

Really, if this was more than a flame i would love to know. What really can you do in Adobe products that I can't do in OSS ones?

Primarily, I think it's the interface, and for me, it has to do with layers. When a tool is used in photoshop (like drawing a square or adding text), a layer is created that represents that addition. This layer is easy to move. When I create a text layer in the gimp, I have to click within a very small portion of the added text to move the layer. That's merely annoying, but it's just one example of how design is harder to do in the gimp. Another is that layers can't be grouped in order to apply effects to

Re:Already Free

[Cruciform]

After all the effort Donny Hoyle put into his Photoshop tutorials, despite his failed marriage and active facebook dating life, you'd even consider using Gimp?

Shame on you! Shame!

Re:Already Free

[Ford Prefect]

Oh and GIMPs font rendering leaves a LOT to be desired.

Yes. Yes it does.

One image [hylobatidae.org], and another [hylobatidae.org]. One from Photoshop CS3 10.0.1, the other from The GIMP 2.4.4. Same font.

But which? Choose now!

Re:

[mrchaotica]

I don't get it. I can tell they look different, but they both look equally good. I guess #2 is a little sharper; is that the GIMP one?

Re:

[blhack]

I don't get it. I can tell they look different, but they both look equally good. I guess #2 is a little sharper; is that the GIMP one?

Do you hear that whooshing sound?
You might want to sit down.

Re:

[geekoid]

Wait a second.

In this context, it's a fair question. I get the point, but I wonder which is which.

Re:Already Free

[Ford Prefect]

I don't get it. I can tell they look different, but they both look equally good. I guess #2 is a little sharper; is that the GIMP one?

Nope, that's Photoshop!

The only change I made to the text rendering settings was to disable hinting in The GIMP - which is a single click in the checkbox just beneath the font size, so it's not a remotely hidden option.

Photoshop's got even more rendering options, and its text editor thingy is way more capable, allowing different styles in the same text (kind of like a word processor) - but the idea that The GIMP's actual text rendering is rubbish is just a myth...

Re:

[2nd Post!]

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

You will lose your copyright on your pictures..

[New_Age_Reform_Act]

Read the ToS: [photoshop.com]

Section 8 (a):

Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

Thanks I will stick with GIMP [gimp.org] instead.

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

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

[The End Of Days]

...that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services...

Reading comprehension FTW!

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

All they are saying is that if you upload shit to their Web site image library, they can do what they want with it. This is not a problem for most people. Gimp is a problem for most people, but you can stick with it if it floats your boat.

The bottom line for this thing is that it's not that hard to get a copy of Photoshop, and Elementsa is cheap. I don't see this getting a lot of use.

Re:

[Joe Decker]

This is not a problem for most people.

I very much doubt that you are correct in the extreme examples of what the license allows, e.g., putting Aunt Martha's picture with snot coming out of her nose on a network television broadcast.

That having been said, I doubt that particular commercial is in Adobe's business plan, either.

Re:

[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: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)

Not working properly on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Not able to register on Safari browser

Re:

[IANAAC]

Did you try it in firefox on the Mac? Or another browser?

I ask because it works on a bog-standard Linux distro with firefox 2.0.*. I suspect your should have written that it's not working properly in Safari, but would work in another browser.

Re:

[tgd]

Doesn't work on Mac FireFox for me, or Safari.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Not able to register on Safari browser

I didn't try to register, but using the test drive feature seems to work. It seemed functional, with the exception of applying the distortion filters. (Safari 3.1 and OS X 10.5.2)

Ahoy

[Apoorv Khatreja]

Adobe is becoming smarter by the day, and this is one of the moves that would give them an advantage over the other competitors in the photo-editing market.

Re:

[iamhigh]

Adobe is becoming smarter by the day

I wish they would put some of that smarts into the products they buy and ruin.

More on-topic, this is something we are going to have to get used to. In 10 years my guess is that all major software will have something like this and in 20 years MS Office, Adobe Acrobat and many others might be completely online, forcing (or attempting) to force you to purchase licenses for the software.

More companies

[sskagent]

I hope this leads to more companies following in Adobe's footsteps. Free, while toned down, versions of software has often led me to buying the full version later on.

shareware

[Rob T Firefly]

I liked this idea better when it was called "shareware" and you just had to mail a fiver to some BBS kid in Missouri.

Re:

[twistedcubic]

I think their idea is to prevent uptake of competitors' software. This is great forward-thinking on their part, because the Gimp (or Apple's product) has yet to become a real threat. VMWare was a little late with their free version, and now we have KVM which runs perfectly on the latest CPUs, as well as others, which people actually prefer. MS Office is kinda de facto free, and it's definitely killed all the competition. I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe could have the same effect by unleashing the reign

Upsell? I think not!

[Bryansix]

Why would I want to move from this to Photoshop Elements. Elements sucks hardcore. It is hard to use while proporting to be easy to use. It holds your hand wand walks you right off a cliff. I'd much rather either have this simple express version or the full fledged CS3 version for many hundreds of dollars. It's as simple as that. If I wanted something in the middle I would use GIMP and Inkscape for free.

Re:

[RDW]

The latest version of Elements is actually a pretty nice, powerful package now that Adobe has (finally!) stopped playing games and is no longer leaving out vital tools like Curves:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_adobe_photoshop_elements_6.php [photographyblog.com]

The Express edition is just a very basic editor written in Flash that barely competes with Picasa, but with Photoshop branding.

Re:

[vtcodger]

For those with simple photosizing, rotation, etc needs and who are not GIMP compatible, irfan runs perfectly well under WINE. (http://www.irfanview.com/)

I am VERY wary of online computing

[Ralph Spoilsport]

If I'm not directly involved with being online, I tend to not have the modem even on, and I find this kind of thing creepy and somewhat offensive.

RS

Re:I am VERY wary of online computing

[moderatorrater]

I, for one, am grateful that you turned your modem on, connected it to your computer, got over your creepy and offended feelings, then posted (in an uninvolved sort of way) about your habits.

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

Oh no! Adobe has alienated you! Surely Photoshop Express is doomed to failure, since Ralph Spoilsport refuses to turn on his modem! (Except, apparently, to make inane self-important posts on Slashdot.)

This is ... complicated

[Tribbin]

This is:

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

Re:

[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 negat

Re:

[Angostura]

...just begs the question...

Nope, it really doesn't. It certainly raises a question, however.

Re:

[Tribbin]

So it was sort of a far fetched wordplay meant to lightly confuse. Hm, it made perfect sense in my head but seems kinda awkward reading it back.

What I meant:

a. One less reason to stick with Windows.
b. One less reason to switch (the developers of Photoshop) 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."

Re:

[Apoorv Khatreja]

So that excludes the people who would want Photoshop to go Web-based, the MOST.

I'm talking about people using Opera or Konqueror on Linux. The Adobe Flash Player 7 and even 9 Beta works very, very poorly with these browsers, on Linux, and doesn't seem to be improving at all. The only browser being given attention is Firefox.

Guess we Linux users will have to wait for a long time, before we really starting using the internet and get recognised by the world.

Re:

[MMC Monster]

So that excludes the people who would want Photoshop to go Web-based, the MOST.

I'm talking about people using Opera or Konqueror on Linux. The Adobe Flash Player 7 and even 9 Beta works very, very poorly with these browsers, on Linux, and doesn't seem to be improving at all. The only browser being given attention is Firefox.

Guess we Linux users will have to wait for a long time, before we really starting using the internet and get recognised by the world.

Unless, of course, you try using firefox sometimes.

Re:

[MMC Monster]

It's a matter of the right tool for the right job. If your job involves rendering sites similar to acid3, a version of Opera that will come out later this year is likely for you. If your job involves flash on linux, apparently firefox is a better fit.

Re:

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I can understand insisting on using Linux over Windows, but no offense, if you refuse even to run a different BROWSER within Linux, I don't think you have much room to complain about how much the world fails to "recognize" you.

Firefox is a 9.2MB download. I'm sure you can find room for it.

Re:

[LunaticTippy]

I can't picture how you could do real-time editing of a picture without Flash. The only ways I can think to do it at all would be slow and very server intensive.

Personally, I would like to see a nice lynx photo-editing app, but I am not going to hold my breath.

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'?

Why not just use The Gimp?

[Snipor]

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

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:

[Lobster Quadrille]

I'm in information security now, but I studied illustration in college and CMYK is definitely a must, if you ever want to send your work to press.

Gimp is an extremely awkward UI. Photoshop is nice and clean.

You seem to be complaining about the fact that people have legitimate reasons not to use gimp. I'm one of 2 linux users in an all-windows shop, and I hate non-open software as much as any /.er, but Photoshop is one of the few examples of absolutely phenomenal closed-source software.

Do I wish it was ope

Re:

[nine-times]

(seriously, how many people on /. need CMYK?)

I can't tell you numbers, but anyone who's doing professional work for print media needs CMYK. It's not that unusual if your doing any kind of graphic design or photo work.

according to GIMP related threads, /. is positively infested with photographic professionals

It shouldn't be too shocking if there are a lot of people who need to do something that involves professional-level features. Anyone working in graphic design, advertising, or even a creative bra

Re:Why not just use The Gimp?

[Xabraxas]

It shouldn't be too shocking if there are a lot of people who need to do something that involves professional-level features. Anyone working in graphic design, advertising, or even a creative branch of some other kind of company might need some particular features (including CMYK). I worked for an engineering firm that wanted to send some presentation materials to a professional printer so they looked nice. Those needed to be in CMYK.

I work in a prepress job and I've noticed two things:

1. Marketing and advertising people know nothing about CMYK, color gamut, color seperation, or any of that. Just yesterday we were sent a screenshot of an art file made in Word to use for a poster and the customer wanted to know why the proof was all pixelated! We're sent all kinds of crap that takes a lot of effort to get into a state where it can be printed accurately. Most customers grudgingly give in and pay for us to transform their crap images into workable images. They just don't know anything about what it takes to print images made on a computer.
2. Photoshop is rarely used unless you are working for a magazine or something of that nature. Most things printed are vector graphics and text. Most design work involves logo design, color correction, and layout. Just as customers send us screenshots and things of that nature, they also just send us compressed jpegs when they send pictures. In a perfect work everyone would send us proper files that can be printed easily but they don't and its our job to get it to press.

Re:

[Ford Prefect]

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).

Heh. These same 'photographic professionals' will be bitterly disappointed with higher-end software like Apple's Aperture and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom - I didn't see any references to CMYK in the fully-functional trial versions I played round with the other week. Plus I liked the latter program s

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:

[Kjella]

I'm not incapable of learning another UI. I just don't want to learn one that looks like ass and that I hate. Pretty much every other application lets me arrange it the way I want it, GIMP insists on splattering windows all over my desktop so they look like a mess with whatever is underneath. I don't way to walk down the One Gnome Way, give me a normal workspace with dockable widgets. Gimpshop and the other hacks are nice but they don't come as "sudo apt-get gimp" to install and I got better things to do th

Re:

[blhack]

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.

I do all the design work for my company in Scribus/Gimp/Inkscape. I have NEVER had a problem sending something to a printer.
Ever.

Sounds like Picnik

[Skidge]

Sounds kind of like Picnik [picnik.com], which provides free basic photo editing and is integrated directly into Flickr. It's pretty handy for doing some tweaks on your photos. Picnik has some advanced, paying-account-required features, though, so maybe Photoshop Express will be better in that regard.

? 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 re

Re:

[brunascle]

Why does it require my images to be uploaded to be edited?

because Flash doesnt have access to your filesystem. if it did, it would be quite a security issue.

Re:

[theNetImp]

Why is it so DOG Slow?

Two symbols. /.

Doesn't work on Flash9-Linux

[sd.fhasldff]

I tried it, but it just says my Flash isn't supported and redirects me to Macromedia.com, which then directs me back to to adobe.com for a new flash download.

Flash 9.0 r48, Firefox, Ubuntu Gutsy 64bit.

Not sure if it REALLY wants a newer version of Flash or if the 64bit-ness is confusing it.

Well, it works on my Flash9-Linux (32-bit)

[ClickOnThis]

Not sure if it REALLY wants a newer version of Flash or if the 64bit-ness is confusing it.

Could be either, I suppose. I'm running Slackware 12.0, Firefox 2.0.0.12 and Shockwave Flash 9.0 r115, all 32-bit. The site seems to work fine.

Re:

[bay43270]

It requires flash 9 because it's a Flex 3 app. They used Flex 3 so they could make an Air version, which will solve your second and fifth questions. It's dog slow because its a flex app. It doesn't have photoshop toolbars because it doesn't have photoshop's tools. It's for entry level users (as you later point out). Adobe does retain the rights to your images... probably copy/pasted from the EULAs at Facebook, Myspace, etc. It's not better than GIMP for those experienced in image manipulation (that's wh

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

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.)

Because Flash plug-ins don't have access to your filesystem, duh.

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

It's a Flash site. Duh. You can't get professional tools over Flash, last time I checked Photoshop was over a gig.

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

Well, for one, t

Re:

[Joe Decker]

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

Yes. As I understand it from discussing the matter with a lawyer earlier today, the license agreement gives them the right to take images you load to public areas of their web site, and gives them free reign to do with them as they will. They *don't* have your copyright, you can do with them as you will as well, but they can, for example, put those images in a TV ad for their product, they can sell rights to use your image for money

Re:

[Joe Decker]

Maybe. They shouldn't but I wouldn't put it past them.

The answer is "yes", as it turns out. The appropriate sections of the license agreement are already copied a buncha times on this thread, so I won't repeat them, but yes, Adobe can, under their license, use the images, sell the use of those images to other people, and pretty much do with them anything they want short of preventing you from doing the same.

Well they already have serious competition...

[Anonymous Coward]

a.viary [viary.com] is in beta (but you can sign up for a quick invites) and offers a pretty impressive online image editing suite. I'm not much into image editing / manipulation but the things [youtube.com] people [youtube.com] are already doing with it [youtube.com] are pretty damn impressive.

Terms of Service give Adobe unlimited rights...

[abh]

The scary thing which isn't getting much play is that the terms of service indicate that if you use their hosting/gallery service, Adobe has a royalty-free, unlimited license [hockleyphoto.com] to use your photos in any way they choose...

Re:

[Joe Decker]

I'm pretty annoyed by the way that licensing is hidden under a banner of "free". I charge for the rights to use my images, if I have to give those rights away to use a web site then, from my perspective, that site isn't "free".

Signed up to see what the fuss was about.

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Here is what I have noticed so far.

Requires Flash 9. to install.
They have a notice that basically says
Account creation is heavy today it may take 60 minutes to recieve your e-mail.

Mine (done 4 min. ago) took about 1 min.

Super fast uploading! 1 3mb pic took all of 3 seconds to upload!

Very basic editing tools, but has a few cool distortion features. One neat thing to note is links to external sites such as Picassa, Photobucket and Phacebook! (er uh Facebook!)

Gallery and gallery sharing is neat, but slow (probably due to high use right now)
This won't come close to replacing your pirated versions of PS you all have at home. It'll be interesting to see if they add new tools or leave it as is.

Any kind of OS and browser?

[serviscope_minor]

Sweet! It works in lynx!

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

So it even works on w3m on AIX?

Re:Any kind of OS and browser?

[trb]

Sweet! It works in lynx!

Now I can edit my cache of ascii art!

Adobe Online Productivity Office

[PortHaven]

Adobe's Online Office Productivity Suite:

Photoshop Express (Photo Editor)
https://www.photoshop.com/express [photoshop.com]

Buzzword (Word Processor)
http://www.buzzword.com/ [buzzword.com]

Sliderocket (Presentation Software)
http://www.sliderocket.com/ [sliderocket.com]

Blist (Spreadsheet)
http://www.blist.com/ [blist.com]

***

Did you buy stock? I did a while ago... :)

Re:

[babyrat]

Did you buy stock? I did a while ago... :)

Why are you smiling? Their stock is down over 20% from 3 months ago, and unless you timed one of the slight dips, is essentially unchanged since December 2005.

Beware license RIGHT GRAB

[future assassin]

This is on the Adobe website at https://www.photoshop.com/express/terms.html [photoshop.com]

Please pay attention to this - fully sublicensable license

8. Use of Your Content.

1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remune

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

Part of me is digusted by this, part of me wonders how Adobe could possibly defend themselves from frivilous lawsuits otherwise. (I'm thinking about that story from yonks ago where somebody sued somebody else because there was a 'copy' of their content in their browser cache.)

Lame.

Any OS/Browser?

[nurb432]

Doesn't seem to work on my hand built OS running Grail as the browser.. Or my atari running STiK..

On a more serious note, why would i want to choose this over something free that runs locally that i know wont be yanked in 6 months due to a change in the weather at Adobe, and effectively orphaning my files?

Hooray for Photoshop Express at work

[theurge14]

Finally. Now I don't have to suffer with Microsoft Paint at work on Windows machines I don't have access to install software on. It's rather amazing after all these years Windows still doesn't have something to properly crop and resize images with.

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

If they did, you'd see long rants on Slashdot how an OS should do nothing but run applications. Unless it's Linux, in which case it should include several different, competing, kitchen sinks.

Frankly, I agree with you, but Microsoft improving bundled software goes against the Slashdot zeitgeist. I'd recommend Paint.NET, but you can't install software so... uh... sorry.

Re:Adobe Photoshop Express

[Ford Prefect]

I think it's a great idea to give people a taste of what Photoshop is like.

... Except it's nothing whatsoever like Photoshop. At all.

I had a quick go at 'editing' a photo in the test-drive thing, and there didn't seem any way of actually drawing anything. I'd say it's much closer in concept to a drastically simplified Photoshop Lightroom [adobe.com] - it's even got the same colour scheme and vague general layout. Except where Lightroom will manage untold gigabytes of photos on your own computer, doing on-the-fly conversions and adjustments from raw format, Express looks more like an advanced, online photo management system.

It's definitely not Photoshop Photoshop.

Re:

[antikaos]

Yeah, this is NOT "Photoshop", just a simple photo editor, nothing revolutionary here. Not going to have any impact on PS usership, much less an effect on decisions to or not to switch to 'nix, Gimp is much much nicer than PS Express and I hate Gimp.

Photoshop is currently 1,5 Gb, 22000 files...

[Joce640k]

Last time I installed PS it installed 22,000-odd files and gobbled up 1.5Gb of disk space. Photoshop Elements isn't much lighter.

So how do they propose to reduce all that to a flash add-in...?

They can't.

Re:

[YrWrstNtmr]

Notice that the "Exposure" filter that they claim "Made you Look" actually made you look at how racist the tool is, they made her coloured from white.

Oh please. They took a washed out photo (all too common), and put some color/saturation into it. Look at the water and scrubgrass.