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

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

Re:Already Free

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

Re:Already Free

Actually, for photos I use emacs.

Re:Already Free

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

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:Already Free

>>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

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

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!

You will lose your copyright on your pictures..

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..

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

Reading comprehension FTW!

Re:MOD PARENT UP

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)

Upsell? I think not!

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.

I am VERY wary of online computing

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

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.

Fucking Flash.

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."

CRAPOLA

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'?

Sounds like Picnik

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.

Terms of Service give Adobe unlimited rights...

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...

Signed up to see what the fuss was about.

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?

Sweet! It works in lynx!

Re:Any kind of OS and browser?

Sweet! It works in lynx!

Now I can edit my cache of ascii art!

Adobe Online Productivity Office

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:Adobe Photoshop Express

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:Why not just use The Gimp?

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:Why not just use The Gimp?

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.