Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Like I said at MacMerc:
Apple, just might, already have this application in the works: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0503nab.html Augest 2005 is 6 mouths before PMA 2006 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
(probobly because I'm waiting 'till Tiger to buy my Mac, I havn't owned one for over 2 years now) Ok, well iPhoto would only need a Handfull of new Pro fetures to make it a Professional App. One would be Chromake backgrounds, there's not a consumer in the world that has a chromake background, so this would be a pro feature. |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Please, please, please make this topic true! I could not agree more that we need an Apple-branded professional photography archiving and editing application with emphasis on efficent workflow. Actually we need two applications assuming that there would be an "Express" version.
Photoshop CS does a pretty nice job of processing and editing RAW photographs but the workflow is awful (particularly the pitiful browser). I actually like some of the workflow features of iPhoto like using slideshows to preview/delete unedited photos. The editing features are way too basic, marginal in quality, can not use keyboard entry, and users have no control over the conversion process. iPhoto also chokes on large libraries (I have to use several different libraries). Hopefully Phil Schiller's "Funhouse" demonstrations of Core Image functionality was just a preview of things to come from Apple! |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Quote:
Faster compared to what? Do you honestly think if Adobe plopped the entire kitchen sink into Photoshop that it would perform anywhere near fast enough for most users (heck, 95% of users)? Yes, ideally it would be wonderful if Photoshop could manage every single photographic task imagineable including sending out automated bills to the client, but that's not reality. This is really no different than the "when are Photoshop and Illustrator and InDesign going to merge?" argument. It's all pie-in-the-sky until processors and computers in general get an order of magnitude more powerful and reliable. Think about Camera Raw for a minute, and the time required for Adobe to create solid support for a large percentage of the market's professional and prosumer cameras. Now ask yourself how much more effort they'd have to expend to support capture for all those cameras (and then some)... and then how much effort they'd have to expend to build a media management database into the application. What you're asking is almost silly, whether you're talking about Apple or Adobe. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on the technology or what is required to make it work, and integrate it with other similar technologies. Should Adobe forgo all the other user requests just so they can build the "super-app" you're envisioning next time? Take a sip from the reality fountain and come back to the real world with the rest of us photography wonks. PS - what is it you're envisioning where you're "editing" 100s of photos at one time? That's another clue to me that maybe you're not as familiar with Photoshop as you ought to be, before making such requests. Not trying to be mean or anything. [To me "editing" a photo means a lot more than applying an auto-curve and cropping to a fixed size. Editing is multiple layers (and layer types), alpha channels, subtle effects and the rest. No program anytime soon is going to let you do stuff like that 100s at a time with any reasonable degree of efficiency. It's 1 at a time, assuming you care about quality.] ...into the light of a dark black night. Last edited by Moogs : 2005-03-29 at 19:49. |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
Umm, I'm not talking about a "super App", I'm talking about a Supreme WORKFLOW app. It dosn't have to be able to handle mutliple layers, layer types, or alpha channles. It just has to have some basic Photographic Edits that are quick and painless. Like Professional Color Changes (iPhoto got a little bit of this in iPhoto 5, but it's not streamlined) Putting Border and Vienettes on Photos in 2 seconds flat. (putting borders on Photos takes much longer in Photoshop and none of the borders you can buy follow standards) Instant Chrommakee, as soon as the picture is loaded the Chromokee background is applied (try doing that instantly in Photoshop) ALL of this can be done in Express Digital. (PLEASE download the trial on a PC if you have it so you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.) You have to remember that Professional Photographers are NOT Grapnic Desiners they "usually" do not need to deal with masks and layers and whatnot in Photoshop. they just need the basics, and they need them quick. Like I said before, iPhoto (if it already has direct camera support) is ALMOST there, with anouther handfull of features that I just listed above, it would become this Application that I'm talking about. |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Oops, I lied, there are some Photographers that are REALLY Good with Photoshop..
and that's Great, it works for them. But, for most Photographs, especially those just coming from Film, are NOT Photoshop Gurues. Plus, the less a Photographer has to fix in Photoshop with EXTENSIVE editing the better. |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
To be honest Dave, all the digital photographers I know who make a living at it, very definitely *do* need and want all of Photoshop's existing capabilities (or at a minimum they want to learn how to use them). And them some. They're very enthusiastic about it, even the ones coming from film.
I suppose wedding photographers might not need all the advanced tools because they have the photographic equivalent of "mass production" going on, but any type of fine art, architectural, editorial or macro photographer definitely *would* need many of those tools. Probably many fashion photographers also because they do a *lot* of retouching to make their models look perfect / reach the art-director's vision / etc. If you're just talking about something that has a bunch of Core Image Units tacked onto an image management app with capture capabilities, point taken I guess. Still though, even an app that did nothing but tethered capture for the 20 or 30 most popular DSLRs / prosumer cameras... would take a *lot* of work to do right. This is rocket science, my friend. You at least need to have an ACR-like interface once the shot is pulled into the computer, so that you can color balance, handle chromatic abberations, etc. before you send the image to your editor for final tweaks and filing. I still think what you're envisioning is not entirely realistic. Not unless there's some sort of branding agreement where Apple has an exclusive deal with Nikon and Canon or something like that. Then the number of cameras required to meet market demands would be much smaller. ...into the light of a dark black night. Last edited by Moogs : 2005-03-29 at 21:05. |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
Also how good looking the person is before they are Photographed. You must rember that before Digital there really was no "tweaking". Yes, a Photographer could use art brushes and touch-up a Photo, but there was no removing of Glasses' Glare or Wrinkles! You must also rember the time investment. YES a Photographer can do EVERYTHING using iView and Photoshop... but, how quick? Belive me..EVERY Photographer would much rather be behind the camera making more Money than doing things the slow way on the computer. Will a Photographer NEVER use Photoshop with this app? I Hope NOT! This App needs to have tight integration with Photoshop if more extenisve edits are needed than just the basics. And for the non-Photoshop type, maybee a build-in upload tool to a service that does retouching like HollywoodFotoFix.com |
|
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Don't assume that because many photographers enjoy the creative process that Photoshop affords them, that they are not technically proficient photographers. Or that somehow they use Photoshop as a crutch.
Some certainly do; the successful one's don't. But that's not the same as saying the successful ones don't use Photoshop often. Digital capture - no matter how good you are - often requires some work to get the shots ready for demanding clients. All digital sensors produce a certain amount of noise and other abberant pixels of one type or another - even with perfect exposures and good lighting conditions. When lighting conditions aren't perfect (a fact of life for many photographers), it's almost guaranteed some post-production will be required IF your goal is to make a truly beautiful print. Anyway, I don't want to hijack your thread into a Photoshop philosophy discussion; just wanted to point out that what you are seeking is not an easy thing to produce. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
Multi-touch Piñata
Join Date: May 2004
|
Even the nicest cameras will at best uniformly capture a scene's lighting, but a photographer, artists that they are, might want to enhance or reduce aspects of the shot in editing.
That is, cameras are designed to be as accurate as possible. But damn it if photographers don't want inaccuracies more often than not Things like Photoshop can help alter images "destructively", not merely clean things up. Sure, I appreciate the purist viewpoint, that it should all be captured at the instant the shot is taken, but realistically, I leave it to the photographer/artist to deem when the shot is perfect or not. None of us have much right to bemoan another's tastes (although there certainly is a limit to what can be done with tools like Photoshop et al, without it become a visual travesty or worse). With digital, short of studio shots that are meticulously staged, cameras will produce a few things that can and should be retouched within reason. And they can accurately represent the scene a bit too well, also. Edit away, I say. "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein Last edited by johnq : 2005-03-29 at 21:56. |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Was creating Final Cut Pro Easy? How about Mac OS X? But, I am very interested to know weather or not Direct Camera Catpture is already implemented into iPhoto. Because then iPhoto will already have RAW camera support and Direct Camera Capture. With those fetures already in place, a Pro version could be made in less than 6 mouths. |
|||
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speculation about Sony and Apple | Corpus_Callosum | Speculation and Rumors | 59 | 2005-04-24 13:06 |
Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret | cambridgebrian | Speculation and Rumors | 162 | 2005-01-20 11:04 |
What is it with Apples | Jules26 | Apple Products | 79 | 2005-01-18 04:33 |
Apple releases updated Power Mac G5s | staph | Apple Products | 43 | 2004-06-09 13:20 |
Apple livid over Toshiba iPod leak | curiousuburb | Speculation and Rumors | 11 | 2004-06-05 17:49 |