Supposedly full blown Photoshop for iPad this fall...

See https://www.bloomberg.​com …pad-in-app-strategy-shift

I would settle for Lr Classic on IOS.

MCAsan wrote in post #18661975
I would settle for Lr Classic on IOS.

I would settle for a modernized version of Photoshop for my computer.

kirk

As an alternative, Affinity Photo is available for iPad. Full functionality.

Works absolutely fine on my 2018 iPad 9.7 (non pro) and you can use Apple Pencil.

I just wish they would hurry up and release a DAM product, for both iPad and desktop.

kirkt wrote in post #18661993
I would settle for a modernized version of Photoshop for my computer.

kirk

Describe modernized.

kirkt wrote in post #18661993
I would settle for a modernized version of Photoshop for my computer.

kirk

that ^ and this ...

quickben wrote in post #18692768
As an alternative, Affinity Photo is available for iPad. Full functionality.

Works absolutely fine on my 2018 iPad 9.7 (non pro) and you can use Apple Pencil.

I just wish they would hurry up and release a DAM product, for both iPad and desktop.

i haven't moved to Affinity yet, but it's just a matter of time before my Adobe CS proves impossible to continue with. I already use Capture One for all my raw processing, I'm not going to wait around on something less bloated than what Adobe brings to the table.

Serif promised a DAM for Affinity Photo years ago and no delivery. Don't hold your breath.

digital paradise wrote in post #18692974
Describe modernized.

Modern interface, full multi-threaded/multi-processor/GPU node-based editing workflow, full 32-bit RGB support. Rewritten for modern computers. Cut the fat and speed it up instead of cobbling more and more "features" together on top of an aging code base.

Real-time adjustable filters/adjustments (nodes) will hopefully get rid of the abomination known as Smart Objects.

kirk

I think there's too much in PS to really get an iPad to take advantage of it. Besides, I need a mouse and/or tablet to retouch...so in that case it'd make more sense for me at the very least to use a laptop, if not a desktop.

Lightroom would be nice though.

What’s wrong with smart objects?

Sure, and then once you connect a mouse and keyboard to it to make it useful, you might as well have a more powerful laptop.

Great.

medd63 wrote in post #18696704
What’s wrong with smart objects?

Nothing! They are extremely useful.

Peano wrote in post #18696838
Nothing! They are extremely useful.

There is a big difference between useful, and optimally implemented in code. These days there are far better ways to implement that functionality. Both Ps and Lr suffer from the need to rewrite the whole codebase, not just tinker at the edges. Problem for Adobe is that the complete code rewrite is such a mammoth undertaking it's unlikely to happen.

Not sure how you are going to run full Ps on a mobile device, when some Ps tasks can stress the latest desktop multi core processors, with 64GB of RAM and a high end Quadro GPU.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18696855
There is a big difference between useful, and optimally implemented in code. These days there are far better ways to implement that functionality. Both Ps and Lr suffer from the need to rewrite the whole codebase, not just tinker at the edges. Problem for Adobe is that the complete code rewrite is such a mammoth undertaking it's unlikely to happen.

Why do you suppose your idea is "unlikely to happen"? Here's why: Adobe got to be the leader in image-editing software because it made (and continues to make) commercially justifiable improvements to its products. But if rewriting the entire codebase would not be commercially viable, why in God's name would anyone do it? Would YOU pony up the funds to back such an endeavor? Could YOU convince investors to pony up the funds? If so, how? What would be your argument that this is a commercially viable thing to invest in?

And if it isn't a commercially viable venture, then why are you advising Adobe to do it?

Peano wrote in post #18696868
Why do you suppose your idea is "unlikely to happen"? Here's why: Adobe got to be the leader in image-editing software because it made (and continues to make) commercially justifiable improvements to its products. But if rewriting the entire codebase would not be commercially viable, why in God's name would anyone do it? Would YOU pony up the funds to back such an endeavor? Could YOU convince investors to pony up the funds? If so, how? What would be your argument that this is a commercially viable thing to invest in?

And if it isn't a commercially viable venture, then why are you advising Adobe to do it?

That's kind of the point that I was trying to make. In a perfect world Adobe would rewrite the whole codebase to the latest standards, and IMO be set for future total dominance of the imaging market. Until there is some great technological paradigm shift, making all known computer science techniques obsolete at least. Would that be commercially justified in the current market? I think not, since they already seem to have complete dominance of the imaging market, without doing it. At the moment nobody seems to be able to build an image processing system that is able to drive the existing commercial userbase away. Remember that they went to software as a service not for the benefit of the individual user, or even for very small business users, but for their real bread and butter corporate users. They are the ones who wanted to find a way to move software away from a capital expense.

You only have to look at the current competition to Lr/Ps to see that it is going to be difficult for anyone to knock Adobe into being really worried about a competitor stealing market share in the market areas that Adobe really worry about. You just have to look at some of the new software that is out at the moment to see that competing with Adobe is going to difficult. It seems to be going in the direction that early 8 bit microcomputers went in the early 80's, pre-announce a product quite a long way out. work on it feverishly, and miss the first couple of release deadlines. Realise you can't make everything work, but that just enough is working to make it releasable. Promise that the missing functionality will be added in some sort of update. Realise that you can't actually add the missing functionality within a reasonable time frame, so don't bother. Release a new version, that the customer has to buy, but is still missing much of the promised functionality, which will come in some update. Rinse and repeat.

Of course something may well come out of left field and kill Ps, I mean who now remembers Netscape or Alta Vista? Still Ps is now over 30 years old, and that means there are a lot of people out there that know how to use it, in preference to anything else. I'm sure there is probably still some thirty plus year old code in there somewhere though.

Alan