[Macworld]

Post your comments for GraphicDesignerToolbox 1.0 released here

[Photonerd]

Looks pretty cool. Interested to see what kind of formats it supports.

[ndelc]

Looks interesting. I have to say, there has been a large bevy of graphics software released recently by small developers that is putting Adobe to shame. Makes them look like dinosaurs.

[himbo]

ndelc said:

Looks interesting. I have to say, there has been a large bevy of graphics software released recently by small developers that is putting Adobe to shame. Makes them look like dinosaurs.

Yeah, the only way someone could say this with a straight face is if they had no real idea of the breadth and depth of Adobe's apps.

It's great that there are companies out there trying to bring more affordable image creating/editing software to people who don't want or need to buy Photoshop & Illustrator, and I wish them all the best. It's just silly to say that it in any way puts Adobe to shame.

[alansky]

Adobe may be a dinosaur, but none of these budget-priced image editing apps is an actual Photoshop replacement. Not even close. The average non-professional computer user has never needed the power of a high-end application like Photoshop. Even Photoshop Elements is overkill for most people.
Nevertheless, some of the new kids on the block are doing their bit to reinvent the way digital images are created and edited. This can only be a good thing.

[ndelc]

himbo said:

Yeah, the only way someone could say this with a straight face is if they had no real idea of the breadth and depth of Adobe's apps.

It's great that there are companies out there trying to bring more affordable image creating/editing software to people who don't want or need to buy Photoshop & Illustrator, and I wish them all the best. It's just silly to say that it in any way puts Adobe to shame.

I've been a professional graphic designer for 19 years, and I've been using Photoshop since version 1.0. I spend 8 to 10 hours of my day in Adobe software for print, web, video, and multimedia design, so I guess you could say I have a pretty good idea of the breadth and depth of Adobe's software.

My point is, I've seen some really interesting new apps coming out recently, that while, no, they are not viable replacements for Adobe software, have features (like incredibly simple non-destructive editing) that make Adobe software look, well, as old as it is. I would love to see Adobe move Photoshop into the 21st century but as long as they are tied to Windows for the bulk of their revenue, I think it might be awhile.

[himbo]

ndelc said:

I've been a professional graphic designer for 19 years, and I've been using Photoshop since version 1.0. I spend 8 to 10 hours of my day in Adobe software for print, web, video, and multimedia design, so I guess you could say I have a pretty good idea of the breadth and depth of Adobe's software.

Yes, I'm sure you have. It never ceases to amaze me how many people with such credentials show up to post on message boards on the internet.

[ndelc]

himbo said:

Yes, I'm sure you have. It never ceases to amaze me how many people with such credentials show up to post on message boards on the internet.

So you're saying I'm a liar? LOL, OK. I guess all the legacy copies of Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, GoLive, and Pagemaker (including the floppy disk copies of PS2.0) sitting on my shelf are just figments of my imagination. I could have sworn that I've spent the whole day working on trade show banners, and updating my company's website, but I must be mistaken. Gee, what am I getting paid for, then?

[leicaman]

[quote name='ndelc']
>

himbo said:

My point is, I've seen some really interesting new apps coming out recently, that while, no, they are not viable replacements for Adobe software, have features (like incredibly simple non-destructive editing) that make Adobe software look, well, as old as it is.

Actually, it's making you look old. Like you aren't aware of the non-destructive workflow tools Adobe has put into the last several versions of Photoshop. Heck, even InDesign and Acrobat Pro offer ways of working non-destructively with documents. Not sure about Illustrator. I don't use it much. But to say that about Photoshop makes me wonder just how savvy you are on the subject. And I'm only saying that now because you are touting your "credentials."

I've been using Photoshop since 2.5, so maybe not as long as you have, but man. How could you possibly say that about non-destructive editing with a straight (metaphorical) face?

[himbo]

ndelc said:

So you're saying I'm a liar?

I'm saying that it's ridiculously easy to make big claims on the internet anonymously, and that nobody ever says "I started using Photoshop three years ago."

[ndelc]

Leicaman,
Look back at my post. I said "incredibly simple non-destructive editing". I'm fully aware of Photoshop's non-destructive editing capabilities. Some of them, like adjustment layers are great, but having to convert to a Smart Object to apply a filter non-destructively? That's silly. It's not that it's difficult to do, but it shouldn't be necessary. Look at the way Apple handled non-destructive editing with Motion. You can apply filters on the fly and remove them on the fly weeks later without changing anything. Now yes, Motion is a totally different type of application than Photoshop, but a few weeks ago I was playing with a little, new-ish photo editing app (I forget what it was called) that had non-destructive editing capabilities very similar to Motion. It was made only for the Mac and cost under $100. No, it didn't have nearly the number of features that PS does, and probably couldn't be used in a professional setting, but I was blown away by how far ahead it was of PS in that area.
And, for the record, I only was only "touting my credentials" because I was accused of not knowing anything about the software.

[ndelc]

[quote name='himbo']
>

ndelc said:

> So you're saying I'm a liar?

I'm saying that it's ridiculously easy to make big claims on the internet anonymously, and that nobody ever says "I started using Photoshop three years ago."

Fair enough, but if I have been a graphic designer for 19 years and I have been using Photoshop since version 1.0, what would you have me say? I'm not making big claims. You suggested that I didn't know anything about the software. I'm telling you I do, and that I wish it worked better. I'm not alone in thinking that either. Have you ever seen the "Dear Adobe" website? If not, check it out. I'm not bashing them so much as saying that I wish they'd improve some things that seem to have fallen by the wayside. Don't misunderstand me, I LOVE Photoshop. I think it's one of the most amazing apps ever developed. But, in my opinion, it's starting to slip and I want them to fix it. That's not something that should get you all bent out of shape.

[himbo]

ndelc said:

Fair enough, but if I have been a graphic designer for 19 years and I have been using Photoshop since version 1.0, what would you have me say? I'm not making big claims. You suggested that I didn't know anything about the software. I'm telling you I do, and that I wish it worked better. I'm not alone in thinking that either. Have you ever seen the "Dear Adobe" website? If not, check it out. I'm not bashing them so much as saying that I wish they'd improve some things that seem to have fallen by the wayside. Don't misunderstand me, I LOVE Photoshop. I think it's one of the most amazing apps ever developed. But, in my opinion, it's starting to slip and I want them to fix it. That's not something that should get you all bent out of shape.

I'm just going to say that at no point have I been bent out of shape in this discussion, and that I think it's probably veered far enough off topic for now, so I'll stop.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} alansky wrote: none of these budget-priced image editing apps is an actual Photoshop replacement. Not even close.{size}

Think again. Graphic Convertor has been a well-established Swiss Army knife of an image editor for years, for a very low price. In a number of ways, it's actually superior to Photoshop; particularly with the vast amount of image types that it'll open and work with. Most of Photoshop's muscle - and then some - with none of the bloat.