I didnt know flash was that powerful. Its cool but totally not what I was expecting. This is lightroom express, it has absolutely nothing to do with photoshop. I thought it would let you make stuff from scratch rather than just edit photos.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photoshop Express Beta
- Thread starter sonor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for attempting to speak for the entire human race! I for one would like to take a picture of someone and make adjustments before setting it as a contact photo. Albeit, I wouldn't be doing professional photography, but there is a reasonable level of functionality to provide on the iPhone.
uhhh... yeah but there is a camera on my iPhone and I would love to edit on the fly without having to drag around another laptop!
So with the zoom function, you really don't need to care about low resolution if you can make the picture larger.
You can't be serious.
This will kill the iPhone battery. Leave the iPhone for what it was meant to be: a phone + iPod + some smartphone capabilities.
it can't add text to images. Oh well won't be replacing full photoshop for me anytime soon but it's still pretty neat.
Check out http://www.picnik.com
It's similar to Photoshop Express and allows you to add text. I'm gonna have to spend my time with each before I pick one. They both are incredibly slick, and I love Picnik's sense of humor.
It feels kind of like a light Lightroom -- all global adjustments, but not as detailed and limited to what's on the server. I can see the potential value, but with Picasa being free and Lightroom coming in at $299, any subscription pricing needs to be mindful of comparative value.
Read it thoroughly...it only applies to your work you post publicly. Don't want Adobe to use it? Keep it private.
Adobe is not going to sell your images, they arent that stupid. The most they might do is use examples from members that are showing their work.
As posted, it explicitly gives them the rights to derive revenue from the images. The problem is, most people won't read the terms and will upload stuff to the gallery without realizing they're essentially giving away the rights to their work. It's unlikely a professional photographer will get stung by this but it is a dangerous precedent.
I got the impression that this only affects photos you post to public places, not to everything you manipulate.
I suspect this is a CYA thing. Since their service is flash based, and subject to change without notice, they don't want someone claiming that some part of the public-site-viewing module is violating copyright. And they don't want someone removing an image and later complaining that a copy is still on Adobe's server somewhere (perhaps because the caches haven't expired, or because they're in a backup database.)
They're probably also concerned that someone will see their image on a page with a banner ad and demand a cut of the ad revenue.
But yeah, its very over-reaching language.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd use the service anyway. I own a copy of Photoshop Elements, and I'd rather just use it when editing my images. I'm more than capable of storing, organizing, and publishing stuff to my own web site.
I'm a bit less excited about this. It's pretty crippled and most of the tools are of the "just for fun" variety.
When they let you resize images I'll use it.
When they let you resize images I'll use it.
If they charge money for the service then Im sure a crafty lawyer could sue them for using somebodys images "for profit". Its just a catch all clause to cover their ass. It would be insanely irresponsible if Adobe sells peoples images as stock photos, theyd do irreparable damage to their brand since they sell software aimed at creative professionals. It simply wont happen, it would take a seriously shady company to do something like that.
One would be tended to suspect so.
The big issue for me is:
These two terms are not necessary, not even in the worst CYA scenario. Yet, for some unknown reason, Adobes lawyers decided to put them there.
This has tricky consequences. For instance if a client sees an image of yours and wants to acquire exclusive usage rights from you. If you had that image in this service at one time or another you will legally not be able to grant your client the requested exclusive rights because you already granted a license to Adobe...
What's good about web based services is that I don't need to cary my computer around. I can sit down in front of any random computer, log in and all my documents and photos are right there. I use the Google on-line office suit for a few things that I want to be able to access from anywhere or if I want someone else to look at and mark up a document. I don't have to worry if they have the same software as I do because we are both using the same Google spreadsheet.
It's not perfect yet because for most people the Internet is still slow but some day the connection to a remote server will be as fast as to your external disk drive.
I've used system where your whole desktop and all your files follow your login to any computer in the building. It works well when the building is writed for gigabit ethernet. Some day this will be possible over the Internet
Doesn't this also make us liable for damages if we don't get a model release? If they take a picture I took and sell it to coke and coke puts it in an ad, then the person in the picture can sue me. That's my understanding. I'm going to pass and suggest everyone do the same until it is cleared up by Adobe's lawyers.
If anyone feels like promoting the rights issue there is a story on digg that hasn't hit the front page yet:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Adobe_grabs_your_photo_rights_when_using_Photoshop_Express
http://digg.com/tech_news/Adobe_grabs_your_photo_rights_when_using_Photoshop_Express
Crappy first effort
It's a piece of garbage. I get nothing but a blank gray screen with "Flash Player Installation" in the title bar. I presume it is trying to tell me to upgrade my version of flash, but doesn't seem to degrade very gracefully. Not to mention I have no interest in installing Flash 9. Last time I installed it it started taking over functionality in all of my browsers which put a serious crimp in my productivity.
It's a piece of garbage. I get nothing but a blank gray screen with "Flash Player Installation" in the title bar. I presume it is trying to tell me to upgrade my version of flash, but doesn't seem to degrade very gracefully. Not to mention I have no interest in installing Flash 9. Last time I installed it it started taking over functionality in all of my browsers which put a serious crimp in my productivity.
In my opinion, there is a larger issue here than what appears in the TOS. The issue also relates to Picasa, Flickr, Kodak Gallery, or whatever the gallery of the week is.
The way most people treat digital photos, it is no better than the old days of having hard copies of photos floating around unorganized in shoe boxes.
I don't want some 3rd party "owning" my stuff. Even if they don't legally own it, they actually do in practice. What happens if you spend years building your web galleries on Flickr and they decided to go out of business, sell out, start charging, etc. You've spent hundreds of hours organizing your collection, adding comments, etc. And now you have nothing.
Plus, I know many peeps who take as many digital photos as I do but they couldn't show me a comprehensive collection of there digital photos if they tried. Some got uploaded to Shutterfly, some to this place, some to that place. Some online services won't even let you get at the original, full sized image you originally uploaded (presumably sometimes they don't save it and other times have reasons for not wanting to let you see it again.)
Personally, I take a two staged approach. The first stage is batch renaming all my photos based on the Exif data, losslessly rotating the ones that need it (also in batch) and organzing them on the file system into a directory structure based on year and then event. This all gets backed up via time machine and once a year I cut a set of DVDs and give it to a family member to keep in a safe place.
Second, I add the photos to albums organized by year inside of a shareware image publishing package that I developed. I have all the HTML content locally and it also gets published to my web site. But ultimately I own everything. One could use iPhoto here also, since even if iPhoto goes bust some day at least you have the content locally and could parse the XML files if you needed to get the user content into a different format.
Maybe I'm anal, but I'm sure my kids, their kids, and so forth will appreciate having the memories stored in a usable way. If the JPEG format ever looks to be going south, I can will run a batch job against all my photos and convert them into whatever the great new format is.
The way most people treat digital photos, it is no better than the old days of having hard copies of photos floating around unorganized in shoe boxes.
I don't want some 3rd party "owning" my stuff. Even if they don't legally own it, they actually do in practice. What happens if you spend years building your web galleries on Flickr and they decided to go out of business, sell out, start charging, etc. You've spent hundreds of hours organizing your collection, adding comments, etc. And now you have nothing.
Plus, I know many peeps who take as many digital photos as I do but they couldn't show me a comprehensive collection of there digital photos if they tried. Some got uploaded to Shutterfly, some to this place, some to that place. Some online services won't even let you get at the original, full sized image you originally uploaded (presumably sometimes they don't save it and other times have reasons for not wanting to let you see it again.)
Personally, I take a two staged approach. The first stage is batch renaming all my photos based on the Exif data, losslessly rotating the ones that need it (also in batch) and organzing them on the file system into a directory structure based on year and then event. This all gets backed up via time machine and once a year I cut a set of DVDs and give it to a family member to keep in a safe place.
Second, I add the photos to albums organized by year inside of a shareware image publishing package that I developed. I have all the HTML content locally and it also gets published to my web site. But ultimately I own everything. One could use iPhoto here also, since even if iPhoto goes bust some day at least you have the content locally and could parse the XML files if you needed to get the user content into a different format.
Maybe I'm anal, but I'm sure my kids, their kids, and so forth will appreciate having the memories stored in a usable way. If the JPEG format ever looks to be going south, I can will run a batch job against all my photos and convert them into whatever the great new format is.