I always think of Adobe Photoshop being a great building that accommodated most of the knowledge of modern image processing concepts. This is the bright side of the notion. What if we looked at the murky side of the Photoshop's evolving process? What if Photoshop core was built without taking into consideration the vast phenomenal resources growth? I mean what if early Photoshop authors couldn't imagine in 80's what the computer resources will be in the years to come? I think that the old style of programming should have some remains here and there despite the fact that Photoshop should have been re-written! Now, with all ideas added by Photoshop to the world of image processing, and all new computer resources, and the large number of qualified programmers around the world, the way is paved for new image-processing software to emerge and beat Photoshop. I wonder if friends here accept to convert to new software given that it is more powerful than Photoshop? Are we really prepared to change image processing Photoshop-oriented culture and accept to work in some competitive software other than Photoshop? Did the Adobe folks succeed in creating the Photoshop Inevitability Concept in designer's minds? Is it really possible to create software that is more powerful than Photoshop? Is it true that accumulative experience of writing Photoshop is inevitable to write competitive software? Is it possible for Photoshop to become the only revenues generating software for a single company? In other words, would it be possible for Adobe to live only on Photoshop? Alternatively, would Photoshop continue without other Adobe's products that support it?
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
It's not just a matter of how you'll use it in-house. It's a matter of interfacing smoothly with everyone else that gives you non-Corel files to work with, and with everyone you pass your files to.
Can you tell me one peice of software that is better than Photoshop across the board. I dont think so. IF you could, i wouldnt be in this forum replying to you.
You are the designer, you use what tools work for you.
I guess whatever this is must be important.
whenever I order a ham on rye the bread is slightly stale?
That's wry.
You need to go there in the middle of the lunch rush, not the middle of the night.
Bob
The problem with Corel Users, as well as many other 'Photoshop' rip-offs, if they have no talent. They are not the real 'graphic artists'.
Have some class. Corel is for the 'automated'... like everything else these days. It's like using a "1 Time Camera" in relation a Digital Canon Rebel - C'Mon!. (Photographic Analogy)
Besides the program has always done extremely well to adapt to new ideas. Where has Corel been in the past???
Where has Corel been in the past???
The same place they've always been: adding tomorrow's features, while ignoring yesterday's bugs.
Does Corel offer a solution for that?
No, that is not the reason that you have no talent!
The problem with Corel Users, as well as many other 'Photoshop' rip-offs,
if they have no talent. They are not the real 'graphic artists'.
Does Corel offer a solution for that?
Probably. Doesn't it ship with about eighty-five utilities, on about a dozen discs now?
Use your Command Line, or whatever Mac calls it...
Um, I think we are in the wrong forum for the kinky stuff.
Bob
He seemed to me to be asking "what if somebody comes along and develops
a better program than Photoshop."
Maybe he thought that if he directly said The Gimp <http://www.gimp.org/>, it would be like mentioning a competitor's product. With 2.0, it's getting a user interface that makes sense, CMYK, and I hope better performance with big files. So far, 2.0 is only available for Linux (alas).
So close... yet so far away.
Adam.
Football = Australian Rules :-)