What is Digg?65 Comments
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23We don't care about your blog.
Damn, beat to the punch. Now I'm being redundant. Better spice it up with some insults!
Stop your blog-linking *****-baggery, you wang wrangling sycophant! - EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20beta loads fast
- Emaze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22$1000????? Wait..........you mean people actually PAY for software????
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Image>mode is a really poor way to convert to black and white. You lose a lot of image information, and the results are really flat. There's a ton of good tutorials on the subject, just click on the google.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Dusts off p2p app.
- piwy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16PS is worth paying for.
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm a student so pirating Photoshop is the only way. It's not like I'm making money with it, I think of it more as a fully functional demo until I get on my feet and am able to pay for a legit copy.
"I just wish adobe would sell a cost reduced full version of Photoshop for home users."
Amen. - opethlike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Do not post links to your stupid blog in your comments dorkface.
- darkfate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Can't wait. Although it will probably take about 10 minutes to load ;)
- DarkItIs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Finally, a black and white tool!
- MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Anyone who has shot with real film knows there is a HUGE difference between grey scale and B/W. Hopefully the B/W tool will be closer to the real thing.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Let's take a look at who will benefit from some of the new features in Photoshop CS3."
Easy.....ADOBE. - rayishu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I really like the Smart Filters, that looks very promising they finally have taken a stack like approach to filters like they do in After Effects and Premiere
- hs112186, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i find it funny that the dudes discussing photoshop cs3 yet all the screenshots are sucky quality jpegs
- KyleMistry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pretty much the only people who pirate the software are those who wouldn't be buying it if they couldn't. From what I know, most graphic designers, photographers, etc. pay for the software. Very few people like students, who usually don't have the money for software at this high a price anyhow, probably wouldn't be buying it if they couldn't pirate it.
- ziki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I said to myself "what could they do to make it better? everything seems perfected"
i was wrong. - zataraz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Thank goodness for student discounts! =]
- nadcraker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They do sell a version for consumers. Photoshop Elements. It has 90% of the features of the full version for less than $100. It also comes bundled with some hardware.
- alecperkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ kernelhappy, check out Photoshop Elements. It has many of the same features and is geared toward home users, but is dirt cheap compared to the full version.
Edit: beaten thouroughly by nadcraker - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As an amateur I'll admit, yeah I'll pirate it. CS3 is going to be the best, I installed the beta and it seems to run much better on my system than CS2 did. However, if I was an art major or someone in the art industry, it'd certainly be worth the money.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cutting down on the plugins and fonts really speeds up loading. Use a font manager if you need to use a lot of fonts.
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Name one that's truly on par with Photoshop. (and don't say Gimp, because it's not)
- KillerJ59J, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You would think they would make a lot more money if they lowered the price... say a half a million buy it at 1,000 and 4 million pirate it for free($500,000profit). If they lowered the price to $30 bucks.. I mean they are already said to be the "best" and with a lowered price even the people that wouldn't use it would buy it and made it harder to pirate maybe 4 million would pay and only half a million would pirate it($120,000,000 profit). It would be better for everyone to lower the price.
- TheSalmonThief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Layer alignment is God. I like very much.
- ClaiE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Smart filters are what I expected... the best new feature of CS3 (beta)... The new interface is pretty good too.
- lucasmcdonnell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This just makes me realize how many features are in the current version of Photoshop that I have no idea how to use.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Disagree. You sound like the "motion picture is killing theater" crowd in the early 1900s. New technology brings new ideas.
And remember; tools only help an artist, they do not make an artist. - wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@blackjack
You can edit Smart Objects by double clicking the thumbnail in the Layers window. It will allow you to edit whatever you want inside that Smart Object, since Smart Object acts just like a regular document; meaning you could add more layers and even other Smart Object if you really need to. One con though; if you adjust the size of the Smart Object document and then save it to update the SO layer, the actual SO layer will get out of proportions. Otherwise, you could do anything with the SO. - CryoNine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Smart Filters are something that has been missing from PS for a very, very long time. It's probably the single best reason to upgrade, though the other new tools look great as well.
- scorwitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds great, too bad I don't have the 10 or more required years of study and practice to learn to use any of it. I always feel inadequate after attempting to use my plain old CS, let alone CS3
- PlancksCnst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps he knew this would be dugg and didn't want to pay for the bandwidth.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The updates to photoshop are not changing the end result in any way at all. First of all, you are talking about printing. Photoshop is doing NOTHING to enhance the QUALITY of a print....NOTHING. Aside from the resolution of the image, the quality is completely controlled by the printer, which has absolutely nothing to do with Photoshop.
"The difficulty in making fine digital work is merely a limitation of technology and soon anyone will truly be able to match any top digital pro on the market." There is absolutely no limitation in this technology. You can create ANYTHING in Photoshop, you just have to understand how to use the application properly in order to achieve your desired result.
There's a big difference between traditional media and digital art, and they each hold a different place in the art world. Neither one is going to take the place of the other. - KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Give me a break. One decent design job and you have that 1000 back."
You obviously are not a designer. Many designers do work a normal full time job, so there isn't always "one decent design job." And those of us that do freelance work, well let's just say that it isn't a completely reliable source of income. Sure I can make that $1,000 back on one decent design job....IF that job comes along. Just because our tools cost a fortune doesn't mean that we've got the money to spend every time adobe wants to upgrade. We're poor just like everybody else, though when you've got access to a full version at work with multiple licenses they don't tend to notice when you swipe the install disks overnight ;) - scarper86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>Maybe the problem is that the audience for a cost reduced version of the full package is not big enough to make up for any loss of revenue
Not according to Amazon where Elements was one of the top software sellers this Christmas. I guarantee that Adobe sells far more packages of Elements than full-blown Photoshop and that "last 10%" difference doesn't mean much to most people. Even if you find Elements lacking its target market doesn't. Anyway I wouldn't worry, Adobe is making craploads of cash off both programs and nothing else really comes close. I don't know which package generates more revenue since one sells a lot more, but the other costs a lot more. You'd have to talk to their accountant.
Also I think the complexity of Photoshop is intimidating because it's easy to be overwhelmed by all of its features, but just because a toolkit has 67 wrenches doesn't mean you'll ever need to use them all. There's also a lot of redundancy in Photoshop. 16 ways of achieving the same thing adds to the illusion of complexity. Though having said that, I still learn something new almost every week and I've been using it for years. It is a full-featured behemoth. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ya I was wondering why nobody pointed this out. It looks like he saved all his screens in MS Paint. Apparently this guy doesn't think these features are that great cause I refuse to believe he actually uses Photoshop.
- archerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Smart Filters looks like a very wonderful thing, a very wonderful thing indeed.
- kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can always buy an older version of Photoshop on the cheap and then buy a newer upgrade. There are several people selling CS2 for ~$300 on ebay. While the couple I looked at have good feedback that doesn't mean the software is legit.
I just wish adobe would sell a cost reduced full version of Photoshop for home users. I can understand that their product has a value to professionals who earn money from it. But for for someone like myself who only does it as a hobby and derives no income from it, the incremental cost of providing me a full version without support would be minimal compared to say $150 to maybe $200 that I would be willing to spend. I know they have lite products and other consumer focused ones but the additional tools they provide in the full versions are things I look and have use for. The obvious flipside would be I'm sure there are plenty of professionals that would opt for the cheapo home version rather than buy a full license. Oh well. - jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I too think PS is too expensive. Even I as a professional balk at the price tag. Hell, my employer balks at the price tag. I know they wouldn't have a problem spending $300, but when they want $800+ for it, well then it becomes a problem. That's half the price of my Macbook Pro. And that's just for 1 piece of software. This time, I think they're only giving the upgrade price to CS2 owners whereas before any version would do.
- Berry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The beta was cracked within 24h after the release, I'm talking about the Mac version here. http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3577777/Photoshop_CS3_(beta10.0x20061208)_%5Bk%5D_(Universal).zip
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wasn't there just a link to videos pointing out what was new when it was actually released. Kinda late ace
- ike368, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i really like that they've combined the animation things from imageready so you dont have to switch programs. what was even up with that?
- KyleMistry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know. He could at least have chosen a nice web-optimized PNG or something. :{
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Give me a break. One decent design job and you have that 1000 back. And if you are not into that kind of business, then why bother cashing out. Adobe is not aiming at Joe Average with Photoshop, they have PS Elements for that.
And if you are a student, there are huge discounts for that purpose. - kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The problem with Photoshop is that it's not exactly user friendly to the average person. In order to really tap it you have to put some effort into understanding how to really use it. This limits it's marketability to the average user even at a lower price. For someone that simply wants to retouch snapshots of their dog Photoshop elements probably has everything they need. Maybe the problem is that the audience for a cost reduced version of the full package is not big enough to make up for any loss of revenue from people willing to spend $699 that woudl cheat and go with the cheaper version.
As far as Elements being 90% of Photoshop. I've tried Elements and I find the simplified interface frustrating and limiting at times and that last 10% in functionality does make a dfiference. - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That new selection palette definitely gets a thumbs up from me.
- newrecruit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I bought a Wacom tablet that came with a coupon to buy Photoshop (full version) for $299 direct from Adobe. After that it's $150 every 2 years for the upgrade which doesn't seem like that much when you consider it's about $10 a month.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Paintshop Pro had potential to be a Photoshop rival, but sadly Corel got a hold of it and is now ruining everything. They are gutting the program for one use... amatuer digital photography.
What was once great photo editing software, is being transformed into garbage free software bundled with cameras and other crap hardware.
Corel is a garbage company. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1totally. especially if you go to an art school. I can buy adobe packages that would retail for several thousand dollars for a mere few hundred =D
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The problem with Photoshop is that it's not exactly user friendly to the average person. In order to really tap it you have to put some effort into understanding how to really use it. This limits it's marketability to the average user even at a lower price."
I'd argue that Photoshop (not Elements) isn't really geared toward the average person. Many people spend years in college learning Photoshop and similar programs. I spent 6 years in graphic design at college and still learn something new on a regular basis. Photoshop isn't really marketed to your average person. Their primary market is creative professionals (graphic designers, photographers, etc., etc.). - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Swaps in a new set of racing tires for 'p2p app', and checks the oil.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is