digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Adobe Puts Free Version Of Photoshop Online

online.wsj.com — Adobe is launching a basic version of popular photo-editing software Photoshop free online. While Photoshop is designed for trained professionals, Adobe says Photoshop Express, which it launched in a "beta" test version, is easier to learn. User comments will be taken into account for future upgrades.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Condemned, on 03/27/2008, -34/+9CS3 FTW
    • sleze, on 03/27/2008, -27/+22How is this news? I have been using Adobe's free Photoshop for years courtesy of Kazaa, Morpheus, MyTorrents, etc.
      • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -1/+12This Basic version is completely web-based. It's not just available for download online.
    • iheartartoo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+23I think CS-Free is more of the point.
    • skabyss, on 03/27/2008, -20/+5A gig of RAM standard to run CS3 creative suite, can't see how that is win...
      • dawpa2000, on 03/27/2008, -0/+111GB RAM cost me $2
      • zzzpoohzzz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6a lot of computers now have 3 or 4 gigs of ram... hell i built mine about 2 years ago and i still had 3 gigs of ram... 1 gig of ram isnt anything
        • Yodacola, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2My Mac Pro has 6 GB of RAM. I run Creative Suite 3 Web Premium and QuarkXPress 7 simultaneously with my two monitor setup with no problem.
          • krisscofield, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Is there a button that gets you laid?
        • ghosttown80, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Your penis must be gigantic.
      • griz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8You mean you have less than that?
        • Spuy767, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Prolly running linux on a 486 as his main machine just to prove he can. Sounds like one of those people who can't stop telling you about everything that they /don't/ use or own or do.
      • Chompy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Yeah, so? Are you a time traveler from 2001 or something?
    • willynilly, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Wow, that's sooo leet, spelling "WTF" backward! You're a Net-speak genius!
  • paxsed, on 03/27/2008, -35/+3anyone download it yet? is it good?
    • Neoanarchist, on 03/27/2008, -0/+17RTFA: www.photoshop.com/express
    • bitcloud, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1http://a.viary.com/

      photoshop is jumping on the bandwagon because they know they're cooked.
      • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I've used Aviary. Not that impressive, though it's still in development. I like that they're developing the whole suite and maybe someday it will do all that PS/other Adobe products can, but for now, not very useful.
    • milliamp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It is a web based app, not a download. I have not tried it yet, but something like Paint.NET may be more useful if you are looking for a free photoshop replacement.
  • skyshock1, on 03/27/2008, -22/+695Photoshop's not free?
    • lumargin, on 03/27/2008, -82/+3uhmmm...yeah....its like 300 bucks
    • Mootabolife, on 03/27/2008, -1/+56Shhh, the pirated version is actually released by Adobe to spy on you and save all of your information into the NSA database. And there's a portable version too!
    • MrZaiko, on 03/27/2008, -18/+5I havent found a good Pirated version of CS3 anywhere! and ive been trying for a while. im still good with CS2.
      • bobbothegrayson, on 03/27/2008, -18/+2http://www.mininova.org/tor/1235023 2500+ seeds, ~800 leech
        • borninda818, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9dont get banned bud.
        • specialK16, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Can you get banned from digg???
          • autoatsakiklis, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Yes, they block your account and IP address.
        • Nearoschyth, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7Of course you can. This ain't no hippy jam fest, it's a business.
        • lime148, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5It's not a hippy jam fest? It sure acts like it!
        • GliTCH82, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I'd love to see the day that Digg bans the percentage of its users who are also pirates. There wouldn't be much of a user base left.

          Remember the HD-DVD decryption key fiasco?
      • allah6464, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Totally understandable. It must be extremely difficult to track down such a rarely pirated and obscure piece of software. Sorry to say, pal, but you fail at the internets. And at life.
      • nclester, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1What a jack-ass.
      • acroyear2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Locate a design student...
    • bbqsalad, on 03/27/2008, -2/+49im calling the police.
    • iperalta, on 03/27/2008, -2/+8really?...i found one the day it came out...but im not saying i downloaded it...i was just uhhh checking...
    • OpaqueMurdock, on 03/27/2008, -9/+4As someone who has owned PS since version 1.x and assuming that Adobe pads my price a bit (or a lot) to make up for everyone using it but unwilling to pay... I would like to say, you are welcome.

      (please... lets spare the rhetoric, if you really think the price of CS3 would still be what it is today if everyone over the years had paid for it... then we simply just disagree. Hell, do me a favor and pay for whats left of competing products at least. heh.)
      • PathDaemon, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11I can't afford Photoshop, and it's frankly the best tool out there. Nobody's lost any money because I haven't stolen anything and wouldn't have bought it if it weren't pirateable.

        What Adobe gains is that when, some day, I am using Photoshop professionally, it'll be my tool of choice, I'll know how to use it, and I'll have no problem paying for it.

        I do agree that when a design house installs cracks for CS3 and other software across all of its computers, it's hurting Adobe, but most of us aren't.
        • solid12345, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6One of the big problems I think Adobe has is with freelancers who work independently but use pirated software. It is hard to track them down but those are still big potential losses of revenue. But at the same time it is hard for someone just starting out freelance to afford the Master Suite which is 2,000 dollars so I can see their plight as well. It is not the same as being an asshole who just copies a 10 dollar music CD he can afford just because he can.
        • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You are exactly correct. It's unfortunate for those with creative talent to not have access to the same tools that those with money do.
        • xmodem2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Sure, Photoshop might be overpriced for you, so you pirate it. You wouldn't have bought it anyway, right? Well sure, you might not be harming Adobe, but for maybe 50% of the people who pirate photoshop, other much cheaper tools like Paint Shop Pro, for example, which is more reasonably priced and they might have bought, lose revenue. This is the true impact of software piracy: small companies have to compete with pirated versions of software from big companies, and its effect is very difficult to measure.
        • homeagain1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1"Nobody's lost any money because I haven't stolen anything and wouldn't have bought it if it weren't pirateable."

          But then you'd probably buy some other cheaper software, which means that SOMEONE has lost revenue.
      • Spuy767, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Adobe knows, and quite frankly is HAPPY that people are pirating their software. Adobe makes money off of business users. Adobe loves it when people learn to use their product as a pirated version cause what do they use when they're working and need a photo editor?
        • robbh66, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Yeah- that's why they've added activation and all of that other ***** instead of just a simple serial number.
          • GliTCH82, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4That's just to make it harder for the design houses to pirate it. But you know for a fact all it takes is a keygen and the telephone activation option.
    • Flashtone, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8skyshock1 your comment made me laugh out loud. thanks
    • Elpea, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1They make the money off the corporate buyers, I don't think Adobe is too worried about you using it for free (of course they'd still like you to pay for it). This release is probably to seal that deal and continue to provide you with a free product, while having the professionals pay for it.
      • t.toe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Ah, Elpea, I see... they're not too worried about people using Photoshop for free... that would explain why they make each version more and more difficult to pirate.
        • Issius, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0They aren't worried. Of course they're going to make each version a little bit better as better technology comes out. They have to at least act like they care. Besides, its more of a... if you can do it, good for you type thing. They don't WANT to give it out for free, but they also aren't going to sue someone who uses it to put their head on a bodybuilder to put on myspace. Get it?
    • xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11Copied from below. IMPORTANT: (user rights excerpt)

      8. Use of Your Content.

      1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

      2. “Publicly accessible” areas of the Services are those areas of the Adobe network of properties that are intended by Adobe to be available to the general public. However, publicly accessible areas of the Services do not include Services intended for private communication or areas off the Adobe network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Adobe.
      • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3So in other words, if you post works you've made on the Adobe network, then they hold the right to display it on the Adobe Network. This is common language on most sites where content is uploaded. It's basically just a legal permission to display what you upload on their site. This only includes Adobe sites, by the way. Moral: if you're in doubt and worried about possibly losing rights to your work, don't post on Adobe's site.
    • ZER0JACK, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10I downloaded this free version illegally.
  • Locke23, on 03/27/2008, -7/+169It's a Trap!
    • snotrokit, on 03/27/2008, -4/+23I'll still digg ya, but it's better with the ASCII.
      • OrangeSoda31, on 03/27/2008, -2/+12no it isn't The ascii art is massive and gets in the way. I like it in a reply which is easy to collapse once I realize I can't see any other comments.
    • ToRoE, on 03/27/2008, -2/+24you are correct sir.

      8. Use of Your Content.

      1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
      2. “Publicly accessible” areas of the Services are those areas of the Adobe network of properties that are intended by Adobe to be available to the general public. However, publicly accessible areas of the Services do not include Services intended for private communication or areas off the Adobe network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Adobe.
      • CoolWind, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Who wants to upload photos anyway, but to have Adobe become, in essence, a co-owner of them is ridiculous.
      • dinostabOMG, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I don't see how this is a problem - it says that if you make the pictures public, you can't sue Adobe for displaying them publicly. The wording also implies that there is an option to avoid making them public, so that wouldn't apply. Seems perfectly reasonable to me; in fact more reasonable than you might expect. They could probably have gotten away with slipping that kind of agreement by with respect to all of your photos.
        • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Exactly. It's legal jargon so it sounds threatening, but it's just a way for Adobe to guarantee that a person can't sue them for displaying a work that this person uploaded (who would do that???). This language is almost identical to the language on so many sites where a person uploads personal media. Why it scares people is beyond me, considering that with or without this protection, the media can be stolen by others, spread around, etc. If a person doesn't want an image to be public, then don't post it.
        • ToRoE, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I do not think other photo share sites state that they can directly profit from the sale and use of YOUR work you happen to post.

          In fact, most do ask you to choose your own license attached to each photo. Creative Commons, means that NO one can profit from your images, with-out getting approval to do so. And, if they are trying to create an on-line share site, as I assume they are (why else would you have a common area available) then the own rights to your images. That is just wrong, especially when buried in the ULA...

          It IS a trap... :) Doesn't matter for most anyone with work good enough to sell, they are not going to use this PS-lite anyway... Just sneaky of them..
      • xptoast, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Ha ha. It was a trap. Nice catch. Free means free for them to use your content lol.
  • sine909, on 03/27/2008, -7/+305Calling this Photoshop is like calling Notepad.exe MS Word.
    • jeexbit, on 03/27/2008, -3/+165At least you can write decent html with notepad.exe...
      • adolfojp, on 03/27/2008, -25/+3I didn't know that MS Word was a text/html editor.
        • bagelpirate, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Then you are not a true developer
      • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -4/+64Very funny. Everyone knows you use Dreamweaver to write real HTML. Only script kiddies use text editors.

        /sarcasm
        • MiDri, on 03/27/2008, -3/+76Notepad++ FOREVER!!!!
        • MajorApus, on 03/27/2008, -8/+0No column edit = fail

          PSPad FTW
        • tba2287, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2Real coders cut their teeth using Notepad or an OS X or Linux equivalent :)
          You've gotta crawl before you walk.
          • wellyuk, on 03/27/2008, -12/+8Anyone who uses notepad to do anything, other than literally writing the odd note or viewing the odd text file, needs their head seeing to.
          • d3faultnet, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9i use notepad to write php, java, c++, etc... do i need my head seeing to?

            i generally don't write "documents"... but when i do, i'll start up openoffice.org
          • SSUK, on 03/27/2008, -0/+24Real programmers use butterflies.
          • DarkPrince11, on 03/27/2008, -1/+10@wellyuk: Do you have something personal against syntax highlighting or something?
          • wellyuk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+10@d3faultnet:

            It's neither big, clever nor l33t to write any code in notepad. You're only making more work for yourself. Why would you possibly use notepad when there a million vastly superior and FREE text editors and IDEs out there that will make your c++, java and php programming life far easier. I'm assuming you're only a couple of months into software development at most, otherwise you wouldn't be using notepad.

            @DarkPrince11,
            I have nothing against syntax highlighting. On the contrary, I'm all for it and voted for it at the last election. However, Notepad seems to have a real problem with syntax highlighting. Or anything other than entering characters and saving files in Windows format.
          • SteveCUBE, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Linux equivalent? "Real" programmers use whatever the ***** they want. Usually something with features like emacs, or vi, or any modern editor like kate or gedit.

            Notepad? If you want no formatting, no shell, Windows, no backups, one file at a time, etc... I can go on for days.
          • d3faultnet, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1@wellyuk:
            I write in notepad because I'm too lazy to install an IDE, a lot of IDEs take too long to load (visual studio comes to mind; i'm impatient), I like to send command line arguments to my programs (which is a lot easier when you use the command line to compile your applications), and lastly, because I don't need syntax highlighting or any of the fancy stuff that most IDEs provide. I've been programming for roughly 5 years now, thanks. I also like vim when I'm on Linux >_>
        • d3faultnet, on 03/27/2008, -1/+16Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want.
          http://xkcd.com/378/
        • iperalta, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7i was expecting to see this as soon as i saw someone write "real programmers"
        • solid12345, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3What I hate is when web designers call themselves designers if they fail at Photoshop or Illustrator. Sure your CSS coding abilities may make some fancy nice boxes that reshape to whatever screen size the user is using, but where is the creative substance?
        • GliTCH82, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Real programmers actually spend their time coding instead of arguing about the best way to do it.
        • kevyn, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Real programmers are gay
    • Disinterested, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9hey as a poor kid growing up i had to make do with what i got.
      Don't knock notepad
    • kevincannon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Not really. Photoshop is just a brand really.

      You already have Photoshop Elements which is aimed at non-pro users, and this is even more so.

      For people who want to do basic photo editing It could be very useful.
  • cathpah, on 03/27/2008, -17/+27great...now everyone can photoshop boobs into any picture!
    • MacTyler, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2and you're saying thats a bad thing......?
    • iiBeLiEvE, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7I think he was trying to be sarcastic. Yet somehow, you two both fail.
  • theyerb, on 03/27/2008, -57/+18GOOD SUBMITTER. WOULD DIGG AGAIN. A+++++++++++++++++++++++
  • pinstripewizard, on 03/27/2008, -8/+92photoshopped.
  • fname, on 03/27/2008, -9/+294Abode's new Photoshop Express is getting a ton of press, but very little (or none) of it has mentioned Adobe's massive rights grab to your photographs and other artwork. You grant Adobe a all-inclusive to do anything they want with any work you "submit."

    Maybe this is Adobe's way to stealthily compile their own stock photo agency? I guarantee you that I won't be using the service until these items are gone from their terms of service.

    https://www.photoshop.com/express/terms.html

    From the link:

    1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
    • tablelegs, on 03/27/2008, -7/+54I love Adobe, but that's pretty slimy.
      • worthone, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7What you don't like, you don't use.
      • tech42er, on 03/27/2008, -3/+27Why the ***** do you love Adobe?
        • wellyuk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11They write good software. Although "love" is over endearing for a massive software corporation.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Are we talking about the same company here? You know, that one that wrote 'Adobe Reader' - a program that takes literally 10 seconds to open a 5 page pdf?
          • DharmaTurtle, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Practically every single adobe product is an industry standard. Indesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, ColdFusion, Flash, Premiere, After Effects... They've paved the way, and today still continue innovating.
            The bloat of reader does not negate all that they've done for the artistic industry.
            (No, I don't work for Adobe. I'm just angry that people call Adobe a bad company for only ONE stupid product.)
          • grumpyrain, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Who called Adobe a bad company?
          • celkin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Millions of Apple fanboys would disagree.
          • GliTCH82, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I dunno what kind of pile you're using but Reader opens up in like under 2 seconds on my PC. I'm using Vista, too, but then again Vista runs faster for me than XP.

            This is probably going to get buried by everyone who thinks they know better, but really have no idea.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Vista uses superfetch so it is not apples for apples. All the dlls are prefetched if you have enough RAM, which makes it tolerable.
            The slowness should not come as a surprise, The whole program files directory for Adobe Reader is the better part of 100MB. Compare that to foxit, which is less than 3MB installed.
        • Issius, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Especially one that said their customers don't care about price (in response to questions about high prices)
    • Narcism, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Adobe had some sort of stock search thing that have abandoned or plan on abandoning.
    • cubedcompanies, on 03/27/2008, -6/+22Re-read bud. You're misinterpreting that clause. It's protection for Adobe in the event anyone posts material WITHIN the domain of Adobe. Perfectly normal for big business to prevent content from becoming a liability.

      Don't hate Adobe, hate lawyers.
    • Neoanarchist, on 03/27/2008, -5/+31Myspace has the exact same clause in its ToS, as does Facebook, you douchebags. I bet you still use those services. (if you don't, don't bitch at me, this comment isn't meant for you)
      • choopie911, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5People don't make their living designing things on Facebook or Myspace...
        • soomprimal, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7I doubt people will make their living from Photoshop Express. It's just a little basic.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Adobe forbids you from reading this ebook aloud.
    • cawpin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+19"merely browsing the Site, you agree to these General Terms and the Adobe Privacy Policy, which is incorporated herein by reference."

      Um, no. I wasn't presented with the terms before browsing, nor can I possibly be. The EULA is therefor void.
    • Lionhart, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Anyone making anything useful shouldn't be using this in the first place. It's free, don't complain.
    • fname, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2I'm not complaining dudes. I'm pointing out the terms & services that you agree to when signing up for the service. Information is power. Think for yourselves, and make sure you understand the terms before you start using the service. I don't use this service, and I am recommending that anyone who wants to maintain any control over their photos to also avoid it. I don't use Facebook photos or MySpace for this exact reason, as well. Flickr doesn't make a rights grab like this. And please, re-read it slowly. They can do anything they want with your images, including re-selling on the internet or putting them on calendars.

      "Content that you

      submit

      OR

      make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services

      you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in

      any format or medium now known or later developed.
      • sinrtb, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The point of that clause is so you cannot upload a picture to the Adobe website then sue them for infringement.
    • fname, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11Statement for Terms of Service Issues:
      We've heard your concerns about the terms of service for Photoshop Express beta. We reviewed the terms in context of your comments - and we agree that it currently implies things we would never do with the content. Therefore, our legal team is making it a priority to post revised terms that are more appropriate for Photoshop Express users. We will alert you once we have posted new terms.

      Thank you for your feedback on Photoshop Express beta and we appreciate your input.

      -Adobe Photoshop Express Team
    • Forbizzle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13Well I hope they like pictures of dicks, because that's what they're getting.
      • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Posting family photos, are you?
        • GliTCH82, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Yeah, actually he did post pictures of your family, and your mom was featured multiple times.
    • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3I guess you don't use ANY site on the internet, becuase EVERY site has the very same discalimer. If you post something on any site, they can do whatever they want with it. They do not own it, and once you take it down, they no longer can use it. But while it is there, they an do with it what they want. EVERY site has that.

      So why don't you whine like a little bitch about those too?
      • fname, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3You are wrong bingo. Most photo sharing sites, including Flickr, Shutterfly & others, do not make any such claim to your photographs. 2nd, I didn't whine. I clearly stated the facts and informed the Digg community about which actions I would take. Third, in case you haven't been following the story, Adobe has already acknowledged that this is an unnecessary rights grab and have already agreed to change their terms of service.

        Sorry bingonongony, but you are wrong wrong wrong. Critical reading and thinking are important life skills. You may want to learn both, as these skills will help you successfully understand, process and react to real world information. I am sorry if I did not explain things slowly enough for your feeble mind to understand.
        • bingobongony, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah they do. They don't own the pictures you upload...but neither does Adobe. But they CAN use them in conjunction with the site. Similar to videos on YouTube. They do not own the videos that are uploaded, but as long as they are on the site, they have EVERY right to use those videos, even to make money. For example, if someone wants to make a show that does nothng but show the "best of YouTube", then Google can sell the rights to use those videos on the show. They do not have to get permission from the uploader. However, at the same time, Google obviously can't prevent the uploader from making money from it as well.

          No sites are going to claim ownership of picures or videos. And neither will Adobe. But many, many sites have similar caluses in their TOS for this very purpose.
      • ThreeDee912, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Bingobongony_Trolls_all_ ...
    • ThreeDee912, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1At least everything on Digg is under a CC Public Domain license...
      • kevincannon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Our comments are under a CC license?

        If anything, that's more dangerous.
      • ThreeDee912, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah, look at the very bottom of the page:
        "© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain."
    • univerio, on 03/28/2008, -0/+13rd person reading DoS today. Stop it! You`re striking a fatal blow to the very foundation of the Internet!
  • Andrew1234abc, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5Now its even easier to manipulate photos in devious ways
  • foldor, on 03/27/2008, -2/+27But how many features will be missing?
    • maisteri, on 03/27/2008, -0/+16Let's just say.. you get what you pay for..
      • NaibofTabr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3True. But I didn't have to pay for the GIMP, and it's a fantastic program.
    • dralezero, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I just played with the Test Drive for a few minutes it looks like Picasa. Probably less features than Picasa.
    • rocketboot, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Hopefully, lens flare won't make it.
    • Syphon8, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Ever used Elements? Like the elements of elements.
    • TastyLamp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3About $700 worth.
  • docquan, on 03/27/2008, -4/+40"User comments will be taken into account for future upgrades." This is basically free market research. Brilliant.
    • ziptnf, on 03/27/2008, -5/+18Maybe they'll take my comment into account:

      "You guys are ***** fags."
    • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Gee...what EVERY company does. Look at all that free market research that Google gets by leaving their stuff in BETA for 5 years.
    • willynilly, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3UTTER *****. Adobe does not listen to users. Have you ever been to the "feature request" forum for any product on the Adobe site? The same design defects have plagued Photoshop for years, despite continual complaints and suggestions from users. And we're talking basic functionality gaffes here, not major architectural changes that would require a lot of engineering resources.

      Adobe and CS are a disgraceful mess. Instead of even trying to clean it up, they're dicking around with Web-based *****. Meanwhile, people who paid good money for CS3 can't use many basic features because they're broken. To make matters worse, the Adobe updaters on the Mac simply don't work; thus even if Adobe did fix something, they'd have no way to get that fix to the users.

      Yet nobody is stepping up with a cross-platform answer. GIMP is a pain in the ass and just not cohesive. On Windows, Paint Shop Pro has deteriorated from a Photoshop killer to absolutely unusable *****. So we're stuck with Photoshop, its ***** UI, and its legion of smug apologists.
  • Shadowgamers, on 03/27/2008, -2/+21Online Paint with Adobe smeared all over it?
    • triskele, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Without the brush tool, unless I somehow overlooked it. Nope, they're missing.
  • Ninnux, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Good to hear. This follows the whole online app and OS concept. Perhaps Gates knew what he was doing, when he got out while the getting was good.
  • sockpuppets, on 03/27/2008, -16/+425They also put their other versions free online at http://thepiratebay.org
    • MiDri, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17Avast ye matee, prepare to be shoped!
    • curtosrules, on 03/27/2008, -11/+19this is the best comment I have seen in a long time!!! good job
    • Larsenn, on 03/28/2008, -9/+5that's what i call a comment ! (:
    • celkin, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8+100 internets for you, good sir!
    • BeavisMcSleavis, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Damn It! You beat me.
    • JusticeFriend, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1I loled, so true...
  • geekmansworld, on 03/27/2008, -12/+50As soon as I saw "web-based" I stopped reading. Who the hell wants to run a graphics-intensive application in a WEB browser. This is an empty gesture by Adobe.
    • Aleman360, on 03/27/2008, -16/+12Web-based apps are the future whether you like it or not.
      • MiDri, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5Not unless inside the web app I can set the swap drive, and many of the other settings that you do for good photoshop performance.
        • MarkKezner, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Swap drive setup is a back end thing that should be handled entirely by the server setup. I mean, really... who swaps over a network?
        • scruffles, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2First, this isn't Photoshop, so there isn't any need for a swap drive. This is just a Photoshop-branded image editor.

          If they were to ever create a real Photoshop knock off in Flex, it does have the capabilities to access the drive, so they could use swap space, and they could let you choose the drive. Giving Flex apps real access to the machine was the entire point of Air.
      • BingoPower, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6They are?

        I think not. Something akin to Smart Client's are the future. The web was not designed for web-apps, and the *****-loops you go through to approach anything useable just isn't worth it in the end.

        Web apps will die a death, trust me.
        • ZigVicious, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5everything dies a death.
        • wellyuk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Who are you to trust? Web based apps will always be about, they might not replace their desktop counter parts but take googlemail and hotmail, for example. They're used by millions upon millions of people in place of a desktop email client. And those ARE web applications.
      • anillop, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I have been hearing that for a long time yet it doesn't seem to be happening. People like their information to be safe and secure on their own computers not someone else's server. Especially when you give up some of your rights if you use the program.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Google and Adobe have better security in place, and take backups more regularly, than any home computer user.
        • scruffles, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Photoshop Express is a Flex program. It could easily access local files without uploading them to the server. Adobe just chose this implementation as a design decision.
    • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4It's not just web-based. Other articles report that there will be an identical but AIR-based version for offline use.
    • Zera, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11Hey, lets give Adobe some credit here.

      "Who the hell wants to run a graphics-intensive application in a WEB browser."

      Yea, MAN THAT GOOGLE MAPS SCAM IS A REAL POS !!!!!!!! GOD, WHEN WILL COMPANIES STOP HARASSING US WITH ALL THESE FREE SERVICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
    • althanis, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6You're such an idiot. What if people had scoffed at the idea of portable computers? "LOL your'e so stupid, who would ever want to carry around an entire computer with them?!" or what about "flying? those Wright brothers are insane!"
    • Bamborzled, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and soon, they'll have electric candles, too.
    • joshualindquist, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2School districts that don't want to pay $20,000+ per lab to license Photoshop to teach students the basics of image editing.
  • SlvrEagle23, on 03/27/2008, -8/+26Yeah, by the way, that's https://www.photoshop.com/express/?promoid=CBTVJ

    Way to include the link there, WSJ!
  • Emachine, on 03/27/2008, -4/+7I'm surprised it took this long for it to get to the front page of digg. They released it in the morning...
    • snotrokit, on 03/27/2008, -2/+10We've been busy watching Hillary go down in flames.
  • Aleman360, on 03/27/2008, -3/+12Sweet, all I really use Photoshop for is to crop and adjust levels anyways.
  • Screengem0531, on 03/27/2008, -5/+38Now everyone is going to be a freaking "designer"
    • sprintmarathon, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8That's what they said when photoshop 1.0 was released.
    • polywaffle, on 03/27/2008, -1/+11Oh noes! Now everybody has easy access to a photo editor!
      Do you think your so damn special that no one else should be able to reduce red eye in their photos, or manipulate brightness and contrast settings?
      • Soxxers, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4No, he's probably talking about the people who want to print a 3" x 3" RGB 72dpi image at 24" x 24", and can't understand why it looks like pixelated poo. Oh yeah, and the image probably goes right to edge of the canvas, but they expect to lose nothing when trimmed to bleed.
      • Nick22, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6No, I believe hes talking about everyone trying to boost their ego by calling themselves a designer, when all they use is photoshop express
    • petroski2409, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1too late - everyone already is a "designer" ....
    • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1That doesn't mean everyone will be a good designer. Same goes for inexpensive audio editing tools (FL studio $100). Everyone can try to be a good songwriter, but that doesn't mean they ever will be.
    • FascistUtopia, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0don't be such an elitist.
  • viruz, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17http://a.viary.com/ has a product called phoenix that is by far the more promising online photo editor.

    And I had high hopes for Adobe to deliver something mind blowing.
    • jayred, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I've never seen/heard of Aviary before. Looks they have quite an impressive suite of apps there. Hope to get in on the beta testing.
      • triskele, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Just sign up. You'll get an invite before long. It's head and shoulders above photoshop express.
    • artliquide, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I don't like it much, but I have CS3, so maybe I'm biased. Of course, I won't be signing up for Express either.
  • Musicmonkey34, on 03/27/2008, -16/+1since when does 36 diggs make front page?
  • ArthurSucks, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8It makes sense, most people don't want to shell out the big bucks for CS3 and only use elements when it comes with their printer or scanner.
    • BingoPower, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1That's what Paint.NET is for (obviously, if you're on windows. I can't speak for the *NIX/Mac crowd)
    • polywaffle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah paint.net would be a better choice, but with huge amounts of people using adobes software already everyone's gonna run to this instead.
  • fullofshit, on 03/27/2008, -10/+2I welcome this change, but I prefer my pirated PS CS3
  • Pulch, on 03/27/2008, -1/+33I would imagine that most of the people who download photoshop (illegally) don't use a lot of the extra features, so this will probably be fine for them.
    "you've only been using about...$75 dollars worth of Photoshop, and this is gonna open you up to, like, at least $250 worth."
    • tba2287, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7How will Donny teach those who suck at Photoshop Express...without having a mental meltdown.
  • jetblackz4, on 03/27/2008, -8/+9So did every torrent site
  • Light11, on 03/27/2008, -11/+5wait you have to pay for photoshop? oh.
  • usingpond, on 03/27/2008, -12/+6About time. To people under 30, every Adobe product is "free" (BitTorrent) anyway.
  • mewoot10, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5This is really awesome, it's nice to see companies change their course a bit and to see a more open world. More people can now have a chance to do something they normally wouldn't be able to do.
  • DD00, on 03/27/2008, -8/+5Wait all the other versions I have aren't free? No one told me!
    But for real, Adobe has always wanted people to use their programs. They aren't like Microsoft, they don't mind some people 'borrowing' their products. Glad to see they are officially doing it now.
    • theurge14, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding? Each successive version of the Adobe suite have included more anti-copying features.
      • centran, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I thought CS3 was pretty lax. CS2 was a bitch and had a time-bomb built in that even the crackers didn't find till it was too late.
        As for CS3, it felt like they didn't care or gave up with the latest version.
      • ninja0, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Hella anti-copy features. CS3 was hard to crack when it first came out.
    • willynilly, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You are full of crap.
  • bmorlok, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5They should just post a link to the torrent and be done with it.
  • DDBdestroyer, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1i like the way they say that the real photoshop is too hard for non-paying people to use - COME ON - we dont use it because we dont wanna pay for it! - and i probably WONT be using your hand-me-down free version as there is such a thing as people GIVING the "complicated" version away for FREE and it is actually ALRITE to use
  • RioMo, on 03/27/2008, -2/+49"This is Donny... and you suck at Photoshop."
    • glub, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but I bet his wife is pretty good at Photoshop Express.
  • atb12688, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1As if Adobe is the only company that does this? N00BS.
  • kingUssop, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2If they are changing the interface then screw that... I don't want to learn to support some piece of junk low end product I'd never use for my relatives.
  • theurge14, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1It's about time they acknowledged WHY so many people pirate Photoshop.
  • skyshock1, on 03/27/2008, -3/+30So, it's the same price as Gimp and has less features?

    No thanks.
    • tim710, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1Gimp hasnt been working for me though, X11 problem
    • ninja0, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I wish gimp would copy photoshops keyboard shortcuts, and get a better UI. Then there would be nothing to stop me from using it full-time.
      • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Doesn't it allow you to map your own shortcuts? (im not being sarcastic, actually dont know)
        • ninja0, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Yes but its damn annoying to figure out what they all are and remap everything...
    • willynilly, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1It doesn't have less features; it has FEWER features.

      LESS != FEWER
  • TheGreatBelow, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1I prefer my 65MB portable fully functional version of CS3 Extended.
  • wiretapped, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1Its a trap to catch paedophiles and the HTTPS is a waste of time, the intelligence services have every type of encryption on the internet cracked.
  • ghoest, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8This ***** is gimped as *****
  • MrZaiko, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2This will make the average loser think hes a graphic designer! Brilliant
  • WraTH017, on 03/27/2008, -2/+32http://www.gimp.org/

    Open source. Not perfect, but infinitely better than this free PS version from Adobe.

    Of course, there is always The Pirate Bay if you absolutely must go with Photoshop.
    • mikedoth, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Pixel Image Editor - almost as good as photoshop in my opinion.
      http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
    • mahdaeng, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3[[Open source. Not perfect, but infinitely better than this free PS version from Adobe. ]]

      Correct.

      [[Of course, there is always The Pirate Bay if you absolutely must go with Photoshop.]]

      Incorrect. Software piracy is theft.
      • cam0man, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4I can't help but laugh at your comment. If I pirate photoshop, Adobe loses my money. If I use The Gimp, Adobe loses my money. So is they both have the same ends, who the hell cares what happens? I understand that ethics does come into play...but you can't ignore the fact that if the Gimp satisfies my requirements as a user, Adobe suffers just as much as if I just pirated the program.
        • Atomic1fire, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3with torrenting your takeing a product and not paying for it
          with gimp your getting a different product and doing it legally
          • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Why is this post being dugg down? Because it's an invalid statement ro because is simply an unpopular statement?

            I suppose no one ever accused the Digg community of being morally superior.
        • billbillbilly, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1technically they never lose your money. what they lose is the opportunity to take your money
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1[[If I pirate photoshop, Adobe loses my money. If I use The Gimp, Adobe loses my money.]]

          That is faulty and unethical reasoning. By pirating Photoshop, you are using a product for which you didn't pay. Since the GIMP is free, you can use it all you want, ethically and legally, without paying for it.

          According to the non-logic of your argument, stealing a diamond from a jewelry store or receiving a diamond as a gift from my jeweler friend are the same thing. In either case, the jewelry store receives no money from me. If you really believe that argument, you are morally empty.
      • joegibes, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I downloaded CS3 Master Collection a month or so ago for school and various uses. I don't use it for profit, and I use it at school for the SAME STUFF anyway, so what's wrong with me using it at home?
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It all depends on the license agreement. If I give you permission to use my car without paying the gas, then you may go right ahead. If I instead make a deal with you that you may use my car if you fill it up with gas when you're done, then that is the agreement. If you then use my car, returning it to me with an empty tank, you have broken the agreement and you are in the wrong.
      • Issius, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6You must be new here.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1No. Just calloused to the apparently complete lack of morals and ethics in the Digg community - and to the blind efforts to justify espousing the same.
      • grumpyrain, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I agree it is wrong to pirate software, but software piracy is not 'theft'. Theft is a specific crime which involves the owner losing possession of the goods until the product is recovered. There is a very different cost of piracy to theft. Theft means that the money that has gone into materials, manufacturing and shipping is lost. There is no cost to Adobe downloading one of their products from TPB. It could be certainly considered a lost sale opportunity. Those responsible for releasing it could certainly be considered to be illegally distributing copyrighted material, and those using it could be considered guilty of copyright infringement.

        Not calling it theft does not make it less wrong. If you are going to use a product, you need to abide by its SLA. If your personal philosophy is that software should be free, power to you, but that does not give the right to use software outside its agreed terms. Similarly, if you paid for software, you need to respect the wishes of third party developers when you rely on their code. That means that if there is an awesome suite of components licensed under GPL, it is no go. It really is a two way street.
      • fredmv, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1>> Software piracy is theft.

        OH NOEZ! Software patents and licenses should be made obsolete anyway. "Intellectual property" is perhaps the biggest crock of *****--ever.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1[[Software patents and licenses should be made obsolete anyway.]]

          Why? Because fredmv says so? In any case, until they are made obsolete, as you propose, breaking the conditions of a patent or license is illegal, like it or not.

          [["Intellectual property" is perhaps the biggest crock of *****--ever.]]

          Sounds to me like you've never slaved away on a software project (or any other creative endeavor) in hopes to put some food on the table. If a person (or legal entity) wants to let others access his intellectual property free of charge, that's his decision. Likewise, a person (or legal entity) is completely within his rights to create rules that govern how his intellectual property is to be used.
      • corruption07, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Being "illegal" doesn't mean it's not a totally viable option that, unless you're someone with enough money that you would have bought it anyway, isn't hurting anybody, dingus.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1"Dingus"? That's a well-formed argument if ever I've heard one.

          [[Being "illegal" doesn't mean it's not a totally viable option]]

          Illegality and viability are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of criminals find it very viable to continue in their illegal practices. They wouldn't do it that way if it were not viable.

          [[unless you're someone with enough money that you would have bought it anyway]]

          I don't have enough money to buy a Ferrari. If I had enough, I'd pay for one. I think I'll head down to the dealership right now, ask for the keys to one (better yet, I should get the copies of some keys), and drive away in my new car, content with knowing that if I had the money to pay for it legally, I would have done so.
  • maxsunset, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I just tried it out. Not bad. Being web-based, its pretty slow, but not too bad for just making general photo corrections and adjustments for the average shmoe. I have no idea why they decided to make it web based though. Seems to me, if you want to make it useful at all, and potentially hook people into photo editing, then they really should have made it a small program to run locally.
    • ReyX, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2It's so they can hoard all the user photos for their stock photo bank.
  • haylel, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5now if only microsoft would do this with mspaint
    • negativefx, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2paint.net is more than sufficient.
    • ninja0, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, they wouldn't have any users. MS Paint cant do half the ***** this can. haha.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1If they tried to update paint in any meaningful way they'd probably have another anti-trust lawsuit or more EU fines. Adobe would claim they are leveraging their monopoly to steal market share.

      Just like what happened with Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

      When you ask yourself "Why doesn't MS just do this or that?" it's usually because of this.
  • SnowFire, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Don't even bother. Just get Gimpshop.
    • Ranvier, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0You can't say that! It makes the GIMP elitists angry.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Isn't Gimpshop just gimp with a parent container window?
  • synagence, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6As always ..... US only :(
    • DpNo1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4i'm in the UK and i just registered and using it right now....
    • ninja0, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Canada here, just registered. Just say you're from US :P.
    • yeskia, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Works fine in the land down under :)
  • gametavern, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6To call it photoshop is rediculous.... no layers, no drawing tools, just point and click pre-set options.
  • VinceNoir, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I suspect this will have very little of the real useful functionality of full Photoshop. Mainly because no one has the bandwidth to work with images in real time over the net. Even if you wind up having the processing done locally, you'll be limited to Javascript. Maybe... just maybe if they wrote it in Flash, it might actually work out. But it would have to be all local to the PC in terms of work scratch space. So:

    1. Image upload/download time
    2. Work locally
    3. Image upload/update

    Don't know how well that's gonna fly. Unless we are getting bidirectional 10 meg low-latency tubes to the internet everywhere now...
    • Issius, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Flash would never work, it's too unstable. It might be fine for small applications like games and such, but it slows down horrendously when it gets larger and is a major resource drain. The type of people who use this would likely have older computers (just a thought, obviously some will have better ones). But it doesn't really matter that image sizes couldn't surpass a few megs before it would slow to a crawl because it doesn't have layers. Without layers it is essentially worthless anyway. Also, the lack of layers almost cripples any reason to have large files. I use photoshop for yearbook and my spreads regularly hit 200 megs but because of the way I build the pages a program that doesn't allow layers would never work (I say that because I know ways I could do it on one layer it would just be incredibly inefficient)
    • grumpyrain, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Just wait till VinceNoir arrives with a rebuttal to your points.
  • everfresh59, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4Photoshop for Pussies.....
  • negativefx, on 03/27/2008, -3/+16It's the slowest ***** webbased app I've ever used. And very few features. Garbage.

    I upped a 1.1mb image, cropped a small area (10% or so) of the image, and it's still working...... 2 minutes later.
    • negativefx, on 03/27/2008, -0/+37 minutes, still working on cropping that image. it's seriously about 150kb.
    • WomensUnderwear, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6I have just uploaded a 12gb RAW file. I want to make an isometric boxout from this, so have booked off from work the next fifteen years
    • tim710, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1it was kind of slow for me, but nowhere near 2 mins, I still wouldn't use it though.
    • IHaveIssues, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1For web-based try http://www.wiredness.com/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.