FORUMS: list search recent posts

New Photoshop competitor

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 3:26:17 pm

And Illustrator, too

https://affinity.serif.com/blog/

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 3:49:09 pm

ahhh, that looks pretty awesome.

Could this have factored into Apple's decision to step away from Aperture?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 3:56:11 pm

[tony west] "Could this have factored into Apple's decision to step away from Aperture?"

Apple doesn't really make development decisions based on other companies. Especially not an unknown entity. So I would highly doubt that. This is a competitor to Photoshop and not to either Aperture or Lightroom. Different tools and different functions. This does a lot of the same thing that Pixelmator does, except that it supports more than 8-bit images.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:18:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This is a competitor to Photoshop and not to either Aperture "

I always thought Aperture and Photoshop were competitors.


Return to posts index

Francois Jean
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:26:46 pm
Last Edited By Francois Jean on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:27:23 pm

This seems to be a promising photo editor for now I am using "Pixelmator" but this other choice is welcome. As far as an "Aperture" replacement software, this could to be a good prospect:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aftershot-pro-2/id917998614?mt=12


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:30:03 pm

[tony west] "I always thought Aperture and Photoshop were competitors."

Not at all. Completely different tools to address different functions. Aperture/Lightroom and Photoshop are quite complementary to each other. You can "open" a clone of an image into Photoshop from either Aperture or Lightroom for deeper editing, painting, etc.

Aperture and Lightroom are photo processing, editing and organizing tools. Photoshop is a deeper photo editing tool, but also a serious design tool, which is something the other two apps can't touch and don't facilitate. Photoshop also has no library functions. For example, you can't design a logo in Aperture and you can't sort through 1,000 of photos in a library using Photoshop. Much of the database style of FCP X seems to have been derived from Aperture.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:58:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Completely different tools to address different functions."


I guess they wouldn't be in my case. I only use Photoshop to fix photos. That's what I would have used Aperture for, but a photographer friend of mine told me I didn't really need Aperture if I already had Photoshop.

Designing Logos is moot to my work. The clients provide their logos. I guess that somebody else made in Photoshop. I have no interest in that end.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 6:13:29 pm

You don't just use Photoshop for logo design. An example is making any kind of alpha-channel image that can be superimposed over video channels. In documentary we use Photoshop or sometimes it's low-rent cousin Pixelmator for the layered still photo effect -- sometimes referred to as "The Kid Stays in the Picture" effect, because that docu bio of Producer Robert Evans used the effect extensively.

We open high-res photo files in Photoshop, "extract" a particular foreground, middle-ground or background person or object, carefully finish the edges to look natural, and use tools like the "Clone Tool" to paint in the hole that is left by extracting an object.

All the separate layers are then imported directly into FCP from Photoshop, and result in alpha-channel objects that can be layered and panned or zoomed at varying speeds, giving the 3D layered effect.

You can also import those Photoshop layers into Motion, and use the 3D camera tools there to create more sophisticated versions of the effect -- like key-framing various focus and lens effects to occur as your "camera" moves over and through the layers.

Doug D


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 7:01:12 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "You don't just use Photoshop for logo design."

of course. I wasn't saying that because I don't use it for logos myself, that I don't use it for other things.



[Douglas K. Dempsey] "In documentary we use Photoshop or sometimes it's low-rent cousin Pixelmator for the layered still photo effect -- sometimes referred to as "The Kid Stays in the Picture" effect, because that docu bio of Producer Robert Evans used the effect extensively."

Yes, I'm doing the same exact thing in the doc that I'm cutting now.

I have all these historic pics that it helps to use this technique with. That's really the main reason I'm looking at this new app. I want to see if I can do this more effectively with it than Photoshop.

I love that film BTW


Return to posts index


Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 7:06:44 pm

Excellent, Tony! Let me know what you learn as I will be interested, too.

Doug D


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 7:32:56 pm

Will do Douglas.


I'm working with the Beta right now. So far it looks really cool. I like how you can hover over an area and it shows you what it's going to look like before you do it.

It also has a undo brush so you can hover over an area that you worked on earlier and decide if you want to change just that one fix you made. Really like that!

I'm just getting started with it but liking what I'm seeing.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 9:56:51 pm

[tony west] "Designing Logos is moot to my work. The clients provide their logos. I guess that somebody else made in Photoshop. I have no interest in that end."

I typically never get logos in an edit-ready format, so Photoshop is indispensable for me even though I've not a graphics designer. If I need to doctor a few photos or something I can batch-automate, then I'll use Photoshop for that. Otherwise Aperture/Lightroom are vastly superior for dealing with a load of photos. Especially since everything you do is non-destructive.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:31:04 am

[Oliver Peters] "I typically never get logos in an edit-ready format, so Photoshop is indispensable for me"

No doubt, I will prep logos in Photoshop also. I think most of us do that. That's different from "designing
Logos."

I might be using this new app for that though in the future, thanks to your post Oliver : )


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 1:29:25 am

A designer likely would design a logo in a vector based app like Illustrator.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 6:28:23 am

[Bret Williams] "A designer likely would design a logo in a vector based app like Illustrator."

Or like this?



-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 6:42:45 pm

Most definitely. I think the biggest hurdle, perhaps for myself, is to find Adobe replacement apps that can correctly open PS and Ai files that are given to us by clients. Right now Adobe is still the Microsoft of graphics. We're expected to open/save Adobe files. People send them without asking. Kinda like MS Word files. I have no need for MS Word except to open client files.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 11, 2015 at 12:19:39 am

[Bret Williams] "Most definitely. I think the biggest hurdle, perhaps for myself, is to find Adobe replacement apps that can correctly open PS and Ai files that are given to us by clients"

I doubt that will ever be the case. At least not perfectly. Most of the time you'll be able to open them well enough if the client flattens layers. So you can get by and that may be sufficient for most editors.

[Bret Williams] " Kinda like MS Word files. I have no need for MS Word except to open client files"

When I write, I use Pages. But when I need to exchange a draft for review, I have to export as Word, so that I can get a document back with "tracked changes". When I'm done I save a Pages version and an RTF just for interchange purposes. So staying away from the dominant application often requires workarounds, no matter what type of application.

Of course, there was a time when WordPerfect was the main writing tool, so things do change.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 11, 2015 at 2:32:42 am

Remember Word Star? I no longer use that. I've upgraded to Atari Writer. Hey, it's paid for and subscription free! It is getting hard to find ribbons for my dot matrix though.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 4:24:06 pm

Looks great... thanks for sharing. PS and AI are one area that keeps people using CC. Maybe now they'll have the opportunity to pass...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 8:43:57 pm
Last Edited By Dennis Radeke on Feb 9, 2015 at 8:47:48 pm

It is worth noting in the discussion that if all you need is image editing, there is a photo plan that includes Photoshop and Lightroom for $9.99 per month as a standard ongoing price.

https://creative.adobe.com/plans

And to paraphrase a saying we've all heard and used in the past, "No one ever got fired for using Photoshop." ;-)

It is after all the de facto standard image editor and for good reason.

Cheers,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 8:52:34 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "And to paraphrase a saying we've all heard and used in the past, "No one ever got fired for using Photoshop." ;-)

It is after all the de facto standard image editor and for good reason."


First of all, most of us are here because we didn't take the cautious or easy route. If we did we'd all be using edit controllers, not NLE's.

As far as being the de facto standard... that's the way it always is... right up until it changes. If you want to keep whistling past the graveyard, feel free to do so...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 9:28:18 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "It is after all the de facto standard image editor and for good reason."

I think I heard Avid folks taking this approach...right before FCP3....

;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 9:34:59 pm

Ah Yai Yai!

Mitch and Scott - I was not responding in any way from a position of arrogance. I was pointing out two things: First, that there is a product plan offering if you just want Photoshop that is very compelling from a pricing point of view. Second, that Photoshop is the standard image editing platform for several good reasons which we all know.

Nothing more, nothing less. I often say to others that email does not always convey the tone and thus the true intention of the content. I guess this email was one of these.

Cheers,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 11:29:43 pm

This looks like a great image editing and creation option, especially for those of us who don't really care about being fired for using a specific professional tool (or not). Playing with the beta now.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
Call Box Training


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 9:14:50 am

[Noah Kadner] "This looks like a great image editing and creation option, especially for those of us who don't really care about being fired for using a specific professional tool (or not). Playing with the beta now."

What would you get fired using something then Photoshop to get the job done?
Definitely the wrong attitude in a creating environment. I better stop taking notes on paper might get fired not using my computer. lol



Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 12:44:21 am

Every time I've ever seen you post you've been polite and reasonable. Speaking solely for myself, any comments probably only reflect a massive dislike for the rental software model. You personally have always been a fine fellow.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 2:25:45 am

Dennis,

I would love to join the subscription train but the feeling of loss of control is what is keeping me, along with others at bay. A permanent license option after a year of subscription would change my perception of the subscription model. Not a real ideal scenario but better than the current model. Nothing personal and no offense is taken. Would love to hear your thoughts and thank you for your contribution. I do agree that Photoshop is of high pedigree.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 3:19:52 am

[David Mathis] "I would love to join the subscription train but the feeling of loss of control is what is keeping me, along with others at bay."

While I agree with this sentiment, it's a bit ironic to post that in an FCP X forum. Your Apple software is pretty much under Apple's control. Especially anything that you got through the App Store. They can and have made things obsolete in the past and could do so again in the future. Sometimes with good reason, such as security concerns. Your only guarantee against that is to not update your OS and to disconnect from the internet. It really just boils down to which company you are willing to trust and who is the least of the possible evils.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 1:37:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "While I agree with this sentiment, it's a bit ironic to post that in an FCP X forum. Your Apple software is pretty much under Apple's control. Especially anything that you got through the App Store. They can and have made things obsolete in the past and could do so again in the future. Sometimes with good reason, such as security concerns. Your only guarantee against that is to not update your OS and to disconnect from the internet. It really just boils down to which company you are willing to trust and who is the least of the possible evils."

Oliver, I see your point, but I also see a difference. It's true Shake and Color were made obsolete, but Color was free and Shake was cheap, like $299... one time, not ongoing. In addition, even if Apple was to suddenly update and obsolete a version of FCP X, I'd be looking at a one-time cost of $299. Or I could keep the old one (and an old OS if necessary) for as long as I want, like we have with FCP Legacy. So far that hasn't happened with X. But when it does, I'm still in charge, because I can choose not to update it... and I can still open all my existing projects with the old version... anytime I want to.

In the case of Adobe, it's a minimum of $360/year... year in and year out... graduating up to $600 year in and year out. Even if you just go with Photoshop, it's $120/ year forever. And as someone will point out if I don't, it's like joining the mob... once you're in, you can never leave... not if you ever want to open up something you made during the time you were paying all that "tribute" money.

So, I see a really huge difference there, but perhaps I'm just splitting hairs?

Adobe has a right to do what they want. In software, when you add valuable features, people tend to be willing to pay to get them. When updates don't really add things people see as valuable, then they tend not to upgrade. Not happy with that arrangement, Adobe felt they saw an opportunity to squeeze more money out of people regardless. That is their right, but it's also paved the way for other companies to jump in and fill the giant vacuum left by Adobe's decision. And that is exactly what is happening with Affinity.

To be fair, I think it's going to happen to MS as well. I was a loyal MS Office user until the subscription model. That provided an incentive to look at alternatives like Apple's offerings. I discovered that I could be perfectly happy with those, something that never would have happened if MS hadn't gone to a subscription model. So, some wounds are self-inflicted.

Free choice is a good thing... for them... and for us...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 3:25:23 pm

[Mitch Ives] "but Color was free and Shake was cheap, like $299"

Well, Color was free as part of the $999 FC Studio package. It still works, although old Motion doesn't work any longer under Yosemite. FWIW - Motion has to work to correctly set the path to FCP 7 if it gets confused. So in effect, this can also result in FCP 7 no longer launching for some folks.

[Mitch Ives] "So, I see a really huge difference there, but perhaps I'm just splitting hairs? "

Sure, there is a difference, but the point I'm making is that software ownership is an illusion. You bought the right to use (not own) that app based on the EULA terms. In a practical sense, we all gave up a certain level of control of our software when distribution went away from discs and serial numbers/dongles. By moving to web distribution and authorization under company-controlled DRM, we simply given up some control in a trade-off for the benefits.

So yes, if Apple pulled the plug on FCP X, you would only be out $299, but for many companies this would mean a significant workflow upheaval. Let me hasten to add that I think it's unlikely, but there are no guarantees with any of this.

From a purely monetary point-of-view, if you look at most (if not all) of the subscription models, the cost is actually lower to subscribe than to purchase and do annual upgrades. Usually the dollars are somewhat even by the 5th or 6th year.

However, most folks are perfectly fine with older versions of Office, After Effects and Photoshop if they aren't power users. Naturally this means they don't upgrade and the company gets no development dollars from them. This works for Apple, because of the huge imbalance the iPhone has created, from which we've all benefited.

Whether or not you stay current really boils down to compatibility with the outside world. If I only have AE from CS5, I can't open an AE CC2014 file that's sent to me or that I purchase as a template. I also miss out on some benefits that newer software provides. For example, layer effects in Pixelmator and Affinity (I think) are baked, so you don't have smart objects like in Photoshop. Not a big deal for me, but others have tossed this out as an objection to Pixelmator.

To some extent, what is perceived as an industry-standard application is a regional situation. For instance, in the US, I've generally encountered editors who feel that Photoshop is the de facto standard for graphics. However, a lot of Europeans, especially those on PCs, gravitated to Paint Shop Pro in years past. So nothing is really a lock worldwide.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 4:08:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "From a purely monetary point-of-view, if you look at most (if not all) of the subscription models, the cost is actually lower to subscribe than to purchase and do annual upgrades. Usually the dollars are somewhat even by the 5th or 6th year."

Oliver, I have to disagree with the one about cost, because it was never the case here at my company. Perhaps it is cheaper for others, though?

Upgrading the Adobe suite used to cost us around $299-$399, depending on their offer. I would tend to do it (or not do it) at NAB each year after seeing what the changes were. In the case of Adobe, it wasn't an annual thing, because first, updates didn't come every year. Second, a lot of updates were bug fixes and features that I didn't need... so I didn't update every year. In fact, on average it was around every other year. That meant it was on average $150-200 each year per machine. Under the new program it's $600 each and every year, period. That's not cheaper, that's 3 times as expensive.

I'm sorry to hear that people are having issues with FCP 7. All my old installations work fine.

I get the part about having a license, and not owning software. The difference is in the past, my license in perpetual. Under the subscription model it's annual. Not to go all lawyer on you, but thats a huge difference.

By upheaval, do mean like the one when they killed 7 and gave us FCP X? If so, I think we can all survive that.

Anytime a company wants more development dollars, all they have to do is give us a product we want. It really is that simple. Prior to CC it was on Adobe to deliver something first. Under CC it's like a government contract... they want to be paid for their efforts, not their results.

As to compatibility with other people, like a lot of others, we've discovered it's not a problem, as there are solutions to that. Many were developed in the past because we were always on newer versions than our clients. Reversing that process hasn't been hard.

I don't disagree with your position, I just see the edges as a bit more ragged... and I totally understand the regional thing. It's some of those products that are popular in Europe that I eventually found and liked enough to acquire...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 4:51:09 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Upgrading the Adobe suite used to cost us around $299-$399, depending on their offer. "

Are you basing this on the Master Collection or the Video Bundle? CC is equivalent to Master Collection.

[Mitch Ives] "it wasn't an annual thing, because first, updates didn't come every year. Second, a lot of updates were bug fixes and features that I didn't need... so I didn't update every year. In fact, on average it was around every other year."

Yes, this is true, but if you look at their upgrade cycle under CC, it's picked up the pace considerably, so you would now be on an annual paid upgrade cycle for feature releases.

[Mitch Ives] "Under the new program it's $600 each and every year, period"

Correct, but under subscription, you never paid the $2600 (approx) that the Master Collection would have cost up front. So you have to average that out over several years, plus annual or bi-annual upgrades to get a true picture of TCO.

[Mitch Ives] "I'm sorry to hear that people are having issues with FCP 7. All my old installations work fine."

Old installs will continue to be fine as long as nothing goes wrong. I still use FCP 7 as well. However, the correct path to whether you launch FCP 7 or FCP X is based on the application understanding the path via Motion. If these paths get confused (such as through re-installation) you would have to launch the old Motion first in order to reset the path to launch FCP 7. If old Motion no longer works (which appears to be the case), you will not be able to run FCP 7 should the paths get messed up. But that's really OT for this thread.

[Mitch Ives] "The difference is in the past, my license in perpetual. Under the subscription model it's annual. Not to go all lawyer on you, but thats a huge difference."

In a real sense, yes. In a practical sense, it really doesn't make any difference until you decide to get out of the business and would still like to have working software. I certainly get that.

[Mitch Ives] "Anytime a company wants more development dollars, all they have to do is give us a product we want. It really is that simple. Prior to CC it was on Adobe to deliver something first"

That's not really how life works. I am able to get ready for the next production, because I can bankroll income from the previous projects and clients. That's basic cash flow. So income from updates, which are feature-bearing, provide cash flow for ongoing work. You are only paying for those features when you get them. Under the subscription model, you gain the same benefit, but only as long as R&D continues and you get new updates. But remember subscription isn't only about features and software updates. Now maybe those have no value to you. I get that, too. The "cloud" doesn't really benefit me much at this point. But, if you take Avid as an example, subscription or the maintenance contract also includes basic tech support.

[Mitch Ives] "By upheaval, do mean like the one when they killed 7 and gave us FCP X? If so, I think we can all survive that."

That's a good example. In that case, to replace the functionality of 7 in a larger facility, you have to augment it with several hundred dollars worth of extra workflow tools as well as change a lot about how your staff works. This is why many companies opted for Premiere or Media Composer over X as a replacement. It was simply an easier fit.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 9, 2015 at 11:42:09 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I think I heard Avid folks taking this approach...right before FCP3.... "

15 years later Avid knowledge is still relevant and FCP Legend knowledge is on borrowed time. ;)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 2:40:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "15 years later Avid knowledge is still relevant"

In some markets...

The point was more about attitude and market-share. Take that kind of attitude ("we're the industry standard....) and it could come back and bite you in the ass....

;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 6:36:30 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "The point was more about attitude and market-share. Take that kind of attitude ("we're the industry standard....) and it could come back and bite you in the ass...."

no argument from me there.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 2:14:23 am

Yep. And it's so good that even my rent free CS5 version is all I need.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 1:22:37 am

Thanks for the heads-up Oliver. Been waiting for this, really like what this company is doing - great apps for a decent price that I can OWN... what a concept!

After just a few minutes I already love this app - far better than Pixelmator and makes an easy replacement for Photoshop (except for ray-traced 3D).

This may finally be the app the lets me cut the Adobe cord forever (or until they allow folks to purchase their products and not rent). Can't wait until my Photoshop subscription is done.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Alan Lacey
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 1:54:16 pm

Having purchased this recently I don't see it as a serious contender to PS yet - if ever. But it's certainly a great & easy vector creation prog. Having used Xara on the PC for more years than I care to remember now, it still remains one of my absolute favourites. Sadly not available for the Mac. Affinity is practically Xara for the Mac and I for one am very grateful to have it.

Alan

XdcamEx & HD, C300, DSLRs, all sorts of production & post gear and a very untidy desk. On the East Coast of the UK


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 3:15:35 pm

I think you're talking about Affinity Designer which is a vector design tool similar to Illustrator. We're talking about the beta of Affinity Photo which is a direct competitor to Photoshop.

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 3:16:25 pm

Alan, you may be confusing Affinity Designer with Affinity Photo- which is a brand new app in public beta just released yesterday. Having spent the afternoon with it- I can say it is most definitely the most serious Mac competitor to Photoshop I've seen thus far and exceeds it in certain areas.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
Call Box Training


Return to posts index

Alan Lacey
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 4:46:03 pm

Beg your pardon you are quite right. I guess that's why I didn't consider it a PS competitor. Still really pleased I've found it though. I'll check out the photo.

Alan

XdcamEx & HD, C300, DSLRs, all sorts of production & post gear and a very untidy desk. On the East Coast of the UK


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 10, 2015 at 7:11:24 pm

Tony: Oliver's mention of "Smart Objects" in Photoshop is also important, IMO.

Many times I will have a very large TIFF file of a graphic, that I use as a Smart Object, applying all kinds of curves and filters and scaling the object down to a small file for use on a website ... then returning to the high res object when needed. This is a very convenient feature.

I haven't used Lightroom; perhaps the non-destructive "cloning" feature allows similar workflow?

Doug D


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 11, 2015 at 2:07:32 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Feb 11, 2015 at 2:09:19 am

Here is the Demo of Affinity Photo on Vimeo:

It is file compatible with Affinity Designer, their Illustrator competitor. Affinity Publisher competing with InDesign due later this year. There is a thread started yesterday on this on the Adobe Debate forum.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.4, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 11, 2015 at 6:14:18 am

I have not used Lightroom either Douglas. I have been swamped the last couple of days and have not been able to get back to the program Beta.

I hope at least in the next couple of days to get back to it.


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: New Photoshop competitor
on Feb 11, 2015 at 6:24:26 am

I've been using Photoshop nearly every day for over 20 years.

In the world of doing deadline based news graphics, Photoshop has enough cruft and modal design (not to mention the bugs) to seriously frustrate me and make me want to scream.

I've longed for something new, so I will have to try this. I love all that Photoshop can do, but I wish it functioned better.

Fingers crossed.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]