Photoshop replacement for the future?

<blockquote>

<p>Instead of downloading the contents of our cards to our powerful systems, we will upload the contents of our memory cards to the cloud and edit there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that's going to be so fun, uploading gigs of raw files just to do what we can do <strong>today</strong> by moving to the desktop <strong>directly</strong> from the PC card in a fraction of the time. Sounds like a great workflow for those charging by the hour.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why people keep trying to judge the future by the limitations of what they are using today?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure why people keep trying to judge the future by the limitations of what they are using today?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Becuase we are living in the <strong>today</strong> and don't write science fiction. The current non-desktop, raw + cloud workflow from Adobe is a huge joke (Lightroom Mobile). In the time it takes you to just upload your "<em>raw files</em>", which you <strong>must</strong> first download to the desktop anyway, I've processed the images on that desktop. Plus, in the current scheme, it's not even raw data we're dealing with (instead Smart Previews). Between that lack of actual raw data and the silly time it takes up upload to the cloud <strong>just to start the work process</strong> is a deal breaker for some of us who live in the present. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Becuase we are living in the <strong>today</strong> and don't write science fiction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Before you jumped in just now and trying to bait and troll again, we are pondering and musing about the future.</p>

<p>Why would yo upload gigs of data at all once? Like, from a memory card when you return home? Yes, like I said, you're thinking of the future with todays hardware limitations. Instead, tomorrow, your camera will be uploading as you shoot on a wireless network that is 10x's faster than it is now. Nifty.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Before you jumped in just now and trying to bait and troll again, we are pondering and musing about the future</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking for everyone once again...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would yo upload gigs of data at all once?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because IF I come back from a shoot, I've got gigs of raw files I need to process. Upload to the desktop <strong>then</strong> to the cloud? When I can upload to the desktop and start working immediately seems a vastly more effective workflow <strong>if</strong> time is money assuming how much longer it takes to get the raws just to the cloud (for what purpose do I need them there? Answer, I don't). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, like I said, you're thinking of the future with todays hardware<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I'll think about driving, I mean flying back from a shoot in my flying car while the camera of the future uploads those gigs of raws ala the Jetsons. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Instead, tomorrow, your camera will be uploading as you shoot on a wireless network that is 10x's faster than it is now.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking for everyone once again...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Like I said, right before you jumped in trying to entice me into a flame war again, Q.G. de Bakker and myself (we) were pondering the future of cloud. Maybe read the thread before butting in and trolling</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like I said, right before you jumped in trying to entice me into a flame war again, Q.G. de Bakker and myself (we) were pondering the future of cloud<br /><br />Maybe read the thread before butting in and trolling.<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Classic Eric reply with such decorum and pot calling kettle black again. If you were reading the posts, you'd see I was the 2nd person here bud. You showed up way late on this one as usual (post 45 or so, 2 days later), spouting as the troll, but not to one. I see no such comments about the cloud from Q.G. nor anything that the OP asked about so again, I think you need to speak for yourself <strong>IF</strong> you can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've been using Elements (now ver 9) for years but I miss a feature found only in the full version of PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to edit in the Lab L (or Luminance, whatever it's called) mode. I need this so I can linearize a curve in QuadTone RIP.</p>

</blockquote>

You don't need Photoshop for this, you can convert the RGB numbers to Lab on-line:

http://brucelindbloom.com (CIE Color Calculator). Setup the RGB working space, add the RGB values and Bruce gives you Lab values to pop into QuadTone RIP. See page 23 of the manual.

<p>Thanks so much, Andrew, this may be just what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>Sounds like you are familiar with QuadTone RIP. That's helpful, too. I'm printing exclusively in b/w and I can create a curve up until the last step. I get stuck on linearizing my curve, ie filling in those 21 squares - QTR's Curve Maker accepts either Density (and I don't have a densitometer, nor access to one) or L values. I can read the RGB values of each square, using the Photoshop Elements eyedropper. So if I can convert those readings to L values, I'd be home free. One point of confusion... the Kodak grey scale, which is used for reference, has only 20 squares, not sure what to fill in the 21st square.</p>

<p>I may have further questions at some point. I'm not sure what to fill in from Ref. White on down, I've studied the explanation on the Learn More page but it will take more than one read. Once again, thank you very much - this could be a real breakthrough for me.</p>

<p>Your website is phenomenal as well. Much of it way over my head, but I've bookmarked both Bruce's and yours.</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Paul, I'm only familiar with QuadTone in passing. I'd head over to the Luminous Landscape printer forum and ask there, lots of power users:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0<br>

Yes, all you need in Elements is to set the color picker for RGB but you'll need to know the assigned color space (for example, sRGB). Those RGB values can easily be converted to Lab and I suspect you just need the Lstar or Lightness value. On Bruce's site, just aim for sRGB from the scan (?) or whatever the source is you need Lab from. Leave the white point at D50 not that it would mater much for Lstar. Leave <em>Adaptation</em> as is, it's fine too. If the data is really in sRGB, pick the sRGB option, not 2.2 (that can affect the values). Once you enter the three sets of RGB values, click on a button and all the fields will update. The calculator is pretty much setup as a default for sRGB, you don't have to mess with anything much other than just entering the RGB values in the three fields. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>One point of confusion... the Kodak grey scale, which is used for reference, has only 20 squares, not sure what to fill in the 21st square.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>#1 is pure white, #21 is pure black with what appears to be 5 percent values moving in that direction as shown on page 15 of the manual. Not sure what you're supposed to be scanning (a print I suspect) but it looks like 21 steps to me which makes sense. </p>

<p>Actually, the Kodak scale only has 20 steps... just checked. It goes from 0.05 to 1.95. The scale on page 15 is a calibration printout from QuadTone, and indeed that does have 21 steps. That's where it gets confusing, for me anyway.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Thanks for the Luminous Landscape tip... ironically, I check their site every day, didn't know they had a discussion section! I'll check that out. Most of my help with QuadTone is on a Yahoo! group dedicated to that software, and frequented by Roy Harrington, the program's author. He's very helpful, but I've had some sort of block due to what I thought was a limitation of not being able to enter L values. But now, thanks to your tip, I may be able to cross that hurdle.</p>

<p>Your comments on the other parameters were very helpful, actually I think I'll be working in RBG, not sRBG. BTW, what is Lstar? L*ab?</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your comments on the other parameters were very helpful, actually I think I'll be working in RBG, not sRBG. BTW, what is Lstar? L*ab?</p>

</blockquote>

Getting OT but.... Might need to start a new thread.

Lstar is the L in Lab (then there's aStar and bStar)**. You'll be working in some RGB working space which may not be sRGB but that color space MUST be defined to convert those RGB values to Lab. In sRGB, R0/G200/B0 is a different color than R0/G200/B0 in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB Etc. I don't know Elements but suspect it has to understand these working spaces. It's critical the numbers you feed to Bruce's calculator have a defined color space. Otherwise the number conversion may not be correct.

 

Imagine you want to convert Ounces to Milliliter. If you went to a site for the conversion and didn't enter Ounces, the site can't do the conversions. Or if you popped a value for cup into the calculation when you really wanted Ounces, your final value would be wrong. So this is pretty important.

 

**http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200504_rodneycm.pdf

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>That occurred to me as well, ie starting a new thread! But I think we're about done...</p>

<p>Just checked my Elements (I'm on version 9, now it's up to 11 or 12) and I can work in RGB but sRGB is not listed as an option under Mode. This leaves the camera... I usually shoot in jpg, but perhaps I should be shooting in RAW. But what color space am I in then? (It's a Canon G-9). Also, once I've converted the color original to b/w, does all this matter? I convert to b/w by working on each of the RGB channels, in monochrome. I usually set the channels at 60,40,0.</p>

<p>Paul, see: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/using/setting-color-management.html<br>

There's no such thing as plain old vanilla RGB but many flavors, all having a specific DNA if you will. Adobe RGB is one, sRGB is another etc. <br>

As to what to set on the camera (raw or JPEG which would provide sRGB), you should check with Roy or the folks on LuLa. It probably <strong>isn't</strong> ideal. I thought they needed a scanned image of a print? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That occurred to me as well, ie starting a new thread! But I think we're about done...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh heavens no, not Andrew. Some threads he carries on talking to himself, other time he'll resort to insults and ad hominem attacks to ensure he gets the last word in. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=788985">Eric ~</a> Oh heavens no, not Andrew. Some threads he carries on talking to himself, other time he'll resort to insults and ad hominem attacks to ensure he gets the last word in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, can you look up the term hypocrite? Case in point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=788985">Eric ~</a> , Jul 03, 2014; 04:47 p.m: We? Lol, you don't even make photos for the fun of it.<br>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=788985">Eric ~</a> , Jul 06, 2014; 01:02 p.m: It's his MO, you'll never get a straight answer out of him, Joe.<br>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=788985">Eric ~</a> , Jul 07, 2014; 11:14 a.m: You'll find no sympathies from anyone here, Luminous Landscape, or AUF's. You're a nasty bully that for some reason gets carte blanche from the PN mods</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dozen's of other examples this is just ONE thread!</p>

<p>I don't know if it was mentioned above, but isn't Photoshop already being replaced by Adobe Raw. A couple years ago I went to a Scott Kelby CS6 workshop in Los Angeles, and the entire day was spent learning Adobe Raw. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew - Yeah, that's going to be so fun, uploading gigs of raw files just to do what we can do <strong>today</strong> by moving to the desktop <strong>directly</strong> from the PC card in a fraction of the time. Sounds like a great workflow for those charging by the hour.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Google Fiber FTW. Today, Google Fibre upload is already 50% faster than my Lexar USB3 card reader dumps to ssd.</p>

<p><img src="http://t3chsmash.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/speedtest.jpg" alt="" width="736" height="451" /></p>

<p>It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you took photos on a smartphone, we've had the ability to upload (auto backup) our jpg's to Google and iTunes accounts while shooting. In a few months, Android L is coming out and it allows raw photography. It's only a matter time before the option for dslr's to be cloud-tethered as no one wants to wait until they are home to start viewing/culling/editing these days while we're carrying our mobile devices.</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I thought they needed a scanned image of a print?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, QTR needs a scan of the Kodak Q-13 step file, and a scan of a 21 step file as printed by QTR. Then the two are combined to linearize the curve - and that's the part I have trouble understanding.</p>

<p>One last question, and I thank you for all your other responses: if I'm working in b/w, do I need to concern myself with the various color spaces?</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One last question, and I thank you for all your other responses: if I'm working in b/w, do I need to concern myself with the various color spaces?</p>

</blockquote>

You think it's OK with Eric ;-)

 

The working space in terms of gamut no, but the question would be what's the source of the data (raw, a scan etc)? I'd check with Roy or on LuLa but I suspect sRGB or Adobe RGB would be fine but some working spaces do have different gamma (TRC) encoding so I'd check. It's possible the product would prefer a 2.2 TRC (sRGB).

<p>Thank you, Andrew... I'll watch my gamma.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<blockquote>

Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it.

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<br /><br />The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course. <br /><br />

</blockquote>

<p>I'm letting you know, lol. I love it. Photoshop now runs native in a virtual environment, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/29/adobe-brings-photoshop-for-chromebooks-to-its-education-customers/">according to TechCrunch</a><br /><br /><br>

<em>For the longest time, pundits said that Google’s <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/devices/" target="_blank">Chromebook</a> initiative wouldn’t amount to much because Chrome OS couldn’t run complex applications like <a href="http://www.photoshop.com/" target="_blank">Photoshop</a>. Those pundits will have to find another example now, because <a href="http://chrome.blogspot.com/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html" target="_blank">starting today</a>, Photoshop will run on Chrome OS and on Chrome for Windows (if you are an Adobe education customer).</em><br>

<em>This new streaming version of Photoshop will be available first for Adobe <a href="http://edex.adobe.com/projectphotoshopstreaming" target="_blank">education customers</a> with paid Creative Cloud subscriptions. Clearly, the company is using this group as its beta testers for this project and it’s unclear when Adobe plans to launch this to a wider audience. The company is hosting its <a href="http://max.adobe.com/" target="_blank">MAX conference </a>next week, which would be the ideal staging ground for a wider launch, but that would be an awfully brief beta period. Adobe says the project will be available to its education customers for at least the next six months.</em><br>

<em><a href="http://edex.adobe.com/projectphotoshopstreaming/faq" target="_blank">According to Adobe</a>, this is the complete version of Photoshop, but it will run in a virtualized environment, so you don’t need to install anything on your local machine. Opening, saving and exporting files is handled by Google Drive.</em><br /><br />http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/29/adobe-brings-photoshop-for-chromebooks-to-its-education-customers/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, photoshop running virtually on Chrome OS and now Adobe going mobile all the time for iOS and Android. Seems like my "speculation" of working in the cloud with Adobe on mobile is getting even closer!</p>

<p>"one thing is becoming clear: the theme of this year’s Adobe MAX is all mobile, all the time. Some exciting new apps, updates to both the mobile and desktop apps we know and love, and the official release of the Creative SDK public beta"<br>

<a href="/bboard/Adobe%20Unveils%20New%20and%20Updated%20Apps">http://petapixel.com/2014/10/06/adobe-unveils-new-updated-apps-drives-deep-connections-desktop-mobile/#more-147335</a></p>