News - Touch optimised Photoshop CC shown at Surface 3 launch event

Quote:

---

Could it be a killer app for Microsoft's Surface?

---

Read more.

Oh neat, Adobe have a version of CC that plays nice with DPI scaling. Shame they won't update Photoshop Elements 12 to support it.

well they got to have something as a reason to update from cs6 to their rental program....nope still not changing

I wonder how this would compare to a Wacom Cintiq in terms of price/performance... hmmm......

My reaction, exactly, pollaxe. I've used 'touch' for ages with PS. That's what a graphics tablet's for.

As for 'touch' with a tablet, and a finger, I have enough trouble typing on a screen KB with this tablet, never mind pixel-poking. So, I'd need a decent stylus. And the advantage of 'touch' PS with a stylus over an old version and a graphics tablet is???

So yeah .... nope, still not changing either.

Personally, I'm quite content to say here and now, and probably have before, I'm not going CC, period. I'm not going 'cloud' for my storage or applications, and I'm absolutely NOT going subscription. Not now, not ever, no matter what features they announce. And that's that.

Sensitivity levels alone are drastically lower than Wacoms, so it kind of seems like a move similar to what Razer did when switching manufacturers for their mechanical keyboard key switches.

Basically, tsk tsk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

My reaction, exactly, pollaxe. I've used 'touch' for ages with PS. That's what a graphics tablet's for.

As for 'touch' with a tablet, and a finger, I have enough trouble typing on a screen KB with this tablet, never mind pixel-poking. So, I'd need a decent stylus. And the advantage of 'touch' PS with a stylus over an old version and a graphics tablet is???

So yeah .... nope, still not changing either.

Personally, I'm quite content to say here and now, and probably have before, I'm not going CC, period. I'm not going 'cloud' for my storage or applications, and I'm absolutely NOT going subscription. Not now, not ever, no matter what features they announce. And that's that.

---

Already have 2 wacom tablets and I already have most of those new 'features' except the big buttons via my 3d connexion spacemouse (need to upgrade to the space pilot at some point) which I use anyways for 3D work.... it allows me to rotate, pan, tilt, zoom and I can 'scroll' my brush size... it cost me like 50 quid lol. Yes I'd recommend them but I'd go for the next step up as I'm forever lifting it off the desk lol

I've added cloud storage to my personal workflow, I'm gradually uploading all my music to google music... slowly as I'm fixing tags but I wouldn't trust my work files outside of my network or my website (client area) due to concerns over privacy anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LSG501

...

I've added cloud storage to my personal workflow, I'm gradually uploading all my music to google music... slowly as I'm fixing tags but I wouldn't trust my work files outside of my network or my website (client area) due to concerns over privacy anyways.

---

I guess it's a personal choice, based at least in part in what each of us does with our systems. I suppose there's no harm in things like music collections (legal ones anyway) being on the cloud, but I entirely agree about work files. Some of my work files are client-confidential, ranging from commercially confidential stuff to minutes of board meetings, bid documents, etc. Others include sensitive material of my own, ranging from work in progress, to financial records and a scanned document archive. Then, there's personal info, like tax returns, bank statements, medical letters and all sorts. All that latter stuff is kept on a network that doesn't have external connections, like internet .... quite deliberately.

In short, I've got stuff I want to be SURE doesn't end up on the cloud, even by accident, and with no real incentive to put anything on the cloud, I regard the best way of ensuring no accidental uploading, or upsyncing, is to not have a cloud account in the first place.

So, personally, I see plenty of reasons not to go cloud, and no convincing reasons for needing it. For everyone else, though, YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Some of my work files are client-confidential, ranging from commercially confidential stuff to minutes of board meetings, bid documents, etc. Others include sensitive material of my own, ranging from work in progress, to financial records and a scanned document archive. Then, there's personal info, like tax returns, bank statements, medical lettrs and all sorts. All that latter stuff is kept on a network that doesn't have external connections, like internet .... quite deliberately.

---

Same and with things like nas's with either built in 'cloud' software or web servers allowing software like owncloud (has apps etc) or even vpn's you don't really need it assuming you have decent internet... which is another matter, upload speeds still suck for most people, I've only got upload speed of around 90KB/s if I'm lucky...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LSG501

Same and with things like nas's with either built in 'cloud' software or web servers allowing software like owncloud (has apps etc) or even vpn's you don't really need it assuming you have decent internet... which is another matter, upload speeds still suck for most people, I've only got upload speed of around 90KB/s if I'm lucky...

---

But because I don't need or want cloud-type services, even under my own control, net upload speeds aren't really much of an issue for me. About the only time upload speeds matter to me is when installing to a web server, or when uploading files a client wants put online. That happens, but not enough for speed to really be an issue. The vast bulk of my data I don't want accessible from the net under any circumstances. I don't need such access, and want to be absolutely sure nobody else possibly can get it. Hence the airgap in my networks.

Creative cloud might be ridiculous for most people, but most people pirate Adobe's stuff anyway (especially students), because it costs a billion pounds. There's a good chance Microsoft could clean up with this in the business space if they can finally build something that's noticeably better than a macbook for creatives on the go. Even for the rest of us, it's full fat windows, so there's every chance they'll still sell hardware to the people who are going to pirate CC. Smart move all round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

As for 'touch' with a tablet, and a finger, I have enough trouble typing on a screen KB with this tablet, never mind pixel-poking. So, I'd need a decent stylus. And the advantage of 'touch' PS with a stylus over an old version and a graphics tablet is???

So yeah .... nope, still not changing either.

---

It's not a game changer at all.

But I think you are missing the point. It's like Office, if you've got a touch device, and enable touch mode spacing, the app becomes a lot more usable for touch devices because icon spacing and the like is prioritised for touch use. This isn't rocket science stuff, as far as the code changes go, but it makes it a lot more usable.

For instance, touch on Windows Explorer has gotten a bit better, but it is still horrificly bad if you are wanting a 'details' view. They could optomise it quite easily, add more padding, make certain hit targets bigger.

"256 levels of pressure sensitivity"? That is absolutely terrible.

Artists: if this Surface attracts you and you aren't happy with Wacom's complacency, take a look at what Monoprice has been doing lately! http://frenden.com/post/69444810884/...acom-take-heed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

It's not a game changer at all.

But I think you are missing the point. It's like Office, if you've got a touch device, and enable touch mode spacing, the app becomes a lot more usable for touch devices because icon spacing and the like is prioritised for touch use. This isn't rocket science stuff, as far as the code changes go, but it makes it a lot more usable.

For instance, touch on Windows Explorer has gotten a bit better, but it is still horrificly bad if you are wanting a 'details' view. They could optomise it quite easily, add more padding, make certain hit targets bigger.

---

For most apps, I'd accept that. Not, for me, PS though. Some functions in PS, like maybe running filters, layers, etc, maybe. But for the pixel-poking bits, I can't see basic touch, without a stylus, ever being workable. And for reasons already given, the 'touch' approach from a half decent tablet, and probably even a cheap, crude one, beats touch-sensitive screens, probably even if using a stylus, let alone finger.

Surely, given the naure (and price) of Photoshop, any (legit) users that need 'touch' will already very likely be tablet users?