121–130 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photopea is great, and you can do a lot, but it is not near the functionality of Photoshop. However, most people do not need most of that.
The alternatives are getting better, but it always seems like there is one action that would be trivial in photoshop that always end up being impossible in the competitors, and it ends up being exactly the thing you need for your project.
Charging a subscription fee is crazy for a product that is very expensive. I do not know why they are still around.
I pay $20 a month for the educational discount and my kids get access to every Adobe product. It is an amazing deal. When you are an adult not in school you probably don't need "all apps" and it is relatively inexpensive to get just the product you use. Anyway, they are still around because they still have some of the best set of features, and are industry standards, though this may change in the future and in some a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You think a budding graphic designer of one year could afford the $1,500+ up front cost? Yes? It's pretty normal to take out a loan or use a credit card to purchase tools to setup your career for years to come. That budding graphic designer probably spent $2000+ on a new Mac. Honestly though subscriptions only make sense for business customers, they really fuck over the home users that would like to buy the software…
Lol, I started my career during the housing market crash. Even though I had decent credit, especially for my age, my credit cards were reduced due to "market volatility" to $20 above what my balance was. Taking out a loan to start a career? I guess I was born to the wrong parents lol. Not everyone starts out on great footing in their careers. To this day, I still don't buy "new" computer parts to upgrade my computer.…
You're telling them they'll lose you, but if they did what you recommend, they'd have lost both you and the "quirky creative home user who likes to dabble."
The amateur market creates the professional market 10 years from now. They should make sure quirky home users are using their product, even if they have to pay them to use it. If the quirky instead choose any other tool that is capable enough for professional work, they'll grow into the tool and never leave it. The more that do that, the more the tool will improve to conform to their expectations.
If the quirky start buying Affinity instead of learning Photoshop, Photoshop will be gone. In a hypothetical universe where the choices that were available when you first became professional were either an (even more, by your suggestion) expensive Adobe subscription and buying Affinity, you may never have used Photoshop at all.
Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. The AI features in Photoshop are the best around in my experience and come in handy constantly for all sorts of touchup work. Anyway I don't really think they deserve a lot of the hate they get, but I do hope this encourages development of viable alternatives to their products. Photoshop is still pretty much p…
Adobe isn't trying to be ethical , they are trying to be more legally compliant, because they see that as a market opportunity. Otoh, artists complain about legal compliance of AIs not because that is what they care about, but because they see that as their only possible redress against a phenomenon they find distasteful. A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for ev…
Care to elaborate?
Also, saying artists only concern themselves with the legality of art used in AI because of distaste when there are legal cases where their art has been appropriated seems like a bold position to take.
It’s a practice founded on scooping everything up without care for origin or attribution and it’s not like it’s a transparent process. There are people that literally go out of their way to let artists know they’re training on their art and taunt them about it online. Is it unusual they would assume bad faith from those purporting to train their AI legally when participation up till now has either been involuntary or opt out? Rolling out AI features when your customers are artists is tone deaf at best and trolling at worst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bluesky audience is certain kind, more left leaning, finding corporations evil. Adobe's experiment shows that it is unlikely any big corp could go there any time until the audience is more diverse, less cancel culture.
> more diverse, less cancel culture I love when people use this to mean "more white and conservative." Bluesky users lean toward hating corporate greed. Adobe is greedy as fuck. Simple as. They and companies like them can stay off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, compare and contrast how bsky users engage with an Adobe peer that creatives are on good terms with. https://bsky.app/profile/procreate.com/post/3llfkv3mqas2s
That post seems an awful lot like pandering to the crowd there. More adroit PR, perhaps.
It also helps that when Procreate adds features, it’s always stuff that’s desired by a large chunk of their users and is broadly useful. Contrast this to e.g. Photoshop, where for many of us eliminating 98% of the new features added since CS2 would make no material difference in day to day usage.
Adobe would be well served by building “heirloom” versions of their tools that are single-purchase, affordable, and have a fixed CS1/CS2-ish feature set with all development thereafter being put into optimization, stability, etc. That’d be plenty for even many commercial artists, let alone “prosumers” and more casual users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty left leaning and I don't like Bluesky. For me, it's too hostile and too much of an angry echo chamber. X is scattered wildly but I with muting I have been able to shape to get a more reasonable feed.
Same here. I'd agree with many of the political positions on Bluesky but it looks like the left equivalent of what Truth Social is on the right - Bluesky recently started publishing home addresses of DOGE employees, with the intent seeming to be to target them with violence.