61–70 of 100 posts
from the "box" name i assume it's some sort of storage features, but when i click on the "$4.99" link at the top of the page it just takes me to a list of general editor features that i can seem to get for free by using the editor.
So far the only feature that Polarr has and a native application doesn't have is that photo styles from the community thing (not a quote because the spinning pictures are covering the words on my browser most of the time). Unluckily the home page doesn't say much more than that. Can somebody explain it? Thanks.
Dev of Polarr here. I think the biggest thing that's missing from the current release is RAW image support which is technically difficult to do. We're right now having some success of extracting the thumbnail of RAW and do it on the client side only using JS, but editing the RAW is a lot harder and we're thinking about using some WebGL texture blending. Any thought/comment on this is welcomed and appreciated. (Not su…
Oh yeah, and noise reduction. With low-light photos lack of noise reduction is a dealbreaker. Maybe that becomes more important with RAW?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=histogram+lightroom&tbm=isch
For a photo editing app, I hate opening up the browser.
Also curious, If the app is using emscripten in some way for the photo editing part.
I think what people might be missing is that even with the features you currently have, there's a market for this application already, though maybe not as a stand-alone lightroom replacement.
If you think about batching, my brain immediately starts gravitating towards real estate, headshots, HS seniors photos, ENG.
In short: drop the filters, put the "basic" controls on the left, focus on what you do best.
Kudos, folks, I'll be watching this one!
Neat webapp, quite impressive. Still, I’m disappointed at how lazy the UI design of nearly all image editors is. They take off-the-shelf algorithms/models, implement them in code, and then slap a slider widget in for every parameter in the model. A big wall of sliders takes basically zero thought or effort from a UI design perspective, which is why it’s so popular, but other than being ubiquitous, it’s generally a me…
I guarantee that any photo editing software that deviates from this UI will get shat on by the professional photography community. I'd love to see your suggestions nonetheless.
The type of interface that I think you're suggesting is Instagram, one that takes control away from the user because the user doesn't actually know what they're doing. This editor actually has something like that with the filters you can select on the left. The problem is, actual photographers are frustrated by these interfaces (or treat them as a toy) because they would rather have all the functionality exposed to them so they can make their own adjustments. You could argue that "constraints breed creativity," but when I'm working through 1500 wedding photos I want my sliders exactly where I expect them to be, doing exactly what they've been doing with high precision for the past 20 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can always take inspiration from audio software and audio plugins, some of those have quite slick UI ideas.
Oh please, no. The fact that every VST maker creates their own custom GUI from scratch was the best and worst thing to happen to VSTs. All of a sudden I have a gazillion different plugins each with their own idea of how user interaction should work, meaning I learn a new interface for every single plugin. At least a wall of homogenous sliders doesn't require me to learn how the widgets work.
> At least a wall of homogenous sliders doesn't require me to learn how the widgets work.
That wall is available in many if not all VST hosts, you can still work with the raw parameter list; and I have to say, I for one do not prefer it, at least not for any plugin that has more than 5-10 things to tweak. Except when I know them by name and can filter the list with a few keystrokes, so for that and other reasons I think a normalized is also useful. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Looks great. Any chance this could be bundled as chrome native app ? Similar to https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pixlr-touch-up/jkl... For a photo editing app, I hate opening up the browser. Also curious, If the app is using emscripten in some way for the photo editing part.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/polarr-photo-edito...
The app is not using emscripten
Looks great. Any chance this could be bundled as chrome native app ? Similar to https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pixlr-touch-up/jkl... For a photo editing app, I hate opening up the browser. Also curious, If the app is using emscripten in some way for the photo editing part.
Slightly off topic. I have yet to be convinced that non-native applications is the way of the future? It seems like the current trend is to make everything run in the browser these days. I don't really have an argument against it but I just can't quite buy into it yet.