Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Photoshop Touch for iPad 2 Now Officially Available
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mabaker,
Actually it does work as long as you don't try to import a picture using the camera because if you do, the app will crash. Works good otherwise.
Actually it does work as long as you don't try to import a picture using the camera because if you do, the app will crash. Works good otherwise.
Can't open PSDs according to the review. They only open up as single layer files in Photoshop Touch (I think I can understand why though - opening some massively layered PSDs probably would cause the iPad to crash).
Also, Adobe Creative Cloud - which you use to import Photoshop Touch files to Photoshop, has a starting cost of 50 dollars a month
UPDATE: Creative Cloud is actually free if you purchase an Adobe Touch App (woop!)
Text gets instantly rasterized too.. what a chore.
Overall though - it's probably more than decent for doing mockups. I'll jump in to support it. I do want them to continue to work on it over the years as the iPad gets more powerful, I'm sure all these negatives will get worked out in time.
Also, Adobe Creative Cloud - which you use to import Photoshop Touch files to Photoshop, has a starting cost of 50 dollars a month
UPDATE: Creative Cloud is actually free if you purchase an Adobe Touch App (woop!)
Text gets instantly rasterized too.. what a chore.
Overall though - it's probably more than decent for doing mockups. I'll jump in to support it. I do want them to continue to work on it over the years as the iPad gets more powerful, I'm sure all these negatives will get worked out in time.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Burrrrrn.
Kwill said:
Burrrrrn.
Also, Adobe Creative Cloud - which you use to import Photoshop Touch files to Photoshop, has a starting cost of 50 dollars a month
you must not have actually read the pricing section in the FAQ about the app
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-touch/faq.html
I'm getting the ipad 3. I'm now doing a solid comparison between photo editing apps. I own PS CS5 on my Mac and so far the only thing I'm iffy on is the file resolution limit.
I'm comparing it to a number of the existing competitors to pick out the best option.
For £6.99, I'm quite impressed - between this and Sketchbook Pro, I have all the tools I need. Anything more complicated I will use my Mac for and wouldn't attempt to do on an iPad.
It is hilarious to see fanboys redefining what fragmentation means ... but it's only $9.99, but fragmentation is only when new phones come preloaded with outdated OS version, but but but... all nonsense!
THIS is the perfect example for fragmentation. You just can't get away from the fact that this IS FRAGMENTATION.
Of course, in Android OS-level fragmentation is much worse (app-level fragmentation isn't an issue), but that does not mean that this is not fragmentation, as it surely is.
THIS is the perfect example for fragmentation. You just can't get away from the fact that this IS FRAGMENTATION.
Of course, in Android OS-level fragmentation is much worse (app-level fragmentation isn't an issue), but that does not mean that this is not fragmentation, as it surely is.
Or like everyone else who bothered to look it up, it's because the iPad 1 requires a camera.
Anyway, "Code is badly written", could you have done a better job ?
Nope. there is nothing wrong with the code. It's just that iPad 1 was badly designed. 256MB of RAM is barely enough to run the web browser. Despite widely held idiotic belief that "specs don't matter" they actually do. And if you prefer that "overall experience" paradigm then again not being able to run certain classes of applications should count as not so good "overall experience", right?
Actually that isn't flawed, the time in years between release is basically irrelevant because they obviously have different life cycles. Would you say that logic is flawed when comparing video game systems with ~5 year cycles with cars that are updated every year? The years are different but the relevant part is in having the next product released, not the one that was made a certain amount of years later
No thanks to watered down apps. I'll wait for a tablet with the power of a full desktop OS. That would be Windows 8. That's when Photoshop on a tablet will really be worth it.
No iPad 1 compatibility? I thought fragmentation was supposed to be Android's Achilles heel?
Imagine how far we would get if technology stood still for the lowest common denominator. Lets move forward please.
It's not the RAM either. It's again : the camera.
Why do people have to insist this is somehow a "bad" something either on the device end or the software end ? The software expects a camera, the iPad 2 has a camera. That's all it is. It's not because the iPad 1 hardware is bad, it's not because the software is badly written.
If time is not a factor, then what about computers? They are updated at least once a year. But do you see application developers only supporting the absolute latest hardware? No, even an low end computer is usually good for a few years. And that is the general expection for any device that executes code. If console makers released a new system once a year, with games that only worked on the newer system, there would absolutely be an uproar.
The only reason I'm not too bothered in this case is because I've seen how sluggish my iPad 1 can get with more intensive apps. And although I don't do it, I've seen people give poor ratings in the app store for this reason. Therefor I suspect Adobe is being cautious by only officially supporting the iPad 2.
Last edited:
I wonder why their demo videos are so laggy? Why would they make a demo video of a laggy product?
I'm hesitant to buy until more reviews come in and some real use demo videos. Hopefully they'll release an update to address the 1600x1600 thing too, that's going to be a joke in 3 weeks with iPad 3
Do you take your Photos with the iPad 2 (or your PC, since according to you, this has to be a requirement to run Photoshop)? Must be very handy. Exceptional quality. For the rest of us there is the camera connector. So this cannot be a valid reason.
1600 x 1600 is not a huge resolution. There are drawing and photo editing Apps that do a great Job even on the iPad 1 - but they have been likely written from scratch.
Badly written code may waste resources which means that it may slow down MY device, drain the battery in no time etc... Do you remember ADOBE Flash Player? So even if I I couldn't have done a better job myself since I am not a programmer, I could expect ADOBE Professionals to do so. And please don't tell me that no one should expect more from a 9.90 USD App because ADOBE is going to make more money with this than with the "Big" Photoshop.
So, why else limiting resolution to 2.5 Megapixels....
----------
See my answer below, do you really take most of your photos with the iPad?
nice try
Maybe it's not a valid reason, but it is the reason. Like I said, people who have looked it up are telling us the app requires the "Camera" feature to be present. That's what it is, that's how Adobe decided to make it.
I don't take any photos with my "iPad" since I don't have an iPad. And no, I don't take pictures with my TouchPad either. I use my GF's Nikon PnS when I have pictures to take.
this alone would be a reason to give it a poor rating... hey, this is not iMovie and it can be used to edit pictures up to 2.5 MP... wait... that used to be a great resolution long time ago when 64 MB of RAM was a huge amount!
I find the iPad version a little faster than Android, but still - the tutorial with that old guy.. even though iPad is much smoother, the results aren't as good.
that's another sign for a badly written app
----------
So why does ADOBE think that Photoshop for iPad should require the camera? Do they think we are idiots?
Maybe because a feature is to edit pictures you've taken with the camera and they didn't bother to make a version without that feature for iPad 1 ? How about you throw them an e-mail and ask them why ?
----------
Hum... iPod app eats battery like no tomorrow. So does many of the 3D games (maybe Apple's OpenGL ES implementation sucks ?).
If anything, an app that takes a lot of battery is a sign of an app that's actually doing something instead of just idling there. Graphical or audio manipulation is CPU intensive and thus battery intensive. Nothing "badly" written there.