Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Digitalclips

macrumors 65816
Mar 16, 2006
1,475
36
Sarasota, Florida
Digitalclips said:
A Rebel that wirelessly uploads to your MacBook Pro in between shots? Any other ideas?

CTYankee said:
Yeah, its called the Nikon D80.

Hi CTYankee, I may be wrong but I think the D80 has wireless remote control which is not what I was thinking. I meant full 802.11g and Apple designed software to communicate with a Mac. Nor did i mean it to be an Apple product, simply a collaboration. Hey, only day dreaming ...
 

phonic pol

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2004
160
0
UK
Digitalclips said:
Hi CTYankee, I may be wrong but I think the D80 has wireless remote control which is not what I was thinking. I meant full 802.11g and Apple designed software to communicate with a Mac. Nor did i mean it to be an Apple product, simply a collaboration. Hey, only day dreaming ...

Hi Digitalclips. I know the Canon 5D has this functionality but I've not looked into it. I think you need some kind of accessory. I worry about the speed though. Downloading 16mb raw files is reasonably fast by firewire card reader; I wonder how long 802.11g would take to transfer 4 or 5 gb's worth.

I'm sure this is the way to go but speed is important to keep the old work flow cost effective.
 

Roller

macrumors 68030
Jun 25, 2003
2,852
1,967
phonic pol said:
?!?!?!:confused: Please explain...

Sure:

1. Ability to select a set of images in Aperture and export them to a Keynote presentation with a chosen theme/master, using specified IPTC data as the title.

2. Ability to select images from Aperture uisng Keynote's media inspector (like you can do with iPhoto now).
 

phonic pol

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2004
160
0
UK
Roller said:
Sure:

1. Ability to select a set of images in Aperture and export them to a Keynote presentation with a chosen theme/master, using specified IPTC data as the title.

2. Ability to select images from Aperture uisng Keynote's media inspector (like you can do with iPhoto now).

Sounds cool, useful for client presentations etc.

Apple could also add more flexibility to Apertures web templates. Their quite rigid and don't always work as they should in ie, which is what most clients use.
 

CalfCanuck

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
609
120
phonic pol said:
Wow wow wow, steady on there. Bit of a generalization don't you think. This is one issue that is very prominent with a lot of photographers I know, including myself.

I think it's the Aperture developers who need to catch up i.e. with the ability to support multiple libraries on multiple drives. This is an area that Lightroom has already sorted.
Not trying to hassle you (or myself) phonic pol. ;) Of course Aperture has to get it's act together in many ways. While 1.x has problems with multiple drives it has to sort out, I suspect that the underlying problem is it's DB design, which is my main frustration. Slow and clunky! But these will hopefully be solved over the next year or two. My post was more about the macro view of photographers and computers.

Since we're both posting as members of a quasi-technical computer rumors site, we have to realize that we're the "early adopters" who embrace rather than fear technology.

But my point still stands - that photographers haven't really come to terms with the STORAGE demands of digital images, and I include myself in that bunch.

If you think about film, there was a simple margin cost to shoot each shot that we all had in our heads - probably about £10 per roll for the film and developing (whether through a lab or an in-house lab tech). So we knew that each shot was about 30p. This either got billed to the client, or was included in the cost of a bid.

Fast forward to the digital age. We buy our expensive digital backs (often out of the money we anticipate saving from reducing these film/processing costs), and then splurge for some expensive workstations to process these images. But the actual storage / backup hard drives are also marginal costs per image. And I think that this is what we are neglecting to calculate, assuming it's "free", or pretty darn close to free.

Assuming a photographer takes about 50,000 images a year, that might work out to almost a TB per year per photographer. While hard drives are growing in size, I suspect that sensor sizes will continue to grow even faster, so this is probably a conservative estimate.

One would expect to have a primary HD for daily use, an in-house BU, and then an off-site BU. Hence 3 TB of storage / BU per photographer/year. Fast forward 10 years, and even using 1 TB drives one now has to juggle 30 drives for a single photographer. Not to mention that earlier ones (like in 2006) might only be 500 GB drives, so this number will increase. It's not just the expense of the HD's, but also the complexity. Scale that studio up with multiple photographers, and this begins to get pretty daunting. One solution is to permanently trash a high percentage of images, but that really depends on the type of photography that you do.

Hence my main point about Apple. Assuming they can get their act together with Aperture, they may have decided that they want to target this market. By focusing on high end workstations AND storage solutions for the smaller photographers who don't have full time IT people, there will be a LOT of money floating for the computer hardware company that helps to sort this out. Far more money than from software.
 

phonic pol

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2004
160
0
UK
CalfCanuck said:
Hence my main point about Apple. Assuming they can get their act together with Aperture, they may have decided that they want to target this market. By focusing on high end workstations AND storage solutions for the smaller photographers who don't have full time IT people, there will be a LOT of money floating for the computer hardware company that helps to sort this out. Far more money than from software.

Thanks for expanding on your point. It's very interesting and I agree with you for the most part. And you're totally right about the perception of digital image capture/storage being free!

I think in ten years time we won't even blink at a TB, we probably won't even be using HD's. My guess is we'll be using some high capacity solid state storage way beyond flash and at a fraction of the price.

There's no reason why we won't be storing information in molecular form on a myriad of different materials i.e. the very equipment casing of the camera you use could provide huge digital storage. Ok, I'm jumping the gun here a bit but I'm pretty sure that the ratio of sensor size, image size and available storage will remain fairly stable.

I guess the next major singular step for image storage for photographers will be when we start taking very hi res 'video' images or snippets of time and drawing our stills from this i.e. getting everyone together and with their eyes open at the same time or taking a moving subject then working on/tweaking composition afterwards.

It's going to be a very interesting few years. Having said that I would like my cameras life cycle to be a little more than 18 months!
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
phonic pol said:
Hi Digitalclips. I know the Canon 5D has this functionality but I've not looked into it. I think you need some kind of accessory. I worry about the speed though. Downloading 16mb raw files is reasonably fast by firewire card reader; I wonder how long 802.11g would take to transfer 4 or 5 gb's worth.

I'm sure this is the way to go but speed is important to keep the old work flow cost effective.

Heh. Yeah, I have wireless transmission from my old D300 to my powerbook.

I fill a card, pop it out, exchange that card for the one in the card reader in my PowerBook, pop the card that had been there into my camera, and go on shooting while the other card is downloading.

No wires required, and I get blazing fast transfer speeds without impacting my photo-taking throughput! :)

Seriously, though, a relation of mine has been drooling all over the Nikon 80 for its wireless, and I've been hearing about this for months now (he has a cousin who works at Nikon and has been getting details from him for quite a while). I just can't see how it would simplify or streamline anything at all. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but it seems like a pretty useless gadget feature, not a true time or effort saver.
 

CTYankee

macrumors 6502
Jul 18, 2002
419
20
CalfCanuck said:
One thing that photographers haven't figured out is the need to invest in hardware - particularly hard drives. While serious shooters are saving tens of thousands of dollars a year in reduced film and processing costs, they still have not really come to grips with the TB's of storage they will now need to archive all these new digital images.

Yeesh....where do you get your information? I have 4 HDs in my Mac, 1 FW enclosure, and 3 more hard drives in a second location. Many others are backed up similarly or better than I am. The old timer 30 years with film people may struggle with what to do with DAM (digital asset management) but all the photographers I know (its what I do and I know many others) have plenty of HDs. Most don't use Aperature either...its just not capable of managing a good DAM setup. When I archive photos to DVD or external HD (ie one I keep in a fireproof safe) iView MP knows where they go. Aperture ***poof*** they are gone. If someone really does have terabytes of photos (sports shooters mostly) then aperture is NOT a good application to manage all that. How can it when it can't see where things go once they leave 'on line' status and go to DVD or an archived HD?

Tens of thousands in savings in processing? There are two things wrong with this statement. One, maybe a huge wedding studio saves that much, but for most its not tens of thousands. Second, its been shown digital is MORE expensive than film. Yes, its true. Why? Well a professional digital body will cost you $3000-7000. By the time you have a few digital bodies, memory, computer, etc the savings you get in film and processing costs are eaten up by the extra cost in digital equipment. All this is from the PPA (Professional Photographers of America).

Anyway...Aperture is a great app for reviewing photos and doing some light editing. You can take a job from start to finish with Aperture very well. However it needs help in the long run. Photoshop to do the extra touches, and iView or similar to keep track of things. Its just a fact of life right now that photographers need a good DAM program or strategy, something to sort through the gobs of photos we take, and something to do the nit picky edits. Lightroom and Aperture would like you to think they do the first two (neither claims to be a replacement for Photoshop). Fact is they don't. They need to handle off line files. Lightroom will add this, but in v2 or later (according to Adobe people...it won't be in v1). Aperture has a very bad db structure as it is and it will likely be changed. If v2 of Aperture supports off line storage, then I buy Aperture that day. Until then its iViewMP>Lightroom>Photoshop.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Roller said:
Sure:

1. Ability to select a set of images in Aperture and export them to a Keynote presentation with a chosen theme/master, using specified IPTC data as the title.

2. Ability to select images from Aperture uisng Keynote's media inspector (like you can do with iPhoto now).

I'd expand that. The main complaint I have with Aperture as a low-end "prosumer" user is that it doesn't integrate, at all, with the iLife suite. The marketing says it plays nice with iPhoto. Well, yeah, it will import your iPhoto library into its own library (meaning you now have two copies of every photo on your disk), but that's not really playing nice. That's more "replaces iPhoto, but with less integration to the rest of your iLife workflows".

What I'd love is to be able to pull images from my Aperture library everywhere I can pull images from my iPhoto library. What I'd love is to be able to keyword and organize in Aperture and have that show up in iPhoto. What I'd love is basically for the "pro" apps (I have the exact same complaints about Final Cut Pro Suite components) to behave as "peers" with the "home user" apps.

Maybe I'm an oddball. I bought Final Cut Pro Suite (and the upgrade) so I could play with a true video editor, a powerful DVD authoring system, and a nice motion video generator app, which is far more than I could get with iLife plus even Final Cut Express (the FCP vs FCE was sorta a "freebee" when buying the other components, as I see things, which is good 'cause I don't need FCP necessarily). But, I seriously am contemplating (and have been for a while) stripping back down to just iLife for a few versions until Apple makes their Pro apps more home-friendly (talking with other home apps, not stripping down the interfaces) or their home apps more feature-rich. I've had quite a lot of fun playing with the pro toys, and have made some amazing home movies and helped my kids make some amazing school projects, but it's just getting too painful.

At the same time, I can't help but believe I'm not alone in wanting true "pro" features (Final Cut Express style; I don't need to write out to a broadcast standard equipment) in a "home-friendly" bundle (which, for instance, would allow me to place a tun I bought in iTunes on an FCP intro track without first having to round-trip it through iMovie, strip the video, and place the re-re-compressed audio version on FCP).

But, anyway, that's my only gripe. :)
 

CalfCanuck

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
609
120
CTYankee said:
Yeesh....where do you get your information? I have 4 HDs in my Mac, 1 FW enclosure, and 3 more hard drives in a second location. Many others are backed up similarly or better than I am. The old timer 30 years with film people may struggle with what to do with DAM (digital asset management) but all the photographers I know (its what I do and I know many others) have plenty of HDs. Most don't use Aperature either...its just not capable of managing a good DAM setup. When I archive photos to DVD or external HD (ie one I keep in a fireproof safe) iView MP knows where they go. Aperture ***poof*** they are gone. If someone really does have terabytes of photos (sports shooters mostly) then aperture is NOT a good application to manage all that. How can it when it can't see where things go once they leave 'on line' status and go to DVD or an archived HD?

Did you even read my post? You are only confirming what I said about the need for massive hard drive space. Especially since digital photography is in it's infancy. I have a similar setup with 7 HD's in my setup - but this problem will continue to balloon (3 years ago 6 MB per image, now moving towards 20 MB).

You are correct that relatively easy BU's are a godsend for us digital shooters - it used to break my heart every time I'd read a newspaper article about some photographer's negatives destroyed in a fire, and them losing their life's work. Besides my HD BUs, I also back up every image onto two sets of DVDs, one set going into a large safe deposit box at my bank.

As I noted, however, we are only just starting to shoot digital. Fast forward ten years, and handling massive storage needs for the smaller photgrapher (some BU HD's will fail after sitting on a shelf for a few years) will be a large issue.

Tens of thousands in savings in processing? There are two things wrong with this statement. One, maybe a huge wedding studio saves that much, but for most its not tens of thousands. Second, its been shown digital is MORE expensive than film. Yes, its true. Why? Well a professional digital body will cost you $3000-7000. By the time you have a few digital bodies, memory, computer, etc the savings you get in film and processing costs are eaten up by the extra cost in digital equipment. All this is from the PPA (Professional Photographers of America).

500 rolls of film per year @ $20 roll for film / developing = $10,000. That's 50 shoots per year using 10 rolls each. Of course some will argue that they process themselves and their time is free, but $20 a roll seems pretty reasonable. I'd imagine most pros would shoot more.

While I don't disagree about the PPA, they are talking more about the cost of the equipment and its rapid depreciation. So many of us early adopters got hammered by expensive first generation equipment costs - luckily I shoot 35 mm and never bought those $20,000 medium format digital backs! Ouch!

But my main point is the lack of photographer's understanding of computer storage systems to handle this tsunami of data, whether it's via Aperture or some other app. I'm not talking about the ned for expensive digital backs (which quickly become worthless) or even about expensive computer systems to process those images. I'm talking about the need in 2008 for an active digital photographer to have 4-5 TB of data,m complete with multiple backup strategies. Yes. HD's will grow in capacity, but I believe that sensors will also balloon - we can "hope" that technology will solve this, but it's best to at least be aware of it.

Anyway...Aperture is a great app for reviewing photos and doing some light editing. You can take a job from start to finish with Aperture very well. However it needs help in the long run. Photoshop to do the extra touches, and iView or similar to keep track of things. Its just a fact of life right now that photographers need a good DAM program or strategy, something to sort through the gobs of photos we take, and something to do the nit picky edits. Lightroom and Aperture would like you to think they do the first two (neither claims to be a replacement for Photoshop). Fact is they don't. They need to handle off line files. Lightroom will add this, but in v2 or later (according to Adobe people...it won't be in v1). Aperture has a very bad db structure as it is and it will likely be changed. If v2 of Aperture supports off line storage, then I buy Aperture that day. Until then its iViewMP>Lightroom>Photoshop.

I don't disagree with you here either. My main point is that Apple can set themselves up (with Aperture as one part of the solution) to address the computer hardware processing and storage needs of photographers. I don't think LR is capable of this. I used to use the network version of Cumulus ($5000) for my office's DAM needs - until an employee screwed up the DB beyond repair. A long and tragic story, but I now understand Apple's approach from an entirely different view (compared to the people screaming to use this type of DB approach). Probably a DB remembering where files are located is the best way to go, but every "solution" to handling DAM has it's strengths and weaknesses.
 

cjkihlbom

macrumors member
Aug 9, 2006
36
0
funwithstuff said:
Just a guess, but Aperture isn't that big a deal and Final Cut Studio is due an upgrade. Could a new FCS (with FCP6) make an appearance?
Aperture isn't that big a deal? To whom? It's a big deal to me.

And Photokina is a photography event, i.e. an ideal opportunity for Aperture updates. Apples usually does Final Cut announcements at NAB.
 

jrhone

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
69
0
Digitalclips said:
Just dreaming out loud here along the above line of thought... An Apple / Canon partnership might result in something pretty cool ... Steve has always used a Canon on stage from what i can recall. Now let's dream up such a hybrid beast ...? A Rebel that wirelessly uploads to your MacBook Pro in between shots? Any other ideas?

Funny, my Nikon D2X already does that.....(D200 does as well)

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=56&productNr=WT-2A
 

CalfCanuck

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
609
120
Another Photokina idea - finally a TRUE photo iPod??

While I still hope that Apple will release Aperture 2 at Photokina, and stand by my prediction that they will primarily be pushing their high end MacPro line for photographers, I just thought of another product that would fit into the show.

It might make sense to use the stage of such a huge consumer show to launch the next generation Video/Photo iPod - like my Epson P-4000 - but but done right compared to previous iPods, with direct reading from CF/SD cards, etc.

We photographers know that the iPod has come SO close to our hopes for small portable storage, but it was never really there given the slow transfer rates and external upload devices. Since Apple should be moving towards a larger screen for video playback, and hence a larger case which would allow space for slots, it would make sense to tap into the entire photo market as well.

If they did an 80GB HD player with a large screen, capable of displaying RAW, they might find a second market among photographers (besides the standard video crowd). One new iPod, 2 new markets...

The Epson P-400 works quite well for it's niche market, but I can't say I've ever used it outside of a "travel-light and quick" photo shoot. Normally it just sits in my drawer awaiting it's next assignment. Serves it purpose for me, but that sort of light use must really limit it's potential to the average consumer.

A well designed Video/photo iPod, however, would likely seem much more useful for the average user, and thus might be a great item for Apple to show at Photokina.
 

funwithstuff

macrumors member
Jun 23, 2003
94
69
Brisbane, Australia
cjkihlbom said:
Aperture isn't that big a deal? To whom? It's a big deal to me.

And Photokina is a photography event, i.e. an ideal opportunity for Aperture updates. Apples usually does Final Cut announcements at NAB.

Sorry -- no offense intended. What I meant was that Aperture is more of a niche package than even Final Cut Pro.

Yes, Apple has used NAB in the past to launch new versions of Final Cut, but they didn't this year. If they wait until next year, it'll be a long time between updates. If we're lucky, though they could update several of their pro apps, plus announce updated MacBook Pros. And yeah, new iPods too.
 

foniks2020

macrumors regular
Apr 19, 2002
168
0
Adobe anyone?

Anyone think that Adobe will be announcing CS3?

Their Photokina page shows a bunch of CS2 seminars but they're due to start making announcements about CS3 betas etc.
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
foniks2020 said:
Anyone think that Adobe will be announcing CS3?

Their Photokina page shows a bunch of CS2 seminars but they're due to start making announcements about CS3 betas etc.
Well, since Adobe are suggesting CS3 for Q3 2007, I wouldn't have thought it too likely they would have that long a beta phase.

Possible, but not entirely likely.
 

EagerDragon

macrumors 68020
Jun 27, 2006
2,098
0
MA, USA
Macrumors said:


While there will be no keynote address at Apple Expo Paris, Apple is planning on hosting a special event at the opening of Photokina 2006 in Germany.

Due to the photographic nature of the show, there has been speculation that Apple would be releasing an update to Aperture. One user points out that Apple's Aperture feedback page asks users what version of Aperture they are using. Included in the pop-up list is Aperture 1.2, which has not yet been released.

However, the last released version of Aperture is version 1.1.2, which is not presently listed on the feedback page. As a result, the 1.2 version number may simply be a typographical error on Apple's Aperture feedback site.

Likely we will see new monitors and some enhancements to Aperture regardless of version.
 

jrhone

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
69
0
EagerDragon said:
Likely we will see new monitors and some enhancements to Aperture regardless of version.

They just upgraded the monitors...I doubt very much they would update the specs of the monitors, and then within a month replace them.
 

bikertwin

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2002
198
0
This Old House
One word: PhotoshopKiller

1. Aperture 2.0

2. Photoshop killer (or at least a Photoshop Elements killer)

3. iPod Photo would be cool.


At least, thats what I am hoping for.
 

klaus

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2004
796
0
Belgium
bikertwin said:
1. Aperture 2.0

2. Photoshop killer (or at least a Photoshop Elements killer)

3. iPod Photo would be cool.


At least, thats what I am hoping for.


Aperture update is likely, iPod Photo however, what do you mean? More like a digital harddrive for photographer besides being a music player? It does that already, but without such a large screen.

And your second point, why in god's name would Apple release a Photoshop killer. What's wrong with photoshop? Nothing, exactly. Adobe did a hell of a job with this product over the years. No way Apple can do this in one year's time (think 8-10 years).

Think about it, what can't photoshop do what you want it to do? Or do you just want another cool product from Apple to buy? Really, think about it. It's not going to happen. Also, if and that's a HUUUGE if they do bring out a photoshop killer, what will that do the Adobe production suite. Illustrator - Indesign? Or are you going to be hoping for Apple versions of those programs either?
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
klaus said:
And your second point, why in god's name would Apple release a Photoshop killer. What's wrong with photoshop? Nothing, exactly. Adobe did a hell of a job with this product over the years. No way Apple can do this in one year's time (think 8-10 years).

I wouldn't want a Photoshop killer, nor expect one, for precisely the reasons you listed above (not to mention the plugin market).

However, I would love to see a viable Photoshop competitor come out of the woodwork somewhere.

IMHO, Photoshop is vastly overpriced for the prosumer market, and Photoshop Elements is constantly treated like a bastard stepchild (which is only natural, and Apple does the same with Final Cut Pro/Express) which seems only there to serve as a selling point for the full product (oh, you want that operation to look good? Oh, you must be confusing this with a $700 professional product!)

A tier-2 app aimed at the Photoshop-leaning home audience would be great to see, and really only Apple has the wherewithal to do it so far as I can see.

That having been said, I'm not sure if there's enough of a market there for it. I'd buy it, presuming it was a well-featured photo editing platform with reasonable integration with iPhoto and/or Aperture, and priced in the $50-200 range (where in that range of course depending on the fullness of the feature set). That isn't, however, often a good indicator of if Apple wants to make something, so take that for what it's worth.
 

puppeteer

macrumors newbie
Jun 17, 2003
4
4
Why would someone want a photoshop killer?
Because any would-be Photoshop killer would be, by definition, better than Photoshop.. and that would be one sweet app..

My biggest issue with Photoshop is that it isnt completely procedural, as a Shake user working with any destructive editing app gives me the *****. Once you get used to working in a procedural environment all the time you cant go back, even when im doing something to a still these days ill often do it in shake simply because i prefer proceduralness (is that a word), even when the app isn't optimized for working on stills...

Photoshop also ***** me with its screen-O-pallettes style of interface design, After Effects has been cleaned up a little in 7, but Photoshop could use the same treatment..

I also hate the fact that much of the terminology used in Photoshop describes the process in weird analogue metaphors rather than actually explaining what they do.. I dont care what 18th century chemical process kinda looks like the mathematical operation im about to perform on my image data, I want to know what the math is.. because knowing the math means I know whats actually going on. Open up shake and all the operations do what they say they do.. We need to move away from the treating digital imaging like its film mode of thinking and talk about digital images as digital images... we should be far enough into the revolution to loose the transitional language..

+ its rubbish to say it took Adobe 13 years to develop Photoshop.. Thats like saying it took Ford 98 years to develop the latest Falcon..
 

klaus

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2004
796
0
Belgium
I agree with you on the fact that there still might be room for improvement, i'm not saying it's perfect either.

puppeteer said:
+ its rubbish to say it took Adobe 13 years to develop Photoshop.. Thats like saying it took Ford 98 years to develop the latest Falcon..

This I don't agree with :) Adobe didn't come to the same featureset and experience just in one or several years. It took them a lot more, and any new program will have to evolve to be mature and by the time it'll be mature enough to overtake Photoshop (or an other competiting app) they'll be at a version number above 2 and some years into development already.
 

puppeteer

macrumors newbie
Jun 17, 2003
4
4
klaus said:
I agree with you on the fact that there still might be room for improvement, i'm not saying it's perfect either.

This I don't agree with :) Adobe didn't come to the same featureset and experience just in one or several years. It took them a lot more, and any new program will have to evolve to be mature and by the time it'll be mature enough to overtake Photoshop (or an other competiting app) they'll be at a version number above 2 and some years into development already.

Yes, but remember its always faster to make something If you already know what its meant to look like.. A competitor doesn't have to do lots of R&D to come up with the layers concept, you know you need layers, so you implement them...

Its not like Apple is doing it from a standard start, They have a system level GPU accelerated image processing library ready to roll, they have colour-management, they have the Shake team already under the roof (plus the Silicon Grail team, plus Ron Brinkman).. Shake is undergoing a complete re-write at the moment, it wouldn't take much to have a stills only (reduced complexity) mode rolled into that..

I dont think we are going to see this at this expo... but I dont for a second think its beyond them...
People often get the false sense that Photoshop is this huge app, thats so complex and powerful that nobody can possibly come up with an alternative. Look at the 3d market, you have 4 major heavyweights, each far more complex than Photoshop, and new players emerging every few years.. Its the complete lack of competition that give the illusion that Photoshop is unbeatable.. Its also bad for users because we only get one company's vision of the future of image processing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.