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

Retina Display Support Coming to Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 in 'Coming Months' [Updated]

OldSchoolMacGuy said:
Adobe always takes forever to update and always has excuses. Just like they had excuses as to why it took forever to update Creative Suite for Mac to be 64-bit while they already offered it for Windows.
Click to expand...

they are still faster than Apple.

s for the 64 bit delay that blame falls on Apple yet again. Apple had promised 64 bit carbon support and new last minus Apple yank that and said nope. Adobe was to far into their development cycle to change and to convert over to Cococa takes a long time. This is the same reason why MS took so long to get 64 bit support for office. It was Apple breaking promises.

----------
aristotle said:
And that was years ago. So? What is the excuse?
Click to expand...

devolopement cycles for a product like Adobe is measured in years. Chances are they already have a good part of CS8 and some of CS9 planned out.

The 64 bit was because they were already to far into the design/coding of the next one when it was changed.
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
Adobe always takes forever to update and always has excuses. Just like they had excuses as to why it took forever to update Creative Suite for Mac to be 64-bit while they already offered it for Windows.
Click to expand...

and when they are flamed publicly they update the next day like their flash version :p aka lazy adobe workers only work to keep their jobs. No passion.

----------
lannisters4life said:
Yeah because no one uses InDesign...
Click to expand...

well down the bottom of the article it says the other products will get hidpi too. I am sure they have good reasons for indesign not to be in the initial list. Indesign is not as widely known as PS and Illustrator perhaps. I know that whenever I mention indesign to a non graphic designer no one knows what I am talking about and if they do they don't know what it is used for.
 
verniesgarden said:
I never used freehand, but wasn't it the foundation of fireworks? (i'm not being cynical, i really have no idea)
Click to expand...

Freehand was a direct competitor to Illustrator. It had less fancy features, but for 90% of what you do most often it was superior, and very fast (IMHO of course). I'm up to speed with AI now but just yesterday I fired up FH again to do one of the things it can do that AI can't (the wonderful reflect/rotate tool), and the whole experience was like a breath of fresh air...
 
the dairy giant said:
Freehand was a direct competitor to Illustrator. It had less fancy features, but for 90% of what you do most often it was superior, and very fast (IMHO of course). I'm up to speed with AI now but just yesterday I fired up FH again to do one of the things it can do that AI can't (the wonderful reflect/rotate tool), and the whole experience was like a breath of fresh air...
Click to expand...

Oh okay, yeah i always used illustrator, got into design right around when adobe bought macromedia so never really had much exposure to that product line. I'm sure I would be saddened to know all the good features that were left on the cutting room floor so to speak.

----------
turtlez said:
well down the bottom of the article it says the other products will get hidpi too. I am sure they have good reasons for indesign not to be in the initial list. Indesign is not as widely known as PS and Illustrator perhaps. I know that whenever I mention indesign to a non graphic designer no one knows what I am talking about and if they do they don't know what it is used for.
Click to expand...

Personally i'm still wanting incopy to come to the creative cloud, it would be killer to add an incopy touch app so my copywriter could work on copy for designs on the road and they'd update in the designs.

or for journalists/editors can write from the road and update publication files automatically so the designer can focus more on the layout and not fetching stories from their email and copy pasting them in.
 
verniesgarden said:
sounds like you are just upset you backed the wrong horse.

to me the creative cloud was a far better value, if you update yearly you will spend roughly the same given you have access to more products than your standalone master suite. with the creative cloud you get Muse, Edge, Lightroom, and cloud storage.
Click to expand...

It's the principle of the thing. I don't believe the trend of 'free' and 'lease' software is a good one for customers. I believe customers should own the software they use, because with ownership comes the right to do with it what you want. Do you really think the low price will last? They are pricing Creative Cloud so that everyone will switch over, and then discontinue all purchased software due to 'low demand'. At that point they will jack up the Creative Cloud price to be more expensive than it was to purchase. Adobe is a greedy company will almost no competition in the marketplace, and they should not be trusted.
 
petsounds said:
It's the principle of the thing. I don't believe the trend of 'free' and 'lease' software is a good one for customers. I believe customers should own the software they use, because with ownership comes the right to do with it what you want.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in leased or subscription-model software either, because it tends to be time-bombed.

That said, if you think you own your software or that you can do with it what you want, you may want to read your EULA.
 
petsounds said:
It's the principle of the thing. I don't believe the trend of 'free' and 'lease' software is a good one for customers. I believe customers should own the software they use, because with ownership comes the right to do with it what you want. Do you really think the low price will last? They are pricing Creative Cloud so that everyone will switch over, and then discontinue all purchased software due to 'low demand'. At that point they will jack up the Creative Cloud price to be more expensive than it was to purchase. Adobe is a greedy company will almost no competition in the marketplace, and they should not be trusted.
Click to expand...

why are companies evil or making money?

they came up with a better business model, the creative cloud is clearly shown now as a better product than the boxed version. accept it.
 
G4DP said:
Because Apple suddenly switching from Carbon to Cocoa API's wouldn't have any influence would it.

Yes, it took them a little longer than we would have liked. But Apple pulled the rug right from under them with the change in API.
Click to expand...

Garbage response. Adobe was told to move legacy code to Cocoa in 1997. Carbon was the transition API. Them, along with Microsoft and Macromedia told Apple to extend Carbon or they'd bolt. When the iPod took over and then the iPhone Apple finally pulled the plug.

I know, I worked at NeXT and later Apple; and explained the transition to Adobe Engineers and countless others about Carbon. This false claim that Adobe was unaware is unprofessional and false.

They've had 15 years to move it over to pure Cocoa. I don't pity them one bit.
 
mdriftmeyer said:
Garbage response. Adobe was told to move legacy code to Cocoa in 1997. Carbon was the transition API. Them, along with Microsoft and Macromedia told Apple to extend Carbon or they'd bolt. When the iPod took over and then the iPhone Apple finally pulled the plug.

I know, I worked at NeXT and later Apple; and explained the transition to Adobe Engineers and countless others about Carbon. This false claim that Adobe was unaware is unprofessional and false.

They've had 15 years to move it over to pure Cocoa. I don't pity them one bit.
Click to expand...

So now it's everyone else's fault that Apple didn't move to Cocoa?

So why did it take Apple a full 10 years to move their own OS to pure Cocoa? If Carbon was over surely they should have had a fully functional version running in Cocoa? In fact they would have had a version of OSX 10.0 in pure Cocoa, would they not.
 
verniesgarden said:
why are companies evil or making money?

they came up with a better business model, the creative cloud is clearly shown now as a better product than the boxed version. accept it.
Click to expand...

Ideally they could come up with a business model that can generate more money without harming the consumer

Right now it's okay since they offer both, and creative cloud ends up being cheaper for those who upgrade yearly and need the entire master collection of apps. There's benefit to both parties, and those who wouldn't do well with the cloud membership still have the option for traditional licenses.

What bugs me is that they treat the cloud members preferentially for updates. There's no reason for that. Once the code is complete, it's complete. Both types of buyers should be able to get it at once.

Then the other concern is that they may eliminate "ownership" and then jack up the prices. That would probably earn them more money, but it will also hurt their customers.
 
terraphantm said:
Ideally they could come up with a business model that can generate more money without harming the consumer

Right now it's okay since they offer both, and creative cloud ends up being cheaper for those who upgrade yearly and need the entire master collection of apps. There's benefit to both parties, and those who wouldn't do well with the cloud membership still have the option for traditional licenses.

What bugs me is that they treat the cloud members preferentially for updates. There's no reason for that. Once the code is complete, it's complete. Both types of buyers should be able to get it at once.

Then the other concern is that they may eliminate "ownership" and then jack up the prices. That would probably earn them more money, but it will also hurt their customers.
Click to expand...

the updates where part of the selling point and incentive to go with the creative cloud. honestly I don't need the video production software for the work I do, but now that I have it i'm playing with it. Also I feel with the student pricing, they made it a bit more accessible to younger generations so now they can learn and produce creative content with out needing to pirate the software.

no one is getting screwed over, the box version is being handled the same way the box version has always been, the creative cloud is really a different product, also I have a small feeling they are trying to keep a bit of peace with the early adopters as the cloud file management client that was stated to release a "few weeks after the launch" is still no where to be seen. It's a big part of why many of us saw value in the creative cloud and opted for that route as opposed to going with the boxed version.

here's how i see the concept of "rented software" to "retail software" for the creative cloud it was stated that you have access to the latest version of the apps included. as with the box version, they really really don't even have to give you bug fixes, you agreed on buying what was in the box, just like buying any physical goods, if you bought a car and the next model came standard with a more fuel efficient engine would you expect the dealer just to give you those upgrades? or let's go with something similar to software, music, if you bought an album from a band and the next month they rereleased the album with better mastering would you be entitled to those?
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
Adobe always takes forever to update and always has excuses. Just like they had excuses as to why it took forever to update Creative Suite for Mac to be 64-bit while they already offered it for Windows.
Click to expand...
Apple took longer to update their Pro suite. Fanbois never seem to care though.:rolleyes:
 
Forgive me if someone said this already....

But I have a feeling that Adobe is going to pull the same crap they did with CS5.5 and give InDesign the retina feature in a paid upgrade that does little to nothing.

If that is the case, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, I hope Quark offers the retina update to 8 & 9 for free before Adobe offers it for InDesign.

I feel all dirty now for saying that.................. ugh.
 
What about Adobe Reader? Still is really crappy on my retina. Surprised no one mentioned this.
 
Gorms said:
For those wondering about how photoshop handles current image files: it pixel doubles.

So a 600px x 600px is shown at 600px x 600px using 1440x900 retina and uses 1200x1200 real pixels. 1920x1200 looks closer to retina though.

This creates a slight blocky effect on all images. Scaling an image to 50% doesn't show the image at a retina level. It's still pixel doubled.

For most day to day web design work it's still very workable. I just get into a mindset that I'm are viewing in a draft mode. I should also point out that if you are working with an external display and you drag across (assuming PS doesn't glitch out and crash from the move) the pixel size on the external actually makes you feel like image isn't at it's best quality anyway. Retina does that.

I wouldn't attempt any fine detail photo manipulation work on the retina screen at the moment though. Move to external for that.

Illustrator is worse as the pixel doubling affects user input more. Which is weird as you'd think vectors would display perfectly on retina. Can any devs explain this?

A useful feature would be a hidpi mode in the image size settings allowing us to work at hidpi at output scale (so if i say 600x600 with hi dpi checked it reports the doc as 600x600 with a 1200x1200 canvas). Also save for web export options that spit out hidpi and low res versions. But I'll take a retina update first.
Click to expand...

Being a heavy Lightroom and Illustrator user, this is a pain in the ass :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back