To this day, a PC equipped with Photoshop is still the best option for complex by-hand adjustment. As a result, many of those who attempted early adoption of alternative editing methods found the results to be disappointing - myself included. For some time, Photoshop was, quite legitimately, the best editing option available.
#RAW SNAPSEED SOFTWARE#
Mobile hardware and software has, until very recently, lagged behind the speed and function available on desktop, and browser-based editing suites have been hampered by slow internet connections and inadequate web standards. So why is it that so few of us are interested in the new breed of image editors? I would say there are a couple of main factors in play. Yet we’re still shackled to Adobe, even in situations where such a hefty, lumbering and expensive editing suite is completely unnecessary. Today’s mobile devices are just as powerful as yesterday’s computers, while web browsers are capable of running web-apps that are every bit as advanced as native apps. Now, however, it is perceptions and habit, rather than technologies, which keep us at our desks. But it is only digital manipulation that has truly entered mainstream consciousness, a fact that can mostly be attributed to the accessibility - both in terms of usability and retail price - of Photoshop and Lightroom.įor more than a decade now, photographers have been squinting at masking brushes, and fiddling with curves - tasks which have traditionally required the significant computing power that only a computer could provide. This, of course, isn’t a modern revelation Ansel Adams spent hours painstakingly cutting, burning and dodging his images to get just the right balance of tones. Much as I’m loath to admit it - given my dislike of the digital processing workflow - editing is as important to a finished image as the work done with the camera.
0 kommentar(er)
