Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Photoshop Hate

Photoshop Hate
Thread Tools
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 07:53 AM
 
I've been using Macs for some time. I've also been using PCs for some time. It was AutoCAD in 1990 that got me going...

Recently I have had to turn to Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator to do some design work. Up until a few months ago I had little experience with this software. Now that I have learned quite a bit and produced some pretty decent graphics, I have to say:

I hate Photoshop. I like the results, but the amount of work required is literally ridiculous. There's lots of things... The way the entire program is set up seems, in the end, awkward. Second, it's hopelessly unintuitive. This may be fine for experts who have used it for years, but it's steep learning curve is unfortunate. Third, the user interface is just terrible. Menus are laughable at times. And fourth, performance is terrible.

It takes up a lot of system resources and typically causes freezes for me on multiple machines tested. Using Pixelmater... This program is just so much faster and more fluid.

It's like Adobe just threw a bunch of glue and bandaids on an aging program that looks like it did decades ago.

Now this view of Photoshop might just be me... but can anyone chime in... am I alone in my experience? Why is the performance so terrible (2.4 Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM)?
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 08:18 AM
 
Well, PS is geared towards the professional who does have years of experience. While I may not be an expert, I do find the layout intuitive and helpful. There is a very steep learning curve because of the power, flexibility and depth of tools you have at hand.

I also believe adobe has thrown a bunch of glue and bandaids on an aging program. CS5 I believe is a step in the right direction as its rewriting a lot of the old code. Still there's a ton of old code that does just work so programmers are hesitant to rewrite it.

It does what I want it to do and again I'm going to qualify my abilities and needs to be very low. I'd peg my abilities as a step or two above a noob when it comes to PS
~Mike
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 10:01 AM
 
I always find it amusing all the Mac hate directed at Adobe.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I always find it amusing all the Mac hate directed at Adobe.
Yeah, I agree, With the adobe is evil because of flash debacle and just recently the secret meeting between them and MS, many Mac users are jumping on the anti-adobe platform.

Personally, I like their products, and I don't even hate flash. I hate the flash advertisements on web pages that seem to take over the screen/page but in general flash can add to your surfing experience.
~Mike
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Why is the performance so terrible (2.4 Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM)?
You have a slow, old laptop with limited memory.
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn View Post
Yeah, I agree, With the adobe is evil because of flash debacle and just recently the secret meeting between them and MS, many Mac users are jumping on the anti-adobe platform.
It's older than that… like when they killed Freehand.

You have a slow, old laptop with limited memory.
Maybe it is the internal hard disk which is kinda slow.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2010, 09:00 PM
 
Well, first, I don't consider my laptop slow and old. It's 1.5 years old. It's not like I'm using antiquated technology. And it has a 7200 RPM drive.

Second, what's with this assumption that I hate Adobe? I never mentioned any hate toward Adobe as a company itself. Neither did I mention anything about not liking Flash. This is about Photoshop and, Illustrator to a lessor extent.

And if you read my original post, you'll notice I actually have something else to compare the performance of Photoshop to: that's Pixelmator. It's way more responsive. Yes, I understand Photoshop is much more powerful, but that's no excuse for poor performance... on the simple-moderate complexity stuff Pixelmator runs circles around Photoshop...

I'm sure with a more powerful computer Photoshop won't hiccup so much. I understand that. But with all of the programs I have learnt and know how to use over the past 20 years of computing, Photoshop ranks at the bottom in terms of usability and performance. I don't care how good the results are. It's bloated and unintuitive. And there's things that much simpler programs can do, and do better, in just a fraction of the time compared to Photoshop.

One example. Apple's Preview can get rid of the background around an image typically within seconds by using the Instant Alpha Tool. It works. With Photoshop, it's much more labour intensive to achieve the same result.

Another example. Corel Paint runs circles around Photoshop when it comes to gradient fills. Gradient fills in Photoshop are just backwards and unintuitive.

What about measurements of shapes, etc. in the tools option bar? Well, you won't see that there. You'll have to bring up the info pane which is itself confusing...

On and on...
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2010, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
And if you read my original post, you'll notice I actually have something else to compare the performance of Photoshop to: that's Pixelmator. It's way more responsive. Yes, I understand Photoshop is much more powerful, but that's no excuse for poor performance... on the simple-moderate complexity stuff Pixelmator runs circles around Photoshop...
Yes, and pixelmator as less function and is newer. There's no getting away from the fact that PS is an old application with a lot of legacy code. The work to "reinvent" the wheel is sizable and depending on the need may not be economically feasible for adobe. Look at how long it took adobe to use the cocoa based frameworks instead of carbon.

Simpler, more focused applications will run circles around photoshop. Just like how textedit is much faster then microsoft word. Word offers a host of features that textedit does not. Likewise, word contains a lot of legacy code that isn't present in textedit.

You have a gripe, bring it to adobe but apple has not been high on their priority list, and while 50% of photoshop sales come from the mac platform, they seem treat the windows platform with more of a preference.
~Mike
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2010, 08:18 AM
 
And, could you imagine how much heavy Photoshop users would be complaining about lost productivity if Adobe changed the interface enough to make it more usable? Legacy users are almost as bad as legacy code.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2010, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And, could you imagine how much heavy Photoshop users would be complaining about lost productivity if Adobe changed the interface enough to make it more usable? Legacy users are almost as bad as legacy code.
I don't hate the UI, nor do I think there's a problem with it. I think regardless of how the UI is set up, as long as you get to used it, then its productive. Changing a UI just because some expert says its better to x instead of y makes little sense when many people are so used to x..
~Mike
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2010, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn View Post
I don't hate the UI, nor do I think there's a problem with it. I think regardless of how the UI is set up, as long as you get to used it, then its productive. Changing a UI just because some expert says its better to x instead of y makes little sense when many people are so used to x..
Sorry, I was intending to add to your statement.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 07:56 AM
 
Actually in my obtuse manner I was agreeing with you but first stating that I really don't hate the UI, but I agree. Plus I think as long as someone gets used to a UI, its fine even if it does not adhere to the current UI design methodology that is in vogue at the moment
~Mike
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 08:27 AM
 
If you prefer another app to Photoshop, why not use that? I personally use Pixelmator in addition to Aperture and the only feature I'm really missing is 16 bit support. I also have to disagree with mduell: editing photos doesn't push the envelope in terms of cpu horsepower and all, even old computers should be fine for most simple tasks.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If you prefer another app to Photoshop, why not use that? I personally use Pixelmator in addition to Aperture and the only feature I'm really missing is 16 bit support. I also have to disagree with mduell: editing photos doesn't push the envelope in terms of cpu horsepower and all, even old computers should be fine for most simple tasks.
Agreed. I've not tried Pixelmator but then I'm content with PS. I'm currently on CS3 and have little desire to fork over the boatload of cash to upgrade so I'm stuck on CS3. I bought the web creative suite back in the day when taking classes so I took advantage of the educational discount. I only want to upgrade PS but I cannot, I have to do the entire suite and I just don't have the $$.

I may take another look at Pixelmator. I'm using Aperture again as well, after a brief hiatus of using LightRoom. I'm finding AP3 to be feature rich enough that I don't need PS for my photo touch needs, though I still use PS for other tasks.
~Mike
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
I'm a little bemused that Photoshop got singled-out for being unintuitive when you've got Illustrator to compare it to.
     
Old Toad
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 04:29 PM
 
How much free space do you have on your boot drive?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2010, 04:38 PM
 
Pixelmator doesn't do cmyk, though, so it would be useless to me, as I do a ton of print work, including a lot of color-correction on photos. It's a nifty little app, to be sure, but it does look like it's geared more toward flashy web stuff and effects than serious photo/color work. Still, it wouldn't be a bad tool to have handy.

As for the whole "intuitive" discussion...I'm not sure any app as large and intricate as Photoshop or Illustrator could ever sport a truly intuitive UI. At least not as an out-of-the-box default. I've been using both Pshop and Illy since almost the beginning of both, and have simply learned how to configure my work space in a way that best suits my own habits. Some controls stay hidden, others are always up, panels are grouped in ways that make sense to me, etc. At the end of the day, I have a workspace that doesn't get in the way. I will say, though, that CS5 has given me a few fits. There's just a "wrong" feel to it, that I can't quite identify yet.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 02:19 AM
 
In professional use, functionality of course trumps intuition, and any "pro" necessarily expects a learning curve.

However, that is not really an excuse for bungled interfaces - even (and especially) pros do appreciate a tool that doesn't get in their way by being too arcane.

Logic has made leaps and bounds in terms of accessibility since Apple took over, and at least two true "professional" sound guys in my circles who had it for clients but never used it if they could help it (exporting to Nuendo immediately) have added it to their arsenal, now that they don't have to invest weeks into figuring it out and getting it to do stuff that's a snap in other software.

Of course that implies competing products.

Adobe has no reason to get off their bloated monopolistic ass and improve Photoshop.

Yet, hopefully.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 05:24 AM
 
@Thorzdad
I'm not so sure about that: there are examples of pro apps which at least I find incredibly intuitive, Aperture being one and TextMate another.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I find incredibly intuitive, Aperture being one and TextMate another.
I think intuitiveness is more a personal preference then something that can be codified, yeah there's some basics that should be followed but lets take apertures interface. I've heard many people rave about it, and conversely many people abhor it. Lightroom, which is aperture's main competition has the same criticisms. Some love the interface, saying it enhances their efficiency, while others hate the modal aspect of it.
~Mike
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 09:21 AM
 
@Maflynn
I agree that personal taste has a lot to do with it. But even though I happen to hate Lightroom's modal interface in the sense that it goes against my grain, I do see that it is a coherently designed interface. I. e. Adobe started with a clear UI design idea and implemented it coherently.

Photoshop has grown over the years and its interface is accordingly less coherent.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 09:58 AM
 
There's no question about it, Photoshop UI is a mess. It's not good..

It sort of started to go downhill when layers were added in Photoshop. It's unintuative, for sure and some things can only be accessed through menus and submenus - oh and the entire monitor is cluttered with multi-layered palettes.

It's one of the worst out there.

Dakar asks why not complain about Illustrator? Well, because it's the same UI more or less. Up until and including Illustrator 6 it had a clean, simple UI and was damn good.

Then in Illustrator 7 ... or 8 I forget, the Photoshop UI is bolted on top of Illustrator. It was about the same time Adobe began to seriously suck rocks.

Oh a brilliant thing in Photoshop is the Command-H does something completely different from what it does IN ANY OTHER APPLICATION ON MAC OS X.

Adobe. Sucks. Photoshop, their best app, their crown jewel - it's not that good.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Maflynn
I agree that personal taste has a lot to do with it. But even though I happen to hate Lightroom's modal interface in the sense that it goes against my grain, I do see that it is a coherently designed interface. I. e. Adobe started with a clear UI design idea and implemented it coherently.

Photoshop has grown over the years and its interface is accordingly less coherent.
Agreed, in both the design/implementation of LR and what's happened to PS over the years. Still as you get used to PS, you've learned to live with the idiosyncrasies.

Slightly off topic, I'm taking a look at pixelmator, and its a nice app. The only thing that may hinder me from actually embracing it over PS CS3, is plug-ins. I have some alienskin plugins that give me some functionality that I like to use from time to time
~Mike
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 11:23 AM
 
The guys from Pixelmator pride themselves trying to release an image editor with an improved user interface. Things like the color wheel are implemented quite elegantly where it is easy and intuitive to understand how sliders will affect the image. They do have the advantage, though, that they do not need to be feature-complete. There are a few major things they still need to do (CMYK and 16 bit image editing being the most obvious ones to me), but those gaps will be closed over time.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2010, 04:17 PM
 
Good comments, specially by voodoo.

Obviously user interface is important to people. That's not the issue. It's Photoshop and Illustrator... and I'm sure other CS5 apps that I don't use.

I will try Aperature and yes, Pixelmator is good, much better than Photoshop. It's just that I need features in Photoshop not in Pixelmator.

There's so many things in Photoshop that are just terrible. I have quite the laundry list. Every time I think I know the program, some little thing stumps me and when I find out how to do it, it is the most unintuitive, ridiculous process of any.

It's a mess. I've used stuff that's way more powerful than Photoshop, like engineering and computer animation software that costs thousands of dollars each... and they are not as unintuitive as Photoshop. And they are way faster on my computers too.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2010, 06:33 PM
 
Still dislike these programs. It's funny, I was trying to make a rounded rectangle with a subtle gradient fill in Illustrator. Doesn't get anymore simple than that. I tried in Photoshop, and noticed how poor the gradient fill was. It was banded. Linear gradient. I looked on the web... what do you know, other people complaining about it too. I applied some layer masks and filters but it still wasn't that great.

So I turned to Illustrator. Exact same problem. Then I fired up Apple Pages, made the shape, and the fill was so much more uniform and just better. Having some text on it, the text looked way better too coming out of Pages. Since I was producing a png, I looked at both creations side-by-side, and the Pages version looked way better.

If anyone has any advice on gradient fills I'm all ears.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:28 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,