Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

Adobe Photoshop PaintOpen for Voting

In the beginning, there was the Photoshop~ Over time, the list of things a person might reasonably wish to do to pixels grew rather unweildy. Remember Photoshop CS3 Extended? I do. Remember the "3D hat" option? I remember a time when the hue and cry was for Adobe to stop adding features to the "bloated" Photoshop (and I remember waiting 5 minutes for CS2 to load). Cutting a lengthy reminisce short, we got Lightroom. It's bundled with Photoshop and remains a popular tool for photography-processing-minded folks. It's basically a set of already-existing tools--mostly from Bridge and Photoshop--rearranged into custom-designed interface and workflow for a major area of digital media. Here we are again; Adobe has a certain reputation among independent digital paint artists for being "evile" for being rental software loaded up with genAI and other such subscription features side-loaded onto an otherwise "good" digital painting tool. Adobe's brush format is the defacto pixel-art brush standard, borrowed in non-Adobe raster painting tools; Illustrator has most of the vector paint features popular in non-Adobe vector painting tools. You have the tools, but they are spread across several programs and generally perceived to be "loaded up" with lots of features that aren't essential to the digital painting work task. Photoshop, Illustrator etc need to continue to evolve, explore, innovate and grow if the Adobe suite are to remain cutting edge industry-definers. But you also need people, living and working in the Adobe ecosystem with tools focused on their needs. Nobody should have to produce vector-drawn brush art in Illustrator or non-Adobe tools, and then "bring it into Photoshop for lighting/shading" for example, and yet this is seen as the workflow that artists are fated to follow. I propose Photoshop Paint: a lightweight paint tool that joins the Photoshop family. This tool roams the space of painting-specific tools, creating vector and raster layers with vector and raster brushes, gradients, fills, shapes, and masks. Raster layers support lasso and "smart" selection, vector layers support re-coloring and there's a small set of basics (eyedropper, canvas move/rotate, Free Transform, layer fill/opacity). Roll it into the Photoshop plan ($10/month) or... Do you want to be heros? You're losing a certain percentage to CSP, Affinity etc anyways, why not convert a few: Sell it standalone for MacOS and Windows for $X ($45? $55?) one-time purchase, single-version only. If it's cheap enough (and remember, you're just selling UX development for features already buried under the mountains of the full suite), you don't need to fiddle with discounted upgrade deals and next-versio-selling whiz-bang features. Yes, sure, feel free to roll painting-like AI features into Photoshop... For example..."sketch to ink" conversion, using presets or an artist's local-built collection as a generative guide. And then, when you need to make a few more standalone sales, slide a toggle into the "next" version of Photoshop Paint to enable that tool. I know app and web versions require more continuous development so, sure, if you make a mobile version, make it exclusive to the Photoshop Family subscription plan. Above all: This isn't a revisit of Photoshop Essentials.Like Lightroom, this is a curated selection of the existing tools most needed (and most borrowed by single-sale competitors) for digital painting, reworked into a UX/UI better suited for that industry. It gives Adobe room to continue to explore every direction in its pillar apps, while using an arrangement of the "best bits" for one major use-case to drive constumer engagement and to serve as an inspiration point for future main-line tech. Pivot on your strengths, pls!

Vote to recommend a smaller default file type in LR/Photoshop Workflow, TIFF is 10x size of RAW!Open for Voting

Would users benefit by a more efficient default file type in a Lightroom/Photoshop workflow? (I'm going to mention Lightroom and Photoshop together as they are intended to be used in a single workflow)Example of current file sizes:I merged 3 50MP images from a SONY alpha 1 into a DNG file and it is only 22.1 MB. When I enhance an image in Photoshop Lightroom it goes up to 66MB, but then I use 3 of them to create an HDR it goes back DOWN to 22 MB. This tells me that Adobe isn't taking advantage of the DNGs correctly. The HDR should have more image data than the non-HDR orriginals. Worse yet, when I open the image in Photoshop and save it as the default format, it saves a TIFF that is 675+MB.  And yes, that is flattened with no extra channels. Isn't there a way to make an efficient way to save files in our workflow?  I do a lot of compositing. If I load 10 22MB images + some layer masks, couldn't you have that save EVERYTHING including the orriginal raws and layer masks for 400MB? Or if you convert the layer masks to vectors, even less? (22x10=220MB+layer masks). My point of the above is that if 10 RAW images are 1/3 the size of a TIFF, there must be a better way to be efficient in our workflow. This would help with save time and reduce storage and backup space significantly.

Export to Project lovcation using Project Name - give us a Yes/No switch!Open for Voting

It's been more than 20 years at this point. When is Adobe going to put a switch in the Preferences to allow us to "Use the Project's Name as the Export File name" and one to allow us to "Save Exported file to the same folder as the Project"?I understand that not everyone uses that workflow and some people export to a separate location, or make multiple sequences in a project but just give us an optional switch already? This gets requested constantly, for every version of Premier and has been for decades. All we ever get is instructions to, every single time, manually change the Sequence name (which defaults to the name of the first file you add to it - honestly a crazy default action in the era of Digital Camera's naming every file with strings of numbers and letters loosely corresponding to a date.) Not everyone wants to name their exported file "GNT20240808.mp4" and save it into the random destination folder you selected FOR YOUR PREVIOUS PROJECT?!?!"Every single time I create a project I waste time giving it a name and choosing a save location, and then have to do the exact same thing all over again when exporting. And if for some reason I forget to do that< i then spend time hunting through various folders trying to track down that randomly named video file!An optional switch is the obvious answer and even a company as rigid as Adobe surely has to recognise that.When Adobe?When?