Thoughts on Photoshop and Adobe. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[Jqqerry]

I have been using Photoshop for a long time, and it is an essential part of my profession as a retoucher. I am always grateful to Adobe and truly appreciate their products. However, while I’ve had these thoughts for quite some time, they seem to have grown stronger over the past few years, so I wanted to share them briefly here. (Once again, I want to emphasize that I am a fan and consumer of Adobe and its products. I am not an anti-fan.)

I wish Photoshop were more user-friendly. This isn't about superficial aspects like a simple UI or visual elements.

What I’m referring to is communication, quick feedback, and prompt action. Yes, I admit I don't know anything about programming. But let me give you an example.

Let’s imagine a new user sees an Adobe advertisement on YouTube or social media and starts using Photoshop, inspired by a new dream. Excited, he launches Photoshop and tries out the generative AI or specific feature that he saw in the advertisement, unaware of the potential crash or existing issues with that feature in the latest version. Then a bug occurs.

The user becomes confused. Yes, he could go to a community and ask for help.

But let’s be honest. Among those who use Photoshop or Adobe products professionally or as a hobby, only a portion are inclined to seek feedback or discussion in a community. And of those, only some will report their situation and ask questions.

Now, back to our story. He just purchased Photoshop today and, attracted by the intriguing features he saw in the advertisement, used that feature as soon as he launched the program. Unfortunately, it turns out to be the latest version with a bug, and he comes to a community saying it doesn’t work. The answer he receives is to provide the system info. After that, he might be told to reset his preferences, but there is no direct solution.

So, what would he think until the bug is fixed?

Once again, I want to emphasize that I like and value Adobe's products. However, I find this aspect a bit strange—am I the only one who feels this way? Not everyone using Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, or similar programs is pushing them to their limits and encountering errors due to heavy use; many users are just hobbyists.

So why do these unpleasant experiences keep happening with each new version?

Of course, this issue isn’t exclusive to software like these programs; the same can be said for digital devices. For example, smartphones sometimes have certain features that don’t work properly in their latest version. However, these issues are usually fixed with hotfixes within a week. On the other hand, Photoshop’s update cycle is at least a month, and most people have no idea if the feature that piqued their interest and led them to purchase the software after seeing an ad will be fixed or not by the next release, or which functions will work properly.

Why aren’t there more bug reports? Because only those who know how things should function can identify when something is abnormal and report it as a bug.

That’s why I believe that Adobe should include such information on their Photoshop release page and in the Creative Cloud update logs (e.g., next to the Photoshop thumbnail).

:: The current version may have issues with certain features. Due to compatibility problems with NVIDIA drivers, some bugs may persist, and some users may not be able to use specific features. While a Stable option can be used as an alternative, please understand that it may take some time to resolve these issues.

Wouldn’t simply stating this prevent the confusion users face when they install the latest version and ask, "Why isn't this working?"

Moreover, instead of monthly releases, I think Adobe should lock down a stable version for the year—one that can truly support key features like Photoshop's identity-defining tools such as the Brush, Clone Stamp, and Liquify. This would be the reliable version, while additional releases could introduce newer versions that might be slightly less stable, though not in beta.

Of course, I understand that not everyone’s equipment is the same and that preventing all bugs is impossible. But is it really necessary to continue this cycle of confusion year after year, month after month, day after day?

[Jqqerry]

Also, since I am a Photoshop user, many people come to me to learn and ask questions about Photoshop. They often ask me, "Why is Photoshop acting this way?" And I have no choice but to give the same answer now as I did years ago: "The latest version is usually unstable."

What kind of statement is that? It sounds absurd, doesn’t it? I don’t want to say this, but it’s the truth. Back in the 2018–2019 era of Photoshop, things were fine. Most users could have a complete experience without any critical bugs.

[josantgomez]

No eres, ni mucho menos, al único a quién le surge esa cuestion y otras más. Photoshop se ha convertido en un sistema complejo y abarca multipluralidad de problemas y usuarios. No es cierto, como algún experto ha respondido alguna vez, que Photoshop es un programa para profesionales. Si lo es, es desde hace poco tiempo. La mayor parte nos iniciamos en la edición con esta aplicación. Y muchos seguimos teniéndola como un instrumento de nuestro hobby. 

Podemos haber observado como Adobe va haciendo múltiples aplicaciones, segmentándolas  según nichos de intereses. Inclusa Lightroom yo lo encasillaría en esa especialización. 

Son un tipo de aplicaciones que no se pueden aprender desde un conocimiento teórico, si no práctico, porque hay que seguir un camino en que sólo el hábito "fija" el conocimiento.  Y, efectivamente, la frecuencia de versiones nuevas hace que el hábito pueda no ser suficiente. Si hay algo en nuestra naturaleza , constante, es el hábito. Y cambiarlo exige repetición nuevamente como lo requirió el sustituido. Los fumadores saben todos que lo suyo es un hábito, pero no son conscientes que este se consolida en el cerebro como si fuese, perdón por la simpleza, un "ruta neuronal" que queda grabada y que sólo profanos o no suficientemente curiosos, desconocen. En eso se basan los centros de formación gimnástica o atlética de alto rendimiento.  Se trata de convertir la acción en algo automático, inconsciente, porque no cabe la reflexión previa . Sería como intentar caminar de modo consciente.  Salvo con un esfuerzo enorme se puede cambiar, diría mejor corregir, nuestra forma de andar. Pero , sin eso, no hay manera de que cambiemos. Los hábitos son los que hacen que un programa se nos vuelva el mejor para nosotros. Sólo pensar en los procesos seguidos para conseguir el dominio de una aplicación de exigencia similar nos disuade de intentar cambiar. Aquí habrá quién confunda lo dicho con la rigidez de la personalidad o la carencia de flexibilidad. Están equivocados. 

No hace mucho hice unas sugerencias al respecto basándome en mi experiencia. 

No ocurre únicamente con este tipo de aplicaciones. Los aficionados a la fotografía, hoy, tenemos que afrontar un proceso similar con todo lo parametrizable que se ha incorporado a las cámaras. Terminará su vida útil antes de que hayamos dominado todas sus posibilidades. 

El afán de innovar es otro hábito actual que en bastantes aspectos supone un despilfarro descomunal. Ejemplo: los móviles. Con Photoshop, ya nuestros equipos tienen una obsolescencia imprevisible. Y hemos de tirar móviles y PCs porque han quedado por debajo de las exigencias derivadas de las nuevas prestaciones. 

La imprenta de Gutenberg, invento fantástico, tardó cien años en aplicarse aunque era obvia su conveniencia: se consideró mejor no aplicarla entretanto hubiese tanto amanuense que se quedaría sin trabajo. Esta mentalidad ha desaparecido. Tiene sus ventajas. Pero unos cortes de materias primas que se hallan en la corteza terrestre y que son limitadas, se hacen como si fuera gratis. Cuando miro una ciudad, veo corteza terrestre transformada. Parecería que es inagotable.Un ejemplo claro es el sector de aguas minerales. Como parece que que sólo hay que envasar, creen estar ante el gran negocio. Muy lejos de la realidad.  

Etc., etc., etc.,

[Jqqerry]

Yes, you are exactly right. You have precisely captured my perspective. This type of approach can be seen not only in Photoshop but also in other products, programs, and items from different fields. But is this beneficial for either the manufacturers or the customers? I don't think it benefits anyone.

That's why I started to think a few years ago: Who are these current updates really for? Are they updates that can actually be used? If they can't be used, what is the point of these updates?

[josantgomez]

La IA parece que ha hecho florecer nuevos softwares que quizá supongan un acortamiento de las escalas existentes con los competidores. Photoshop, Adobe en fin, parece haber entrado en una fase en la que las incorporaciones rápidades de nuevas opciones les hacen creer que es una buena estrategia de defensa para mantener su posición en el mercado.  Posiblemente este proceso termine con  las alternativas de diversificación de productos dado su consolidado conocimiento tecnológico.  Están apareciendo nuevos productos que venden una aparente sensación de manejabilidad más intuitiva. En algunos probablemente es cierto. Las capas es un factor que ha diferenciado a Photoshop. Alguien encontrará procesos que no requieran su uso porque conseguirán modos en el que el archivo no sufra merma. De hecho, a mi modo, yo lo conseguí.  Investigué el efecto de la edición "destructiva" y no encontré argumentos que defiendan categóricamente esa postura. Pero , siendo cierto o no, yo lo salvé.  Y sólo en casos muy contados hago uso de las capas. (Huelo y oigo en mi imaginación chirriar las opiniones contrarias y lo que me dirían de lo expresado). Pero pienso es una camino a recorrer por los fabricantes de este tipo de software y, también,  quién encontrará un reto el conseguir archivos no destructibles por la post-producción. Es un sector en el que uno no puede dormirse. No tenemos seguridad ni de que nuestros archivos actuales, que guardamos celosamente, no tengan un final de vida útil. 

[Jqqerry]

Yes, layers were an interesting aspect of Photoshop, and it’s no longer unique to Photoshop alone. Destructive editing and non-destructive editing are, in fact, just wordplay. The misconception people have is that applying something directly to the image or retouching on an empty layer using 'all samples' is considered non-destructive editing. That isn’t necessarily better. Non-destructive editing, as the term suggests, allows you to revert to previous results and provides convenience when changes are needed to meet client requirements. Therefore, retouching directly on the image itself is essentially the same. The only drawback is that it doesn’t allow you to immediately revert to a specific point when responding to client feedback.

And focusing on AI functionality isn’t a bad choice. The market is already evolving, and staying ahead is a better strategy than falling behind. However, for example, over the past few months, numerous bug reports have been filed regarding issues and crashes with the remove tool, yet we rarely see such crashes with similar removal features on smartphones. Of course, some may argue that the quality of Photoshop’s remove tool is incomparable to that of smartphones.

But what do average consumers think? A Photoshop tool that fails to function or crashes frequently versus a tool that works instantly with a simple touch on a smartphone. At the resolution that typical consumers use, the difference between the two tools is not significant.

This is what I wanted to point out. While it’s impossible to eliminate all bugs perfectly, releasing stable, fixed versions each year, like in 2023 or 2024 (versions that work with minimal issues, similar to Photoshop from 2016 to 2019), and following up with additional public beta releases would be fine. It would also help if a warning appeared when updating in Creative Cloud (e.g., “This version is experimental and may have various issues”).

Many other programs follow this practice. They clearly distinguish between the Stable Version and the Latest Version.

[D Fosse]

It's not as simple as that.

It's just a fact that anyone experiencing any problem will immediately identify it as a "bug". But it usually isn't. It can be an old/outdated/underpowered GPU, or corrupt preferences, or plain user error or misunderstanding how it's supposed to work.

Yes, there are bugs. I've seen a couple myself, not many, but it happens. But here's the thing: Bugs happen to some users some of the time. They don't happen to all users all of the time. If they did, they would have been caught and fixed long ago. The difficulty with bugs is to reproduce them. If they can't be reproduced, they can't be fixed.

Remember one thing: An application isn't written to "do" something. It's written to operating system APIs, application programming interfaces, and the application has no control over what's on the other side of that API. A good example of this is the well known problem with dual graphics laptops.

The word I'm trying to boil all this down to is unpredictability. Computer systems are getting more and more complex. A GPU today is a whole other animal than it was 15 years ago. There's just a lot more that can go wrong today.

The best you can do is make sure your machine is in order. You can reduce the risk considerably by a few basic precautions. Keep your system clean, use hardware that is well proven and known to be reliable, make sure the hardware resources are sufficient, and so on.

[Jqqerry]

Of course, you are correct, and I partially agree with your point. Also, as I mentioned in the original text, I do not know programming. I am not an anti-fan of Adobe; on the contrary, I love Photoshop. It is indispensable for my job. However, I would appreciate it if you could better understand the perspective from which I wrote this.

How can I know the risks if I don't understand programming? That is why I suggest that prior warnings would be beneficial.

Let me give you an example. Here is a link to one of the serious bugs from the past (which I also reported).

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-bugs/p-strange-color-box-with-data-loss/idi-p/130...

This bug was extremely powerful and even frightening. It was a bug that literally destroyed images beyond recovery, and some people reported that their family photos were damaged. What fault did they have? Should they have accepted the risk and gone to the Adobe community to search for such issues just because a bug that could destroy their family photos might occur in Photoshop? Who will acknowledge that their photos and memories were shattered?

Of course, this is an extreme case. Nevertheless, I still believe that it would be better to make a stable release version from that year the main version, and then carry out additional update releases afterward.

I understand that not all bugs can be fixed. However, if I buy a smartphone, the basic functions, such as making calls and browsing the internet, should at least work properly. But the current bugs in Photoshop often affect these fundamental functions, and that's the problem.

The stable version I am referring to is one where the basic functions (such as the Brush tool or Liquify, etc.) are released with as few issues as possible, while experimental features are run like an official beta after the initial beta phase. Yes, achieving this may be difficult, as you mentioned, because many things have developed and changed.

However, what is clear is that since around Photoshop 2019–2020, an overwhelming number of bugs have appeared, whereas before that, there were hardly any critical bugs that affected the usage and experience of Photoshop. So, while new feature additions like AI are certainly welcome, I hope the Adobe team would reconsider and place more emphasis on "stability" once again.

[Jqqerry]

Since I'm using a translator, I'm not sure if my message will be conveyed clearly.

To summarize it in one line:

"Programming and bugs may not be perfect, but users do not need to understand that, and there is no reason why a new user installing the latest version should have a negative experience."

This is what I want to convey. While the occurrence of bugs and the process of reproducing them are important, what will a first-time Photoshop user think when they hear things like "It depends on the GPU," "It varies by driver," or "Compatibility issues"? We need to think from their perspective because they are not the ones fixing it.