-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Pixel Genius
- Thread starter Robert R Stone
- Start date
Thanks for the information!
This is interesting - the second sentence of their notice, apparently their rationale for doing this:
The nature of the industry and marketplace has evolved as digital photography with raw processing applications has diminished the need for pixel based editors such as Photoshop.
Is that the case?
Doesn't really comport with the often-stated observation that Adobe is doing extremely well with its subscription-based sales of Photoshop.
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
One interpretation could be that editing raw files with Lightroom has eliminated the need for "pixel based editors such as Photoshop".
If so then this must be bittersweet for Jeff Schewe. As I remember it, Lightroom came into existence after the top Photoshop programmers from Adobe visited Jeff's studio and basically asked "him what do photographers really need in an image editing program?"
He told them and the result was Lightroom. (Jeff is one of the owners of Pixel Genius, hence the bittersweet reference.)
Based on my memory. YMMV, etc.
Wayne
Robert R Stone
New member
I think they no longer want to maintain the software (their chief developer passed away a few years ago) and do not wish to extend the apps to other platforms. For example, there is no Lightroom version even now.
That said, I appreciated the ability to create actions using the tools. Their set of burn & dodge effects looked very good, and the PhotoKit's 'Burn 4 corners' effect was something I used with many images. So as a custom action, it was fast and a single click away. The layer effects are created at 40% opacity so can be adjusted for strength. And you could run the 4 corners burn and easily erase corners you did not need.
If you download and extract the ZIP file, the PDF instruction file show all the potential options, e.g. corner burn, edge burn, center burn .... and many, many more effects.
That said, I appreciated the ability to create actions using the tools. Their set of burn & dodge effects looked very good, and the PhotoKit's 'Burn 4 corners' effect was something I used with many images. So as a custom action, it was fast and a single click away. The layer effects are created at 40% opacity so can be adjusted for strength. And you could run the 4 corners burn and easily erase corners you did not need.
If you download and extract the ZIP file, the PDF instruction file show all the potential options, e.g. corner burn, edge burn, center burn .... and many, many more effects.
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
I'm not sure about LR's origins, but I did read Martin Evening saying some of Frazer/Schewe's sharpening algorithms were incorporated into LR.
At some point, after studying Frazer/Schewe's Real World series I stopped using PS to work with Aperture (and then LR). I felt too software bloated at the time, wanted to simplfy and concentrate on the basics.
There is no Lightroom version because Lightroom’s engineers (primarily Eric Chan I think) based The Develop module’s Capture sharpening algorithms for digital capture sharpening on PhotoKit Sharpener and likewise with PG’s output sharpening algorithms. Given how closely various members of PG worked with Adobe I am pretty sure it was a mutually beneficial relationship.
PG’s sharpening work was done by The late and great Bruce Fraser and he passed away about 10 years ago. Mike Stark has also passed away and I’m not sure what work if any work has been done on the company’s other products.
I still use PPG sharpener in Photoshop but only when I am sharpening specific localized areas, however Adobe’s Smart Sharpener works just as well.
PG’s sharpening work was done by The late and great Bruce Fraser and he passed away about 10 years ago. Mike Stark has also passed away and I’m not sure what work if any work has been done on the company’s other products.
I still use PPG sharpener in Photoshop but only when I am sharpening specific localized areas, however Adobe’s Smart Sharpener works just as well.
The numbers don’t lie: Adobe is doing very well with CC subscriptions but let’s be honest: the growth market for photographic software is either a raw parameter adjusting programs or programming for iOS and Android devices.
Too bad - I hope he was able to benefit monetarily from the creation of Lightroom.
By all accounts Jeff has a pretty good head for business so I am sure it was a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
Robert R Stone
New member
I agree with your comments re sharpening. But there are other aspects of the PhotoKit series that are still valuable, per my comments on the Dodge/Burn actions.
It's just so easy to get them in and out of PS that they are worth exploring, keeping what you need and what you do not.
It's just so easy to get them in and out of PS that they are worth exploring, keeping what you need and what you do not.
Jonsi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 9,199
Adobe may be doing "well" (a very subjective word), but with RAW converting software adding more and more editing functionality, editors like PS are less and less necessary to the average hobbyist and many pros.
On1 Photo RAW (and many other products) has so much going on, I know some people (including myself) who don't even use pixel based editors anymore. If needed, PSP is on my desk.... which cost me $40 to upgrade to the latest... and hasn't even been installed yet.
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Lightroom was the brainchild of a senior Adobe engineer named Mark Hamburg, who built the initial experimental applications that led to it himself. He worked on it for several years, I believe, while trying to get Adobe management to commit to develop it. Adobe dickered until Apple introduced Aperture, a very similar concept (an example of concurrent evolution, if ever there was one.)
Hamburg is a well-known imaging software developer who was later hired away by Microsoft to spearhead that company's ultimately aborted efforts to create professional photography applications.
It's clear that Jeff Schewe — and others like him who were close to the Photoshop team at Adobe — influenced Hamburg and the development of Lightroom. It would be odd if they did not, in fact, since they influenced Adobe's development of Photoshop and all of the company's other imaging apps. But Lightroom is Hamburg's baby more than anyone else's.
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
Thanks for filling out my gap in how LR materialized.
I've always thought of LR as a stand-alone version of ACR. ACR-Plus, as it were. I'm still curious if that's what LR indeed was designed to be, or if LR's development spawned ACR (and later LR was fleshed out further for consumption).
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
ACR predates Lightroom by some years. I forget when it first appeared in Photoshop/Bridge, but it definitely existed before Lightroom.
ACR was created initially by Thomas Knoll, the inventor of Photoshop.
Jeff Schewe
Forum Enthusiast
Yeah, I had a bit of "influence"...:~)
You can see my "influence" here:
Mark also had an impact on Camera Raw while working with Thomas Knoll. It was Mark who designed the Parametric Curves, the HSL Panel with the B&W conversion and the Split Toning. I worked with both Mark and Thomas to incorporate aspects of Bruce Fraser's sharpening concepts into Camera Raw and PixelGenius licensed our output sharping to Adobe for use in Camera Raw and Lightroom.
And yes, Camera Raw and particularly Lightroom has taken over much of the imaging requirements for photographers-hense the reduced need of Photoshop and plug-ins.
PG stayed on a couple of years after Nik Sharpener was sold to Google and then released for free. Hard to compete against free. DxO may do something with the Nik stuff since they bought it from Google...
TL Penberthy
Well-known member
Not secured (https). Download at your own risk.
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
https is for encrypting form transactions, such as bank logins, so your password can't be easily sniffed. It doesn't make any difference for downloads. If the web site gets hacked then being https wouldn't solve anything.
Because leaving the web site up is a public service (now that they aren't selling anything) I wouldn't expect them to go to the considerable expense of switching to https.
Wayne
Last edited:
If you're concerned, download the file and then check it with the VirusTotal website:
Loading…
www.virustotal.com
It runs files through about two dozen different anti-virus programs for you.
As the other responder said, https is only to encrypt the data being sent over the internet. It has nothing to do with whether a downloaded file is free of viruses.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum