clark_6618537's profile

15 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Mon, May 3, 2021 5:31 PM

Closed

Photoshop Mobile: Comments on App

I am a photo enthusiast/hobbyist.  I strongly believe that most photos should be fine-tuned with software.  The eyes see/sense what the camera cannot capture, and photo software tuning is needed to simulate what the eyes see in real life.
 
So, I use several iPhone photo apps, sometimes in conjunction with Photoshop, sometimes by themselves with no Photoshop use.  I believe that iPhone photo apps are getting significantly better all the time, and often are appreciably better than Photoshop for their specific function.   BUT !   iPhone apps are also getting more expensive all the time.  Costly "subscription fees" have taken the place of outright sale of an app. 
  
iPhone apps that I use daily are listed below.   Each either has better quality output, or is significantly faster than Photoshop.  And has a much more user-friendly interface. 
 

Lightleap
TouchRetouch
Photo Cutout
Photoleap
Snapseed
Phonto
 
I just began using another iPhone app that is definitely better than Photoshop for its primary function, but almost as costly as Photoshop.  I really don't object to the Photoshop monthly fee, because it has so many uses.   But a very costly single-use app stops me cold.   I then question why Adobe, with all of its resources and talent, cannot offer the same results, included in Photoshop for the one monthly fee.
 
This iPhone application is Remini by BigWinePot  I tried the free, ad-overwhelmed version and liked it enough to subscribe for three months.  The annual pricing was better, but I wanted to make sure that I would stay a user.
 
The Enhance+ feature is very, very good.  It will take blurry photos and make them look fresh, clear, maybe professional.  The results are much, much better than Photoshop fine-tuning.   And/or easier.   But after a few uses of Enhance+ I discovered that I had to now buy "Pro Cards" at about $1 each for each use of Enhance+.
 
Adobe ?   Why can't you do this ?   In Photoshop ?   
 
While I'm here, why can't Adobe have a super-resolution feature that is as good, hopefully better, than the free online photo resizer/enhancer websites?
 
Every time I answer a survey about Photoshop, I always say "Why can't you do as good as many apps?"     And now I'll add to that "And all for one price?"




1K Messages

 • 

12.4K Points

9 m ago

You seem to be just a shill for other competing programs. I note that VERY often any reply to your posts is a reply written by yourself, to create the false impression of a real dialogue.

Real professional photographers are not using telephone cameras for their work.

15 Messages

 • 

250 Points

@DGrainger 
 
As usual, "real professional photographers" are egotists with limited talent.  But they do have expensive cameras.  No talent, just expensive cameras.   They cannot tolerate the commoners who can produce better photos, using intelligence.
 
Sigh...   I asked a question because I would like an open, intelligent discussion.   And possibly Adobe would like to know what is on the mind of many of their subscribers.    Your response shows no intelligence so far.  Just another "Cancel Culture" reply.  
 
For no reason, you choose to insult me.  "Shill".  That's typical of low intelligence, low ability, and high expectations.  
 
I still am looking for other replies.  I will ignore any further replies by you.  
 
Good God....  where have we devolved to ?

1K Messages

 • 

12.4K Points

So, where do you stand, not possessing either IQ nor equipment nor maturity?

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Integrity, honesty, INTELLIGENCE.   Open-mindedness.
 
Bye....  This time for real. 

8 Messages

 • 

148 Points

but really? open-mindedness? maybe rethink that

8 Messages

 • 

148 Points

9 m ago

Public Service Announcement: Remini doesn't really sharpen images, it replaces one blurry face with bits and pieces of other faces from a database. And very often makes a huge mess of things. Not to get all judgy here, but it is truly the last app anyone should be using to seriously edit people photos. If you don't believe me, go visit the Remini did me Dirty facebook page for some real world examples. 

15 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Thank you for your reply.  I'm actually hoping for responses that discuss the entire question of app functionality versus that of Photoshop .

 
I'll say again that in my opinion there are several (many?) IPhone apps that perform better, with better image output, than does Photoshop. For specific purposes.  
 
I'm also asking that Adobe consider this in future releases.

 
---

But specifically back to Remini, I have found it to be very good in several image  enhancements.  I think the pricing is misleading and shady.

8 Messages

 • 

148 Points

I  don't think you'll find many replies that discuss the "entire question of app functionality versus Photoshop" in this forum. You describe yourself as an enthusiast/hobbyist, and phone apps are perfect for "quick and dirty" editing. With them, it's easy to make global enhancements (many of which look contrived and overdone and would not withstand scrutiny if printed or viewed on a "real" screen). Ease of use, speed, and convenience are the hallmarks of phone apps. But in terms of functionality for serious editing, there's not a single phone app that comes close to competing with Photoshop, except in cost. Photoshop's tools are vastly more complex, precise and accurate than anything you'll find in a phone app. For the most part, blurry faces cannot be fixed, but Remini has fooled you into believing otherwise because you're viewing it on such a small screen. In truth, that software borrows other people's facial features from its massive library of faces. It's clever technology, to be sure, but there are plenty of examples of Frankensteinian results. If you don't know what somebody really looks like, it's easy to think the Remini result looks great. But if you do know what they look like, Remini's concoction of pieces borrowed from other people should appall you. My most sincere hope is that you might reconsider your attachment to this software and stop hoping/wishing/suggesting Adobe try to emulate it.

1K Messages

 • 

12.4K Points

@Lorie Shelley  Very well said. I tried to click on "Like" for your comment but for some reason the "Like" thumbs up symbol was missing.

15 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Lorie Shelley,

 

Lorie,
 
First, I do appreciate your reply.  I don't agree with all you said, but intelligent people can disagree without making insulting remarks in personal attacks. Personal attacks seem to be accepted here. I'm surprised that Adobe does allow personal attacks.  But, whatever.
 
I do disagree with your phrase "quick and dirty" about iPhone apps output.  I am not a Photoshop heretic.  I use Photoshop, appreciate its benefits and flexibility, and will continue to use it.  But I also believe that there are several specialized IPhone apps that give better specific results than Photoshop.
 
I do not subscribe to to the "Photoshop or Die" doctrine.
 
It's very conflicting and illogical that many "Expensive Camera" people (note that I did not say 'Professional'. )  will claim that ANY software enhancement of images is heresy, non professional.  I have heard that comment.  That should therefore include Photoshop. 
 
But yet they then will claim, as now, that only Photoshop is professional, compared to any other application, including iPhone apps, which are only for "teenagers" on two-inch screens.
 
Yet, these expensive camera photo takers mostly cannot capture depth, colors, blacks , the beauty of a photo that the eyes see in real life. I have personally witnessed MANY poor photos taken by self-described "professional photographers".  They are flat and listless poor imitations of life.
 
In the final, it's all about the result, the image quality. Not the camera, not the software. Open minded, intelligent and talented people should let the user, the customer, decide. Those without talent and intelligence will try to legislate or yell out all others.
 
Adobe should be aware that there are outstanding image results to be rendered by other software, even iPhone software. That is not for some rude loudmouth jerk to decide.  Adobe should decide.
 
So I will restate my question. Does Adobe acknowledge the great results rendered by many IPhone apps and therefore plan to meet/improve those results, at current Adobe pricing?

8 Messages

 • 

148 Points

Well, fancy that! I spent a good chunk of my afternoon composing a thoughtful and reasoned response to your initial inquiry and the only thing you saw was my use of "quick and dirty" to describe the advantage of iphone apps? And, even richer, you became defensive about that wording! "Quick and dirty" is not an insult to the process: quick and ˈdirty (informal) used to describe something that is usually complicated, but is being done quickly and simply to save time. You completely ignored my insight regarding Remini and probably decided NOT to visit the facebook page dedicated to its many, many fails. In some quarters this is called "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" but again, I'm not hurling insults your way, just hoping you might engage in an honest and forthright discussion of what I wrote.

I didn't call you a "photoshop heretic" and made no mention of "professional" photographers or expensive gear, so why did you direct your comments to me and ignore what I actually wrote? "Photoshop or die"? And what is this talk about photographers "claim that ANY software enhancement of images is heresy, non professional" Where are you getting this nonsense from? It certainly isn't in response to anything I wrote. If we're photoshop users, we obviously don't have an objection to software enhancements. Do you think we use Photoshop for the cropping tool? I am curious about why you seem hellbent on having an imaginary fight, or why you think photoshop users are purists who come for the cropping but leave the enhancements alone. I didn't come to this forum to heap praise upon Photoshop. I came to this forum (for the very first time, today) to bellyache about the latest Adobe Camera Raw upgrade and inquire how to revert to an older version. If you had cited an app other than Remini I would have not said a thing. I am not opposed to photo enhancements; I've done more than my share of face swaps, eye swaps and other body part swaps while manipulating imagery. But I'm using the actual face and eye and body parts of my subject - not pulling them out of a database of OTHER people's body parts and pretending it's sharpening. Remini doesn't belong in the same conversation of editing tools, it isn't an app to improve sharpness - it INSTALLS ears, eyes and other features from other faces. It doesn't sharpen the rest of the body - just the face and when you start putting faces of OTHERS onto photographs you've taken, then you are doing your clients a grave injustice. If you do this for someone who has died ("sharpened" an old blurry photograph for a memorial service for example), it is a tremendous insult to their memory. So my point is that a discussion of this particular app does not belong in a forum on Photoshop. Not because we're a bunch of apologists for photoshop, but because we're discussing editing tools, not face swaps from databases. 

1K Messages

 • 

12.4K Points

9 m ago

@clark_6618537 

This forum is a place for users of Adobe products to seek tech support answers from the community and to report perceived bugs, also to suggest new ideas for features.  It is sponsored by Adobe and has several Adobe employees monitoring it in order to provide assistance where needed. It is (1) not a social media kvetch forum, (2) It is not the place to tout toy editing products used on two inch screens by teenagers nor to make unsupported claims about company policy decisions, about which posters could not possibly have knowledge..(3) it is a place where Adobe users of all levels of expertise can share knowledge, learn from the more experienced.

In addition, the expectation here for posters is that civility and courtesy standards must not be those of the bored social media set.

(edited)