Characterized End User
Forum rules
You are viewing the Community Help Pages. They are on-line forums where people can come to ask questions about the Smart Photo Editor and all the replies and relevant information are kept in the same place.
You are viewing the Community Help Pages. They are on-line forums where people can come to ask questions about the Smart Photo Editor and all the replies and relevant information are kept in the same place.
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Characterized End User
by Lamplitr » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:50 pm
Admin;
After tinkering with this software for many hours over the past two days I want to offer some initial impressions. For openers, the beta tester, MJP, asked the most prescient questions I have read anywhere in the entire Community Forum. Those were my sentiments exactly and I noted your responses. Obviously in assembling beta testers you wisely need to determine where they are positioned in the arena of photography in order to glean any meaningful advice from their comments. For instance, I work freelance in sports, entertainment and celebrity photography and am suitably adept I think at the controls of all major software editing suites. I suspect MJP has competent editing capabilities also. If our commercial or semi-commercial backgrounds and capabilities are important to you in the analysis of this beta then our concerns will be relevant.
In my case and possibly that of others, our opinions are coming from the direction of "commercially viable photography". Broadly speaking, the other potential market segment is comprised of amateurs ranging from hobbyists to technically oriented individuals who are not tasked to produce anything meeting a commercial standard. You can readily discern who comprises which market segment from the bulk of questions asked so far in these Community Forums. Until we know better who the targeted end user is I think it is premature and inconsequential to be asking you for things like expanded sliders or numerical readouts or other trivial adjustments to the more than 100 editing controls in this beta. In fact about eighty percent of the image adjustments offered in this beta are probably little know or well understood by most amateur or hobbyist "photographers".
An earlier response you made to MJP in reference to what is the purpose of this software was; >>>"to be able to get any photographer to improve their photos faster and easier than they could in Photoshop" and that "effects is just our shorthand way of saying "any change to a photograph"<<< doesn't offer much as a generality. We have a saying in business school that if "if you think everyone wants your product or solution, than no one wants it." I know you already know this otherwise you would not have scored the sweetest success that you have with Portrait Professional packages.
So far in this particular beta I see hundreds of effects which frankly I can reproduce quite efficiently by using almost any of my present installed software. As your research no doubt shows you these are commonly known as "presets" and/or plugins in the most commonly used software packages today. In fact there is strong discussion within the industry panning the use of many of these over "over-Photoshoped" effects. Other than conducting some feature-trolling research by having testers rate 500+ effects, let alone create more of their own, I am completely uncertain as to what it is Portrait Professional is bringing to the party with this release. For instance I ask myself; Where in the workflow pipeline is this software intended to fit? Will it contain full editing capabilities? What is it intended to replace assuming it is targeted at displacing existing software suites? For me to attempt to learn to use a new software editing program (and consequently discard a present winner) it had better fit efficiently in my workflow and perform at a suitably higher standard than I already have. When I can sufficiently characterize who is going to use this software I will gladly suggest designs for your sliders, controls and menus. I hope and suspect there are some hidden capabilities within this program. Product-wise, it looks more like a potential addon to the already wildly successful PP Studio. Perhaps "PP Studio Ensemble" which would nicely fit as an adjunct pre-editor to Photoshop, Picture Window Pro, Bibble Pro or Lightroom and others. I would certainly look forward to test driving that option. You are getting some free advice from a few of the "commercial photographers" out here so if you want to tap wisely into that database you'll have to tell us a little more about your targeted customer and how this software is going to benefit him or her.
After tinkering with this software for many hours over the past two days I want to offer some initial impressions. For openers, the beta tester, MJP, asked the most prescient questions I have read anywhere in the entire Community Forum. Those were my sentiments exactly and I noted your responses. Obviously in assembling beta testers you wisely need to determine where they are positioned in the arena of photography in order to glean any meaningful advice from their comments. For instance, I work freelance in sports, entertainment and celebrity photography and am suitably adept I think at the controls of all major software editing suites. I suspect MJP has competent editing capabilities also. If our commercial or semi-commercial backgrounds and capabilities are important to you in the analysis of this beta then our concerns will be relevant.
In my case and possibly that of others, our opinions are coming from the direction of "commercially viable photography". Broadly speaking, the other potential market segment is comprised of amateurs ranging from hobbyists to technically oriented individuals who are not tasked to produce anything meeting a commercial standard. You can readily discern who comprises which market segment from the bulk of questions asked so far in these Community Forums. Until we know better who the targeted end user is I think it is premature and inconsequential to be asking you for things like expanded sliders or numerical readouts or other trivial adjustments to the more than 100 editing controls in this beta. In fact about eighty percent of the image adjustments offered in this beta are probably little know or well understood by most amateur or hobbyist "photographers".
An earlier response you made to MJP in reference to what is the purpose of this software was; >>>"to be able to get any photographer to improve their photos faster and easier than they could in Photoshop" and that "effects is just our shorthand way of saying "any change to a photograph"<<< doesn't offer much as a generality. We have a saying in business school that if "if you think everyone wants your product or solution, than no one wants it." I know you already know this otherwise you would not have scored the sweetest success that you have with Portrait Professional packages.
So far in this particular beta I see hundreds of effects which frankly I can reproduce quite efficiently by using almost any of my present installed software. As your research no doubt shows you these are commonly known as "presets" and/or plugins in the most commonly used software packages today. In fact there is strong discussion within the industry panning the use of many of these over "over-Photoshoped" effects. Other than conducting some feature-trolling research by having testers rate 500+ effects, let alone create more of their own, I am completely uncertain as to what it is Portrait Professional is bringing to the party with this release. For instance I ask myself; Where in the workflow pipeline is this software intended to fit? Will it contain full editing capabilities? What is it intended to replace assuming it is targeted at displacing existing software suites? For me to attempt to learn to use a new software editing program (and consequently discard a present winner) it had better fit efficiently in my workflow and perform at a suitably higher standard than I already have. When I can sufficiently characterize who is going to use this software I will gladly suggest designs for your sliders, controls and menus. I hope and suspect there are some hidden capabilities within this program. Product-wise, it looks more like a potential addon to the already wildly successful PP Studio. Perhaps "PP Studio Ensemble" which would nicely fit as an adjunct pre-editor to Photoshop, Picture Window Pro, Bibble Pro or Lightroom and others. I would certainly look forward to test driving that option. You are getting some free advice from a few of the "commercial photographers" out here so if you want to tap wisely into that database you'll have to tell us a little more about your targeted customer and how this software is going to benefit him or her.
Re: Characterized End User
by admin » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:32 pm
Wize words lamlitr! I'll try to briefly cover your points. We think there may be different benefits to different types of users from our gallery approach, and part of this beta is to try and acertain from your feedback where we really add value. For someone like yourself who is clearly already an expert in using imaging tools, I think the value we might provide to you is acting as a springboard for exploring looks for your photo, things that you may never have thought of doing. The two things we are trying to do differently from other people is a) getting many (thousands or more) effects plus good ways of searching them so that it isn't just the same look that is being regurgiated over again. We are just at the start of this process, as the list of effects is just begining, and I also hope we can provide effects of a higher quality in the future. It may sound like a leap of faith, but we are interested in getting suggestions of what kind of effects you think would be good to see in our software. b) making it very fast to browse lots of looks to find one that works for you.
As for the question of workflow, it will most likely be similar to PP, in that it will be offered as a plugin but also as a standalone package.
Tony
As for the question of workflow, it will most likely be similar to PP, in that it will be offered as a plugin but also as a standalone package.
Tony
Re: Characterized End User
by Lamplitr » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:52 pm
Tony;
Thank you for the response. Armed with some idea of the goals you suggested I think I can add some constructive thoughts. My comments are addressed toward a standalone package except as noted:
User Input Images: The initial software design utilizes an effects gallery (per category) of example pre-selects. I noted that the nearly 300 gallery image pre-selects I took a look at all predominantly involved some strong manipulation of basic RGB color channels, level changes, saturation, luminosity and HSV-HSL mode shifts. Many of these effects are considerably destructive to a JPEG image and in the cases I sampled they nearly always resulted in out-of-gamut conditions. I am assuming you anticipate users will always operate on either a JPEG or TIFF file. This brings up a warning; operating on a JPG file by selecting many of these gallery modifications will result at best in a monitor viewable image but one totally impossible to print. Remember, you are dealing with the heavy manipulation of a nominal 8-bit image file which can quickly prove disastrous for the user. I think in all but the simplest of cases, specifying the use of a 16-bit TIFF file only would be a minimal condition of acceptance in a standalone package. Even then......
Controls/Modification Tools: Generally speaking, all of the menu tools I experimented with exhibit far too coarse a range of effect within the physical size of the tool control itself. All tools should have numerical readouts which allow user input. Most importantly, all tool panels require a "Reset" button. Overall, I am not sanguine about allowing the average user to access many of the image controls shown in these various editing panels. If I assume that our market majority consists of users who are enthusiasts/amateurs/hobbyists (a good and recommended assumption) I would advise that only the editing controls specific to the gallery "look" selected be the ones shown to the user. For instance, selecting a Sepia toned mode from the gallery would bring up a Levels, Saturation, Contrast, Exposure, Blacks, tool. In other words, the selected image motif orders the specific controls to be made available to the user. As time goes by any new control adjustment requested and not initially included can be added in a version update.
Commercial (so-called Pro) Users: Workflow pipeline is all important to this segment. A standalone product would be difficult to justify therefore I'd contemplate a plug-in implementation only. Arguably seventy-five percent of this segment operates on RAW images. Any placement of this program within a parent editing tool should be within the TIFF conversion stage of editing. Furthermore, this software, when used as a plug-in, should be able to handle 48-bit TIFF files and optionally use LZW lossless compression to maintain compatibility with compressed files. The TIFF format supports most color spaces, RGB, CMYK, YCbCr, etc., and will always be the file structure moving through that parent pipeline. PP, for instance, outputs a 48-bit TIFF which was a major if not silent selling point as far as my associates were concerned. And a further heads-up regarding these Pro's; any compromise to file resolution or integrity discovered by a pro user will kill the marketability of this software plug-in as sure as we are speaking. Word of mouth is the chief research tool of every commercial photographer, sad to say.
Commercial/Professional Features: In my estimation, if you want the attention of a professional photographer it's only necessary to incorporate about a half dozen or so image transitions - or "looks". These looks universally occupy most commercial interests today so they go to the top of the list. I'll itemize four of the best recognized and the most desirable:
(a). A B&W and Sepia base mode. A "real film" look or film simulator is much desired.
(b). A so-called "Cross Processed" base mode (also using cyan/red - magenta/green - yellow/blue additional control enhancements).
(c). A so-called "Bleach Bypass" base mode (offering both a soft and a hard effect).
(d). A so-called "Glamor" mode (for both color and B&W with Gaussian blur/saturation controls).
Some further thoughts aimed toward a professional market: Depending upon your software algorithm you may choose a shorter path to launching this software by investigating representative samples of the images modes I suggested above. If you need to, one of your staff pro's can deconstruct any of those image modes into their fundamental parameters and - with suitable parameter controls - leave any further embellishments up to the end user. Also, if you decide to introduce an "effects generator" type of plug-in it would be easier for the user to select his/her own parent software controls to make any further effect modifications. You can see why I've pressed heavily (not rudely I hope) for info about "specifically targeted market segment" and "user characterization". Tons of possible variables here.
There was a mention somewhere earlier that this software would have the capability to mimic an image effect which was selected from another image file. If that potential exists then I think it could become a very interesting and viable product for a non-commercial user. That is certainly worth exploring.
Lampl1tr
Thank you for the response. Armed with some idea of the goals you suggested I think I can add some constructive thoughts. My comments are addressed toward a standalone package except as noted:
User Input Images: The initial software design utilizes an effects gallery (per category) of example pre-selects. I noted that the nearly 300 gallery image pre-selects I took a look at all predominantly involved some strong manipulation of basic RGB color channels, level changes, saturation, luminosity and HSV-HSL mode shifts. Many of these effects are considerably destructive to a JPEG image and in the cases I sampled they nearly always resulted in out-of-gamut conditions. I am assuming you anticipate users will always operate on either a JPEG or TIFF file. This brings up a warning; operating on a JPG file by selecting many of these gallery modifications will result at best in a monitor viewable image but one totally impossible to print. Remember, you are dealing with the heavy manipulation of a nominal 8-bit image file which can quickly prove disastrous for the user. I think in all but the simplest of cases, specifying the use of a 16-bit TIFF file only would be a minimal condition of acceptance in a standalone package. Even then......
Controls/Modification Tools: Generally speaking, all of the menu tools I experimented with exhibit far too coarse a range of effect within the physical size of the tool control itself. All tools should have numerical readouts which allow user input. Most importantly, all tool panels require a "Reset" button. Overall, I am not sanguine about allowing the average user to access many of the image controls shown in these various editing panels. If I assume that our market majority consists of users who are enthusiasts/amateurs/hobbyists (a good and recommended assumption) I would advise that only the editing controls specific to the gallery "look" selected be the ones shown to the user. For instance, selecting a Sepia toned mode from the gallery would bring up a Levels, Saturation, Contrast, Exposure, Blacks, tool. In other words, the selected image motif orders the specific controls to be made available to the user. As time goes by any new control adjustment requested and not initially included can be added in a version update.
Commercial (so-called Pro) Users: Workflow pipeline is all important to this segment. A standalone product would be difficult to justify therefore I'd contemplate a plug-in implementation only. Arguably seventy-five percent of this segment operates on RAW images. Any placement of this program within a parent editing tool should be within the TIFF conversion stage of editing. Furthermore, this software, when used as a plug-in, should be able to handle 48-bit TIFF files and optionally use LZW lossless compression to maintain compatibility with compressed files. The TIFF format supports most color spaces, RGB, CMYK, YCbCr, etc., and will always be the file structure moving through that parent pipeline. PP, for instance, outputs a 48-bit TIFF which was a major if not silent selling point as far as my associates were concerned. And a further heads-up regarding these Pro's; any compromise to file resolution or integrity discovered by a pro user will kill the marketability of this software plug-in as sure as we are speaking. Word of mouth is the chief research tool of every commercial photographer, sad to say.
Commercial/Professional Features: In my estimation, if you want the attention of a professional photographer it's only necessary to incorporate about a half dozen or so image transitions - or "looks". These looks universally occupy most commercial interests today so they go to the top of the list. I'll itemize four of the best recognized and the most desirable:
(a). A B&W and Sepia base mode. A "real film" look or film simulator is much desired.
(b). A so-called "Cross Processed" base mode (also using cyan/red - magenta/green - yellow/blue additional control enhancements).
(c). A so-called "Bleach Bypass" base mode (offering both a soft and a hard effect).
(d). A so-called "Glamor" mode (for both color and B&W with Gaussian blur/saturation controls).
Some further thoughts aimed toward a professional market: Depending upon your software algorithm you may choose a shorter path to launching this software by investigating representative samples of the images modes I suggested above. If you need to, one of your staff pro's can deconstruct any of those image modes into their fundamental parameters and - with suitable parameter controls - leave any further embellishments up to the end user. Also, if you decide to introduce an "effects generator" type of plug-in it would be easier for the user to select his/her own parent software controls to make any further effect modifications. You can see why I've pressed heavily (not rudely I hope) for info about "specifically targeted market segment" and "user characterization". Tons of possible variables here.
There was a mention somewhere earlier that this software would have the capability to mimic an image effect which was selected from another image file. If that potential exists then I think it could become a very interesting and viable product for a non-commercial user. That is certainly worth exploring.
Lampl1tr
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Other Questions About The Software
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests