February 26, 2012

Photoshop Touch for iPad is here!

I’m delighted to say that Photoshop Touch for iPad 2 is now available in the App Store! You’ve probably already seen my overview of it…

 

…but better yet is this testimonial from legitimately kickass artist Brian Yap:

 

The sort of free-range ideation & expression that Brian describes is just what we had in mind when building PS Touch. I’ve also rounded up Russell Brown’s great videos, which are full of quick, useful tips & techniques.

We honestly can’t wait to hear what you think & to see what you can create.  Photoshop Touch is just a v1 app–a first step on what we hope is a long and interesting road–but we think you’ll find it pretty capable. Check out the user forum to let us know your thoughts.

Now, let me anticipate two questions which go hand in hand: Why does the app require an iPad 2, and why is the maximum image size 1600x1600px? The iPad 2 has twice the RAM, twice the processing cores, and ~5x the graphics grunt of the iPad 1. PS Touch brings some seriously powerful algorithms (e.g. Refine Edge) from the desktop to mobile, and we wanted to ensure a good match between hardware & image size. The app is geared more towards remixing photos & sharing them onscreen than towards print work; having said that, note that a 1600×1600 doc could be printed at 10.6×10.6″ at 150dpi.

And with that, you can grab Photoshop Touch today for U.S. $9.99 in the iTunes store or Android Market and start playing!

Posted by John Nack at 11:35 PM on February 26, 2012

Comments

  • K Brown — 12:38 AM on February 27, 2012

    So, because I only have an iPad “one”, I can’t install this because it doesn’t have a camera…
    Apparently Adobe doesn’t understand the ability of users to import pictures to the iPad and work on them there…
    I do hope Adobe is aware of the significant number of people like myself who would like the ability to edit pictures on an iPad, but are refused the option.
    Very narrow minded Adobe. I do hope the competition takes advantage of this insult to the Adobe users who have been ignored.

    • melgross — 9:29 AM on February 27, 2012

      It has nothing to do with the lack of a camera. Did you read what John actually wrote here?

      • K Brown — 1:48 PM on February 27, 2012

        Yes. Still no excuse not to allow it to work on an iPad One.
        Perfectly workable.

        [Well, clearly our feeling was that it was better to give up some business than to risk taking people's money & then letting them down. --J.]

        • K Brown — 9:39 PM on February 27, 2012

          According to Apple, prior to the release of the iPad 2 [March 2011], sales of the iPad 1 were at 19 million. Thats quite a significant number to thumb your noses at Adobe….
          Interesting business model going on there.

  • Rob — 12:42 AM on February 27, 2012

    Downloaded it and have been playing with it for the last couple of hours. Very cool. Congratulations.

  • Matt Radel — 7:02 AM on February 27, 2012

    Thrilled to hear it. Congrats John!

  • Doug Otto — 7:06 AM on February 27, 2012

    I’ve been waiting for this for months. Now you release it and it doesn’t even run on my device. You could’ve mentioned that months ago.

    There are too many other alternatives out there for Abode to take that lazy approach. You just let down a lot of people.

    ["Laziness" is always the best explanation for things. Always. --J.]

  • Beau — 8:12 AM on February 27, 2012

    Do you drama queens even read john’s post, or are you in too big of a hurry to whine?

    Psssssst…relevant bits start here: “Now let me anticipate two questions which go hand in hand…”

  • Carl — 8:20 AM on February 27, 2012

    We see the future of Adobe. And it looks like a demo from 2006.

  • Bryan — 8:35 AM on February 27, 2012

    You know, it seems to me that all the people bitching about the lack of iPad 1 support are likely the SAME people who, if the app didn’t require the iPad 2, would be bitching about a poor user experience or processing times. Perhaps you should re-read the part about the processing and graphics power differences between the two units. I don’t hear people complaining about Adobe requiring newer and more powerful systems for CS5 vs CS1 or Photoshop 4. I wouldn’t really want to try and run a Content Aware Fill on a 1995 computer. I understand the iPad 1 isn’t nearly that old, but with leaps in processing and RAM come leaps in apps that take advantage of that processing power.

  • 8bf — 9:14 AM on February 27, 2012

    Why the hell does people keep asking for these ps mini-apps for??? Makes no sense; its like a severely stripped down ps. It’s either image manager with some “slight” editing options (ie: picasa) or they are mini apps like finger painting.etc Now Ps Touch??? Come on there is no way you can replicate the ps power of working on a desktop with a real machine.

    Pretty damn retarded; its like stripping a harley down to a vespa.

    Seems pretty pointless if you ask me. I understand adobe wanting to make some cash; but i still don’t get the retarded users who ask for this kind of stuff.

    The ps interface is completely different with smaller buttons and gui; making it for the touch will involve dumbing down the interface as well and making it look like a kids toy.

    Given the restrictions of a pad version vs. a pc version this will likely just end up being a novelty toy and not a serious tool to suck up some extra cash.

    I predict this as a quick cash-in on the ps name (further diluting the brand product like a Louis Vutton brand condom ;-) It will probably have some very basic editing with filters of course ( because if its anything hipster app buyers love is cutesy effects!)There will be limits on image size and will be nothing more than a tool disregarded as retarded.

  • melgross — 9:32 AM on February 27, 2012

    Been p,aging with it for a bit. Pretty nice for what it is. Interesting comparison to PS 1 way back when.

    But still, despite the explanation that this isn’t for print, 1600 x 1600 really isn’t enough. We do need RAW in a larger size, say, enough for a 12-16 MP image. Come on now, I know you can do this.

  • 8bf — 10:24 AM on February 27, 2012

    This is a case of why bother. It’s like trying to attach a rocket to a sheep. Pointless. Until we get to the utopian future where ps runs exactly the same on a tablet this is nothing more than a crappy gimmick app. It’s a toy and not a tool any professional ps user will wanna touch.

    To those arguing thats not the point of the app I can agree with that but its such a watered down version of ps to only carry its name is an embarassment. Stretching the brand name is one thing; watering it down is another. I see why adobe would wanna ride the famous ps name to the breaking point. Still maybe they should have named this something else until it matured to the point of being called a app under the ps moniker.

    • imajez — 12:28 PM on February 27, 2012

      Probably not much point buying an iPad either as it’s nowhere near as powerful as a laptop or desktop.

  • Rob — 10:41 AM on February 27, 2012

    Having played with PS Touch for several hours, I’m impressed with its capabilities. I needed help from the forum to figure out how to rename projects. It would have been helpful if rename was one of the menu items or if pressing the name of the project elicited some feedback (e.g., highlighting). Speaking of help, the absence of a help file, or even online help other than the forum, is odd. Since so many features have already been documented in PS, you’d think it would take a tech writer only a few days to assemble and create a help file. The inability to edit text layers is regrettable. Probably the limited capabilities of present-day tablets makes it necessary to rasterize these layers, but it’s still a feature people are likely to miss. Finally, I hope we can expect that PS6 will permit us to open documents in the Adobe Cloud directly, rather than obliging a multi-step process of getting documents from the cloud via a browser.

  • Phil Scarsbrook — 11:20 AM on February 27, 2012

    Come on guys…It is what it is, a $9.99 app, not a $699.00 program. I have purchased and worked with it for several hours this morning. I find it perfect for what it is. I create a lot of photo composites using Photoshop CS5, and this app is perfect for “sketching out” ideas using multiple images and discovering how they interact with each other. Is it perfect? Heck no, but it is very nice for a first release. I am confident that Adobe Systems will be adding more features and functionality over time, and yes…I may have to occasionally upgrade my hardware if I want that functionality. I can think of much worse reasons to upgrade an IPad.

    • melgross — 8:46 PM on February 27, 2012

      I would rather it cost more, and did more. I’m just not thrilled with the picture size and format limitations.

  • Porsupah — 6:32 PM on February 27, 2012

    First off: all due congratulations to the team responsible. This is an auspicious beginning. ^_^

    That said – yes, iPad 1 support would be highly welcome. Scalability’s not the easiest of tasks, and potentially, some features might have to be dropped for the original device (or made available behind a “you know what you’re letting yourself in for?” warning). Still, let’s not forget that, back in the ancient mists of time, Photoshop itself ran on far more humble hardware – a very different feature set to now, absolutely, but still with the essentials that make Photoshop so useful.

    Consider a PowerBook 5300c, in 1996 – and Photoshop 3 ran happily. It sported a respectable 100MHz PPC603e (with no L2 cache, unfortunately), and 16MB RAM, with a 640×480 LCD. Nobody would reasonably ask CS5 to be ported to an iPad 1 – but there is scope for future development to take it into account, and to be honest, I’d be somewhat surprised if there aren’t Adobe staff already looking in that direction, if indeed, not already running dev builds on the iPad 1.

    I’ll wait, and hope to be given a pleasant surprise. ^_^

  • 8bf — 5:54 AM on February 28, 2012

    Agreed. The words quick cash in on name springs to mind. Rather pay more and get a real work app instead of a crippled toy that limits my ability to work. Jumping on the app bandwagon with a limited tool will only cheapen the photoshop brand and devalue it in the long run. i think most users would rather have a more developed program that can actually do more something akin to real editing with the real strength and tools of ps

  • yuliang — 10:59 AM on February 28, 2012

    great now. however i still prefer my tablet rather than fingers for photos editing.. despite some limitations of the apps

  • PECourtejoie — 12:34 PM on February 28, 2012

    8bf, can you filter down your comments?
    Could you provide more constructive criticism than “that’s not enough”? Given the limited power of tablets, and today’s expectations of speed, could you accept 30 seconds of wait when applying a gaussian blur, like we used to do in the Ps 3 era? (with the useful “beep when done” preference)

  • PECourtejoie — 12:36 PM on February 28, 2012

    BTW, congrats for this new release, John!

  • 8bf — 2:46 PM on February 28, 2012

    PE uh no…sounds like your comment wasn’t specific enough and your just bothered by my outspokeness, your the one who sounds like your censoring a different opinion; I’m entitled to speak my mind just as you are. So the vague filter down your comment sounds more like “shut the hell up filtered through nice talk” maybe just come out and say what you want without speaking in nonspecifics followed by a criticism of the way i state my opinion. Looks like your the one being obtuse.

    I already stated my problem with releasing a tablet version which is just a watered down selling out of photoshop. I like most users would prefer a REAL app and not a toy or not do it all. Its just a cheap cash in on adobes part and not a serious tool. No professional can seriously use this as an adjunct ps on the go. Its a minitoy masquerading as a serious helper app for professionals.

    Sadly I can’t blame adobe because money talks; but to think that there was actually users who suggested it to adobe without thinking of the practicality of implementing it as an app. Didn’t those users realize that a ps app was just gonna be a watered down picasa of an app? Would prefer adobe had waited at least until the app became mature enough to be a real supplementary tool.

  • Frank McIntosh — 6:55 PM on February 28, 2012

    @ 8bf

    “I like most users would prefer a REAL app and not a toy or not do it all.”

    Please continue your fantastic analysis and feel free to speak on behalf of the entire creative community. Where would we be without your searing insight?

  • Phil Scarsbrook — 3:53 PM on February 29, 2012

    The more I work with this app, the more fun I am having. I have used Photoshop professionally since version 2.5 (1994), so I am fairly familiar with its features. This certainly does not have nearly all of the high-end performance that I need to do my job and I would never expect to make high-end image adjustment on large files on a tablet, but for an app that runs on my tiny IPad, it’s pretty damn cool! I only wish that layer masks had made it into this version.

    I second PE’s congratulations and can’t wait to see what future updates bring!

  • danbock — 6:09 AM on March 02, 2012

    i think this version was not meant for profesional use. it would possibly catered for the mass consumer , fun use.

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)