Feature Request: Make 360 Immersive Tools available in Photoshop / Lightroom

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • (Edited)
I work with 360 / VR video and photo production, and I can't really believe that for how easy the process has become in After Effects and Premiere, it's still much too clumsy and inefficient in Photoshop. All the tools I need are right there in the video apps (when the Mettle Suite was incorporated to CC a couple of years ago), and I would simply like to request that they are also made available for Photoshop too (in particular the stereoscopic functionality). The native Panorama tools in PS are rudimentary at best, and even third party apps like Flexify have limited support for Stereoscopic 360 images. It's so easy in After Effects and Premiere! Just bring the toolset over!

Thanks
Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 1 month ago

  • 1
Photo of Keith Anderson

Keith Anderson

  • 64 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes

Oh, dear.  I must be turning into a contrary grump. 

I commented a few days ago that I'm unenthusiastic about a proposal to make the icons in Pshop prettier or more modern or something. 

I'm unenthusiastic about this idea too.  If there are already two products: After Effects and Premier that do the job, it seems a bit unnecessary to want Photoshop to do them too.  I'd prefer that Photoshop should do the best job possible of the jobs Photoshop should do, and leave other products to do the best job possible of the jobs they should do. 


Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Fully with you on the icon grumpiness though ;)
Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Ok, but 70% of my assignments are only photo, no video involved at all. So I really don’t see why I should have to round trip between Photoshop for RAW editing and tripod removal / cloning / healing etc when I only need To go to to AE to perform simple stereoscopic reorientation functions. Would it really be such a big deal to have an Immersive Tools drop down menu attached to the existing 3D / panorama functions Already in place, especially considering these tools are already tested and implemented in other CC tools?

Furthermore, AE isn’t optimised for working with large stereoscopic DNG or TIFF files and throws us a GPU error if I’m working on anything less than my maxed iMac Pro. Not handy at all when working in the field.

While I can (kind of) empathise with your enthusiasm not to overpopulate PS with functions better suited to other programs, when most of my jobs are a 100% still image pipeline it doesn’t feel like much of a stretch for a PS feature request.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 497 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
"Much of a stretch"

So, programmers work for free???

The proportion of people out of the total customer base for Photoshop that would use such a thing is probably miniscule and not worth doing this just for those few. In addition, we are seeing a considerable amount of kvetching already about complexity of Photoshop; adding those features would make the morass of difficulty even worse for the rest of users.
Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Err, no they don’t work for free. The people who buy expensive CC subscriptions pay them, like myself and everybody else here.

To be honest maybe I got confused here. I thought this was a place to post feature requests for software I use on a daily basis, not a forum for random people to shoot down the requests they themselves perhaps might not need, because it might add to the complexity of ‘their’ photoshop.

Do me a favour, anyone who does work regularly and professionally with 360 photography in Adobe and thinks this feature might be useful, give it a little ‘like’.

Anyone who doesn’t need these tools and doesn’t like this idea, keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 497 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
"Err, no they don’t work for free. The people who buy expensive CC subscriptions pay them, like myself and everybody else here."

However, if only a very few users, a minuscule number, like something, the company has a financial decision to make as to whether to spend the large amount of money needed to satisfy .0001% of total customers, by implementing your request as it costs many thousands of times more than your (not so) expensive monthly fee brings in.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 497 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
Let me understand: if you like an idea of your own, then it is relevant. If someone else thinks that it is impractical and costly, then THEY are irrelevant?   Sounds like a modern day Political way of thinking to me...
Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Look, I was advised on the Adobe forums that this was the place to post feature requests which would be seen by Adobe themselves. So that’s what I’ve done. I wasn’t really looking for feedback, I don’t need it. I use Adobe software every day and I know what could improve my workflow, and in this case it’s not wanting to use video apps for simple photo editing. If I feel that way, I’m sure there are others out there who feel the same way. It’s really not a big deal, and it’s certainly not political. If there was a feature request form somewhere on the Adobe site, I would have used that, but there isn’t.


I just don’t really understand the perspective of folks cruising these pages looking for suggestions they don’t use or need In order to spend their time making a case for why no one else should want it either.


No one is going to persuade me this isn’t going to be useful for my work. And using an argument that Adobe programmers ‘don’t work for free’ or ‘Photoshop is already too complex’ feels like there should be better ways to spend some time.


Maybe you could try editing a stereoscopic 360 DNG in Photoshop instead, and then get back to me that the workflow couldn’t be improved with the addition of a couple basic scripts which already exist in other Adobe apps.

It’s a simple suggestion for improving the 3D / Spherical panorama functionality so as to be useful for editing and outputting stereoscopic images. If you don’t like it, fine. But pointing out why you don’t think it should be implemented is not constructive or useful (or relevant) to anyone who actually does this type of work.
(Edited)
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 497 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
"Maybe you could try editing a stereoscopic 360 DNG in Photoshop instead, and then get back to me that the workflow couldn’t be improved with the addition of a couple basic scripts which already exist in other Adobe apps."

I don't doubt that it would help YOU.   Why would Adobe or any other software maker rebuild their code just to accommodate one or two users??   Especially, as was pointed out by another poster, those features are already available to you in two "apps" which are specialized for the purpose?

  How do you know that the code written for other Adobe apps can in fact be bolted right in without causing the sort of chaos that Adobe is experiencing with the latest Updates.
Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Well, sure. If it was just me who wanted it I wouldn’t expect it to be picked up or implemented. But if Adobe felt that 360 / VR producers numbered enough to build the tools into After Effects and Premiere, you could safely assume there might be some interest from PS users too.
My suggestion with you trying to actually work through this process was so you might understand how clumsy and inefficient it is in photoshop and might actually have something useful to contribute to the conversation.
In terms of it being a help to me, I think you’ve pretty much shown so far the only reason for even being here is to provide as little useful insight as possible

I don’t know what you use photoshop for, but I would never presume to tell you that a feature suggestion you had had no merit. So how do you feel it’s ok to do that to others?

I suggest you find some posts which do actually focus on something you know about and contribute in a meaningful way to those, instead of wasting both our time here.
(Edited)
Photo of Keith Anderson

Keith Anderson

  • 64 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes

Oh, dear.

As the contrary grump who started this, I feel I should apologise to OpticalSound, Dave Grainger and even the elves at Adobe.


I agree that OpticalSound was right to use this forum to suggest an opportunity for improvement.  That is indeed an important purpose of this forum.  I think I was also right to comment that this seems a bridge too far, provided I do that politely.  I claim I did that. 


To improve their products, the elves at Adobe need to know who wants what and how terrific or otherwise their customers expect that improvement to be.  Provided we are polite, we can give them useful information.  If lots of people reply asking "Yes, please", then they might do it.  If not, then not. 


I hope the dust settles soon.


Photo of OpticalSound

OpticalSound

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Keith,

Completely agree. The main purpose of this platform is to communicate directly with Adobe (if indeed that does happen here). However of course informed and respectful comments on others posts should be welcomed. We’re all professional, we’re all creatives, we should be able to communicate and enrich each other’s experiences.

I personally would only comment on someone else’s post if I was in agreement with their idea and wanted to support it, or if I had constructive suggestions for workarounds or alternative solutions to the issues being raised.

Anyway, thanks for replying.