Web-Based Photo Editor Roundup

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech has a roundup of 5 web-based image editing programs. The mostly Flash and AJAX-based webware ranges from simple touch-up services like Snipshot to the Photoshop wannabe Fauxto. They vary greatly in interface and extra goodies; some offer bookmarklets for getting images from a web page you're browsing, some offer artistic or goofy effects for you pix, but all fear the specter of Adobe's online version of Photoshop on the horizon."

Online with my CPU?

[MosesJones (55544)]

Okay so while its nice to have some basic stuff on a website I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing). Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.

Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be in the browser because otherwise its not cool.

Re:Online with my CPU?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Okay so while its nice to have some basic stuff on a website

Mosesjones, I'd like you to meet the vast-majority-of-the-world (tm) who only ever use the basic stuff. They're not going to buy photoshop, they're not going to download the picassa. Hell, they're not even going to ever launch the photo editing software that came with their camera.

Re:Online with my CPU?

[Aladrin (926209)]

Your statement doesn't apply to a single person that would use this website, then. So how does it have anything to do with this at all? If they aren't going to use the software that comes with their camera, they surely aren't going to sign up for a web-based service that does the same but is a lot more hassle.

Re:

[Infinityis (807294)]

Unless you can't use the software that is available with your camera. If all you have to work with is a PDA or even an OLPC laptop, you'll be glad to offload the processing to a server.

Re:

[TheFlyingGoat (161967)]

We have a WYSIWYG editor built into one of our website products. The main issue we've had with customers is that they can't figure out how to resize/crop their graphics before uploading them. After seeing Snipshot, I'll be building it into our editor so they simply need to right-click on the image to be able to edit it through the Snipshot interface. Their API seems to make this really easy to do. Problem solved.

In addition to this being useful for developers like myself, it's useful for people like my

Re:

[Aladrin (926209)]

Maybe you should have read the post above mine before responding to mine. He was saying that the web-based photo editor would be used by people who won't purchase photoshop, download picasa, or even use the free one that came with their camera. This is a person that obviously has absolutely no interest in using a photo application to do -anything- to pictures. You obviously are not in this category and his statement was not aimed at you at all, and so neither was mine.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

If they don't want to do anything to photos, why are they using the online photo program at all?

Re:Online with my CPU?

[beakerMeep (716990)]

Just because you dont see a market for these types of products doesn't mean there isn't one. as an AC pointed out, though a bit harshly, there are people who want just a few features and would love a quick web editor to fix up some of their pics. In the article it mentioned how a lot of the programs offered easy integration with sites like flickr or some type of browser integration. Certainly there are people who would like this kind of feature -- although for me I prefer photoshop.

Users have a funny way of deciding for themselves how they like to use technology, and that doesnt always mean the best utilization of multi-core processors. Sometimes it just means a few less clicks to get out the red eye from photos of your dog Floofly.

/have to say too the incessant AJAX and Flash bashing is tiresome on /. sometimes. And no I dont have a dog named Floofly.

Re:

[sharp-bang (311928)]

Agreed. There are a lot of these people. Two of them (spouse, teen) live in my house.

Also, I would think this development would be welcomed by camera manufacturers, who could offload the production of retouching software and give them another marketing tie-in opportunity.

Re:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

I'm really not sure how this makes sense given the rise and rise of multi-core CPUs (which are fantastic at image processing).

Those online apps actually *do* use your CPU. You don't think every brush stroke is sent to a server and back in realtime I suppose.

Models like Picassa and others which have a download to the machine make more sense as they don't require you to buy a massive amount of server hardware to support your business model.

Sorry I've just realised... its Web 2.0 bubble isn't it, it has to be

Re:

[smellsofbikes (890263)]

There are an awful lot of people who, y'know, travel.
It's hell to take a laptop anywhere.
When I was in Christchurch, New Zealand last year it would've been really nice to be able to crop pictures I'd taken with my digital camera so I could send them to friends. Oddly enough, the computer I was using in the nice internet cafe wouldn't let me download Picassa or install Adobe. Nor would the one in Wellington. I'll bet the internet cafes in Reykjavik, where I'll be next month, won't either.

Data intensive

[Chris Pimlott (16212)]

This seems like a silly place to use a web application, since your photos normally reside on your computer. Uploading a two-to-three megabyte file just to run some simple corrections that are handled by dozens of already available tools (including many free or preloaded ones like iPhoto and Picasa), then downloading it again...

I would expect a bunch of geeks to get this.

[Fross (83754)]

Between this and the other threads talking about Photoshop moving "online", there is a hell of a lot of misconception that surprises me from this crowd.

No, these clients don't do the image processing on the remote server. Yes, it would take masses of bandwidth. They use simple, easy to implement algorithms that run on the client machine. Most of these are written in Flash, hell, Photoshop Online will be written in Flex. Why bother making a heavyweight client app, then send the images to the server for p

Re: I would expect a bunch of geeks to get this.

[fyngyrz (762201)]

HLL image processing is a joke. Plain and simple. It'd actually be better - and probably a lot faster - to hand the images to a machine that is running serious, efficient code, and get the job done that way. Flex... Aside from the name, which is actually a 6800/6809 CPU operating system from the 1970's, the Flex engine is just more crawl-ware to complement Java and the rest of the web 2.0 silliness. And Flash? Are you kidding? Just benchmark that sucker against a few cores (or even one!) running close-to-

Re:

[Fross (83754)]

I agree with you entirely, but it doesn't take much muscle power to do 95% of the functionality 95% of this software's users will require. crop, resize, brightness/contrast, red-eye removal, etc. i don't think people are talking about trying to fully process 100-layer 600dpi posters with stacks of filters through this. i'd pity anyone who tries :)

fwiw, I'm a flex/as3 and java developer, and find the two comparable in performance when written well. make of that what you will ;)

Re:

[Chris_Keene (87914)]

Places where I might want to edit a photo: my flat, my place of work (my office), my place of work (someone else's desk), parents house, friends house, internet cafe, conference.

Places where I will just install software because I need it: my flat.

All those other places, if I want (or someone else asks me) to edit a photo, an online tool would be great.

For gods sake why aren't photo editting in java

[BlackTriangle (581416)]

Java would be the ideal solution if Sun would get off their asses and A)Make cut/paste work (even if it necessitates putting up a huge "warning this is a security risk" window before letting you do it the first time) , B)Make the allowable heap size MUCH larger for applets , and C)streamline the process of letting users save and load files to their computer (again with the whopping huge security warning windows)

All of this WITHOUT forcing users to accept certificates to give applets carte blanche, which

Re:

[Ilgaz (86384)]

Those would happen if Sun finally figures end user desktop concept is completely different from those $10k workstations and start a Desktop department which will even post stuff to Youtube.

They don't even give free signing to some great opensource developers out there who is stuck with Thawte freemail signature.

Next: The Pedal-Driven Formula 1 Racer Roundup

[Qbertino (265505)]

itentionally left blank - see comment title

A line from Fauxto index.html

[Ilgaz (86384)]

"
Ads by Google

Photo Tools
Fix Image
Image Repair
Fix Photos
Adult Photo
"

Adult Photo as an Ad accepted? Have fun with families who wants to edit their photos online.

As...

[fyngyrz (762201)]

...the head of an image processing and fx software company, I can tell you one thing with certainty: Online apps that transfer photos back and forth and process them online are the very last thing on our list of technologies to be concerned about.

Why? Because nothing on the net will ever compare to an in-system, RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation. That's on the application end.

One the user end, these web based apps are meant for your grandmother. And at that, only on days when someone else in her apartment building or upstream on her cable connection isn't downloading "300" on bit-torrent, and there aren't 200 other people on the same server trying to process an image. The entire idea of "thin clients" for image manipulation is one that presumes bandwidth and server power that are not available at this point in time - it's silly, is what it is.

You can buy a great image manipulation system for about $30 if you simply look hard enough. You'll be able to level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things. Or you can use a web app and move a slider and wait... and move... and wait... and save... and wait... and finally get back your pic. Which you had better hope is what you wanted. When I say you'll get it back, I mean after that "300" download finishes, of course. :-)

So here's what you should be asking yourselves: What is your time worth?

Re:As...

[by Anonymous Coward]

You can buy a great image manipulation system for about $30 if you simply look hard enough.

Or you can get GIMP for $0 without looking very hard at all, which is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention and more.

Digikam

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

I've been using digikam recently and I have to say I'm very impressed with it.

First off its free and offers all the photo manipulation stuff you're likely to find online and secondly its organisational abilities are extremely useful - including location based organisation. It also uploads stuff to Flickr and other places really simply.

Re:

[Inda (580031)]

Did you use your software to output those lovely GIF files on your website? 256 colours with a touch a dithering looks fantastic!

You have a lot to learn too.

Re:

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

A lengthy explantion indeed.

However the original poster was saying that the Gimp can do the sort of photo manipulation offered by these on-line services, which it can.

Either point out which of those on-line services you think can do everything you've just described or concede that you have totally missed the point.

Re:

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

[note: Full comprehension reading takes longer, and may make your head hurt. Side effects may include sudden realizations you've been wrong, abrupt changes in your perception of reality, and an inability to formulate insulting responses that previously came easily to you. Do not attempt if you have high blood pressure, artificial preconceptions, or are taking mood-altering drugs. The FDA has not approved the full comprehension approach for use within a non-rational environment. Your results may vary. Always

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

For the love of criminy. I am the original poster

[grin] For the love of criminy, if you post AC and don't sign your posts, how is anyone supposed to know one AC post from another? Did you ever think of that? Are you aware that there are more than two or even three AC posters on slashdot at any one time? It's an amazing idea, I know, but someday, you'll see another AC post and then it'll suddenly hit you: How will people know I'm me, if I look like I'm them? Think it over. It's a toughie, all right!

I

Re:

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

Since you still don't seem to have grasped what to everyone else here is blindingly obvious.

You said a $30 tool could perform simple photo editing tasks more quickly and easily than doing it on-line.

The other poster said you didn't even need to spend $30 since the GIMP could perform these tasks for nothing.

At this point you launched into some misguided rant that the GIMP could not do various types of processing that some software you are apparently selling can. This was and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Y

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

You said a $30 tool could perform simple photo editing tasks more quickly and easily than doing it on-line.

Close enough.

The other poster said you didn't even need to spend $30 since the GIMP could perform these tasks for nothing.

The first poster said, and again this is a direct quote: "Or you can get GIMP for $0 without looking very hard at all, which is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention and more." Here are some of the things I mentioned: "RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

WI may be capable of doing these things but it would be a little like using a sledgehammer to drive in a pin tack.

Would it really, now? Let's look at your (baseless) assertion. WI is faster to process, consumes less RAM for the executable, starts and restarts quicker, and can be *easily* configured for any set of simple (or not) operations you prefer, such as clipping, redeye, rotation, brightness, whatever you like, really. They're called "operation caddies" and they make any particular workflow a bre

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear god! you aren't seriously talking about the heap of junk which is WinImages, are you?

http://www.blackbeltsystems.com/kowMEfDEpics/wi_sc ap.jpg/ [blackbeltsystems.com]

The screenshot just about says it all, if your own website can't show examples that don't look like utter crap then what hope does anyone else have? I see higher quality output from MSPaint users, let alone GIMP and PhotoShoppers.

Are your clients all interested in producing ultra low quality animated web graphics they're going to travel back in time to the mi

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Just tell them no. We did. Several times. :-)

Re:

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

By all means, show me where I've gone wrong.

At this point you're not wrong, however the GIMP developers have just re-written the entire engine behind GIMP. It's called GEGL [gegl.org] and is a compositor (allowing those non-destructive layer effects you were talking about), it can also do CMYK. The reason the GIMP is so behind is because they've been waiting for this, version 2.6 will see a re-write of GIMP internals to use GEGL (we're currently on version 2.2).

Alternatively, you can try Krita [koffice.org], which is also not pr

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Either way I believe thick client FLOSS apps have far more to offer than online thin-clients.

I completely agree. No matter if they download apps to the thin client, or if they try to run on images remotely, there's just no way for them to meet the same kind of performance metrics until they work themselves up into a true thick client, and then what was the point anyway?

Re the Gimp's new engine, bravo. That should be a fabulous upgrade, and I look forward to it.

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

the original subject was comparing it to web based photo editors.

Nope. I posted a 0-level post comparing my software, a thick client, to thin clients. I mentioned a bunch of capabilities of my stuff. Someone responded (100% incorrectly) that the Gimp would do what I had said my $30 software would. I responded, disagreed, etc, etc. At this point, and ever since then, the thread has been about Gimp vs my $30 software.

I never seem to have as much trouble following threads as some of you folks are exper

Re:

[darjen (879890)]

I think you're missing the point. Why should I have to download or buy software to get basic features like resizing and cropping? This web based stuff clearly isn't meant for heavy processing or filtering. Half the time all people want to do is resize a crappy pic taken with their phone. This works just fine for that. And no I'm not gonna use windows paint because it sucks ass even for that.

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Not to wander too far off topic, but do you see the humor in posting this...
Why should I have to download or buy software to get basic features like resizing and cropping?
...directly over your signature, to wit...
TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

They won't stay on the server side

[weston (16146)]

...the head of an image processing and fx software company, I can tell you one thing with certainty: Online apps that transfer photos back and forth and process them online are the very last thing on our list of technologies to be concerned about.

It's not going to stay that way. Much (if not most) of the processing will be done on the client side. Using Javascript/Canvas, using flash, maybe even Java Applets. I know this because I'm working on an app that does a limited amount of image editing via the first

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Grandma, after that lesbian porn incident with grandpa and the visit from the department of elder services, I'm not so sure about this. How about a nice cup of tea instead?

Re:

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Yes, it is WinImages. You just have to grab it from the right page [blackbeltsystems.com] to get that price, which we offer via paypal only. That page — entirely coincidentally, I swear — is the photo/image editing page. The product you get is the full version, but download only - no CD, no copy protection. We do permanently back up your purchase and program keys for you so if it's lost, you can grab it again at no cost. Just takes a whack at our contact form.

$30. Funny story. Funny to me, anyway. There's a very o

Javascript image manipulation?

[Rob Kaper (5960)]

I haven't tried out any of the products, but it's safe to assume they do most of the work client-side and therefore they must have some Javascript image manipulation functions. I wonder if any of those exist as a free/open resource. For a long time I've been looking for a Javascript JPEG library which would allow me to scale an image client-side before uploading it to a CMS. Sure, server side checks and manipulations are available, but there's really no point in uploading a three Megabyte digital camera pic

Re:

[slashkitty (21637)]

Yes and No. Javascript can be used in a lot of ways to preview image changes, but it's not going to rescaling the image before you upload it. That takes some processing power.

Here's some examples of what it can do in the way of previewing and rendering:

Scaling: Javascript image scaling [lunapic.com]
Color Saturation: Javascript color saturation preview [lunapic.com]
Drawing: Javascript drawing primatives [walterzorn.com]

Others

[slashkitty (21637)]

That list is hardly complete. There are others, the biggest probably being lunapic.com [lunapic.com]. Some things are just easier to do, lunapic for example has a lot of animations and fonts that you wouldn't normally have. Obviously, for high quality photo editing, you'd want to stay local for now. But, with bandwidth ever increasing, the online editors slowly get better and better.

To the folks saying "who would use this?" ...

[cascadingstylesheet (140919)]

My wife wants to resize a picture to put on her Yahoo group site. So she Googles "shrink picture", and one of the top sites that she finds doesn't just *tell* her how to do it with some software, it *offers* to resize the picture for her, for free.

We probably have five or more programs on our machine that could have done the job. But the above was *way* faster than it would have taken her to find one of them and figure out its interface.

And I have to confess, it may have been faster than it would have tak

Is this the last nail...

[The Queen (56621)]

...in the coffin of a slowly dying Photoshop Phriday [somethingawful.com]?

As Photoshop and other tools have gotten into the hands of folks who don't design for a living, the quality of this once-hilarious feature has gone down. The recent giant pets theme was just...well, something awful.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

in using a web browser like some super whizz-bang do-it-all application framework.

AJAX & Flash suck, but there's nothing wrong with the thin client idea. It's being held back by MS & bandwidth issues at the moment.

If Netscape had won back in the day, maybe we would have a better web based thin client framework now, but to suggest that the idea is unworkable is ludicrous.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

there's nothing wrong with the thin client idea

There's nothing wrong with thin clients for certain applications. There is a lot wrong with the silly idea of using a damn web browser as the platform for a thin client. Javascript and XHTML are not an application framework. They're for drawing pretty web pages. Compare any Web 2.0 "framework" with a real GUI toolkit: even a retarded chimp can see just how terrible an idea all of this Web 2.0 stuff is. Really, what is the fascination with it? Even Java would

Re:

[l-ascorbic (200822)]

It makes more sense when there's an actual reason for it to be on the web. For example, CleVR stitches photos into panoramas [clevr.com], then uses a flash thing to display them and embed them in other pages, youtube style. It's like Apple's old Quicktime VR, but without the $500 authoring environments and plugin and embedding nightmares.

Re:

[stephend (1735)]

I think you have an "off by one" error there. Elements 4 is the current version on the Mac, with 5 on Windows. To be honest, if the delta between 4 and 5 is as little as that between 3 and 4 then you're probably not missing much.

Adobe have been pretty smart about choosing which features to include in Elements -- enough to keep me happy most of the time but with a little nag at the back of my mind thinking, "What if I upgraded..?" I trust they'll do something similar for the web version.

Re:

[CronoCloud (590650)]

I Iremember it, but I'm a former WebTV user.