Adobe Photoshop Touch for iPad: Almost 4 bucks per megapixel

Home » News

Adobe Photoshop Touch for iPad: Almost 4 bucks per megapixel

Submitted by Marty Yawnick on February 27, 2012 – 11:27 am 18 Comments

The long-awaited Adobe Photoshop Touch for iPad 2 is now out. Different than Adobe Photoshop Express which has been available for iOS for some time, this new app is more than just a basic image editor and brings many of Photoshop’s advanced functions to iPad 2. The app features popular Photoshop tools redesigned for the tablet such as layers, selection tools, adjustments, and filters. It allows you to easily search the web for images to edit, making it easier to access your photos stored in the cloud.

Unfortunately, Photoshop Touch only supports a maximum image resolution of 1600 x 1600 pixels — that’s only 2.56 megapixels and works out to be about $3.90 per megapixel. Even Adobe Photoshop Express supports at least 8 megapixels.

Despite the toolset and spiffy interface, $10 for a medium resolution app — regardless of the nameplate — is way too expensive and I think Adobe really underestimated the users who would buy an iPad app named “Photoshop.” Established photo apps like Filterstorm and Filterstorm Pro by Tai Shimizu, and PhotoForge2 by GhostBird Software are already available for iPad and all have innovative interfaces and very powerful toolsets also redesigned for tablets.

Adobe is already aware that many photographers are unhappy with the low res. By releasing this long-awaited iOS app without high-resolution support, I think Adobe have really dropped the ball with its release.

Adobe Photoshop Touch is an iPad 2-only app. Requirements: Compatible with iPad 2 Wi-Fi and iPad 2 Wi-Fi + 3G.Requires iOS 5.0 or later.

Share on Tumblr

Marty Yawnick

Marty is a self-employed graphic designer in the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex. He is an avid Rangers baseball, Chicago Cubs, Packers and Highbury Arsenal fan. In addition to capturing random moments with whatever camera is close by (usually his iPhone), his other interests include coffee, film, music, and traveling in seats 5E and 5F with his fiancé.

Cueballtwo

I can wait for the hi-res version. I use filterstorm, snapseed and photoforge and they are great. No rush to add an incomplete app…
http://twitter.com/robertpaul @robertpaul

I'm not buying. Why should I when I already have Filterstorm Pro? Definately not too expensive, but too small resolution to be usefull. Do they think we only post to Facebook and Instagram or what?
Karen

Yeah. I'm really disappointed: what's the point of being able to open a 1600 x 1600 (!) image in photoshop? There are already plenty of upload to Facebook style apps. I'll be sticking with filterstorm too.
http://andrewbwhite.tumblr.com/ Andrew B. White

I was shocked to see the 1600 pixel maximum too.

Typical Adobe dropping the ball.

They need to pull finger (including having their apps individually for sale at the Mac App Store, none of these stupid bundles. It's 2012 FFS.
CJ!

Why would I buy Photoshop Touch when its maximum image resolution is so low? I picked up the newly released Laminar instead for 1/10th the price. Adobe fail!
- http://www.davidroccato.com David
  
  I agree. Is Laminar the same resolution of Photoshop Touch? Or not so far from it?
  - https://www.facebook.com/kprowe Kimberly Post Rowe
    
    Laminar is great, supports full resolution, and is currently on sale for 99 cents. from the makers of Iris, another great app.
    - Miege
      
      Not exactly full res.
      - http://www.davidroccato.com David
        
        Hi Miege, could you tell me what do you mean? Or what they mean when they say "support" full-res? I have a doubt on it. I imported a photo 2448×2448 and it gives me 1536×1536, same that other apps.
      - Miege
        
        High res, instead of full res. Full res to me is infinity Are you using old gen devices? On iPad 2, Laminar can support 12 MP, but not 15.3 MP. I'm sure it has its pixel limits in terms of length x width.
      - http://www.davidroccato.com David
        
        Thanks for the answer Miege, I thought I had delete that. It's been my mistake. I've always used the camera roll on iPhone and I didn't know the photostream and the iOS transfer via iTunes downsize the pics when used on the apps. :S That's why those formats.
      - Miege
        
        No problem. Also, avoid editing large MP pics in Photos. It'll downscale, too.
http://www.iphoneographycentral.com Nicki Fitz-Gerald

Well, I jumped in…couldn't wait to try it but so disappointed with the export lo-res. That just isn't on! It is a great app, beautifully presented with some very good tutorials to get you started. I can't help thinking though, that Filterstorm and Photoforge2 are still ahead of the game when it comes to an intuitive interface…but I also have the feeling Adobe are going to catch up fast. Way too much to pay £6.99 when Filterstorm and PhotoForge2 do so much of what Adobe Touch has already.
Miege

The king of desktop is irrelevant in the mobile world.
ilias

Hi,
I am using Photoforge2 (and sometimes filterstorm Pro). However, I find interesting the scribbling tool which greatly helps (or it seems) to remove unwanted object from the pic. Since I want to use it for family photos, do you believe 1600 * 1600 is enough for printing regular size photos? Thank you.
- http://lifeinlofi.com lifeinlofiblog
  
  Hi, Ilias,
  
  You *could* get good 8"x10" output at 150 ppi from a 1200×1600 pixel print, but you'd get sharper, better quality images at 6"x8" at 200 ppi or smaller. Your image loses a lot of pixels — and definition — when it goes from 8 MP to 2 MP.
  
  =M=
clix2020

I'm jumping in with the full expectation that Adobe's already working to pump up resolution and to be in the free upgrade path. It's a fairly easy fix for them and I'll use the ensuing time to learn the interface fully. However, probably won't do any 'serious' work on it until the output upgrade.
http://thebeginnerslens.com Guy Yanf

It seems to me Adobe is between a rock and a hard place: it has to produce low price mobile apps, but can't afford to have users switch away from desktop Photoshop, which is way more expensive and has paid upgrades. Very low prices and free upgrades are tough on them! That could be why they intentionally kept the resolution so low.