Photoshop mobile???

Adobe, at 12th October 2009 announces the new Photoshop application that is intended to the iPhone user. As we’re all know, to get a qualified software products, iPhone users must pay for them, but as a contrary, Adobe spreads this product for free. You can download this product from iPhone Store. We must admit that this is a courage act from Adobe because as we know Photoshop applied for desktop or notebook is quite expensive, approx. $599.

But, you don’t have to expect too much for this product. You cannot have the whole facility and feature of the origin product intended to deskop or notebook. There’s no complicated effect, no unique features as Liquify in this iPhone application. This product only comes for a basic need, as cropping, exposure adjustment, contrast correction, converting a colour image into a black & white one, and rotate an image.

This application is intended more to tweak and adding simple effects to a photo taken from a mobile phone device. Effects such image border, sketching or blurring is also provided.

This application is also allow its user to save and to see their photo at Photoshop.com.

This act is too late actually. Phanfare, a company that works at online photo services, also released the same application form last year. Adobe’s rival, Smugmug also released the same thing a few time ago before Adobe did, called Blossom. Well, let’s see Adobe’s next step of innovation.

Graphics Software & Photography

We're all agree that photo above passed several or many action in a software. Manipulation, many says. But some also says that the result is an art product; where someone is free to make any creation. But, the viewer also has the right to say anything, including judging that this photo is not a product of photography.
Well, in my opinion. That doesn't affect me in doing my photography activity. This is the right of any photographer to choose how they're going to finish their photo. As long as the eye or viewer is pleased, and can be an advantage of any work that related on it, can be published as the right context within, that should not bring any argue of this matter.
At the old days, photographer tends to do almost same thing as we do in software that then called light-room instead of dark-room. They chosen certain film grain before take shoot, and then in the darkroom they chosen the certain photo paper and then here it came the final result.
Today, we don't do that anymore. We use certain graphics software to modify our photos, to correct the exposure, colour, skin-tone, etc. As long as this kind of correction is not for a journalism purpose, I think this is a "legal" activity. Cause in journalism, we have to present the truth, without any of correction. But some correction to make the picture as seen as the truth is tolerated.
Now, in another case:

What about when we add make up to a model before a shoot or re-arrange a wedding dress? None of these images tell the story of a scene as it was when we arrived at it. All the alterations were made manually to make the image more pleasing.So what is the difference between doing it before the shoot at the scene, or after the shoot in Photoshop? What is the difference between pulling an obtrusive branch out of your way for that perfect landscape or simply removing it later on your PC? Why do wedding photographers carry clothes pegs to pin back the dress for some formal shots?My whole point to this discussion is that each person who picks up and uses a camera, digital or film, has their own individual interpretation of what makes a good photograph, "software-touched" or not! In the same regard, each individual "viewer" that sees these images, has their own interpretation of why they like or dislike the finished product.For me, this is what makes photography so unique and exciting, especially in this new digital era. There are so many combinations, techniques and tools we have at our disposal, that the bountiful supply of and possibilities for different and beautiful images is endless. If it weren't for the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and if we all saw things in the same way, the world would be a very dull and boring place.