New Photoshop CS2 Emerges Head...!!!
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
I read about that in:
http://www.neowin.net/staff/lardiop/040405Photoshop.pdf
and
http://whereisben.blogs.com/whereisben/2005/03/photoshop_cs2.html#more
I agree that this wont be a MAJOR upgrade. It will much resemble
upgrade from PS 6 to PS 7. Enhancements will mostly be cosmetic.
Industry standards grow, and Photoshop should grow with it. MAJOR
upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
years. So, I advise people (who want to save money) NOT to buy upgrade
now!
In the next 3 years Photoshop will jump into the era of 3D object
formats, that will deal with 3D space rather than 2D space, and you
will be able to import DXF objects (or any other format, like that
invented before by Electric Image), and deal with them in any angle
using any kind of lighting, rotate them, texturize them, compute and
render real field depth, generate cross-sections by intersection with
boolean objects, etc. That will be an amazing addition to Photoshop.
They have some problems concerning the rendering procedure. They will
solve it and jump into that dimension. That dimension will enable
people to deal with 3D objects using layers. I can imagine how this is
done, but I will wait and see.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
>
> I read about that in:
>
> http://www.neowin.net/staff/lardiop/040405Photoshop.pdf
> and
> http://whereisben.blogs.com/whereisben/2005/03/photoshop_cs2.html#more
>
> I agree that this wont be a MAJOR upgrade.
Are you reading the same feature lists that the rest of us are?
> Enhancements will mostly be cosmetic.
Obviously not.
> Industry standards grow, and Photoshop should grow with it.
And it does.
> MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
> years.
No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release
with major new features.
> So, I advise people (who want to save money) NOT to buy upgrade
> now!
So you can enjoy the advantage of all the new features and do jobs
faster than the other sucker who didn't upgrade?
>
> In the next 3 years Photoshop will jump into the era of 3D object
> formats, that will deal with 3D space rather than 2D space, and you
> will be able to import DXF objects (or any other format, like that
> invented before by Electric Image), and deal with them in any angle
> using any kind of lighting, rotate them, texturize them, compute and
> render real field depth, generate cross-sections by intersection with
> boolean objects, etc. That will be an amazing addition to Photoshop.
> They have some problems concerning the rendering procedure. They will
> solve it and jump into that dimension. That dimension will enable
> people to deal with 3D objects using layers. I can imagine how this is
> done, but I will wait and see.
And you know this... how?
Please, don't lie to the users - let them see the new features and
decide whether they need them or not for THEMSELVES.
Chris
Rick
> In article <1112434523.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
> > years.
>
> No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release
> with major new features.
Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe's marketing
department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
was a major upgrade.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
I DO NOT LIE and you know that!
I wont blame you to defend your employer. If I was in your shoes I
would be even more aggressive. Designers all over the world really
think that Photoshop is the ultimate in image retouching. Nothing can
really defeat Photoshop. Every one in the world (not only me) knows
affirmatively that it has a MAJOR upgrade every 3 to 4 years. We all
knew Adobe's policy, SO, do not insult our intelligence. (If you don't
know about your company's policy then ask your broker at the stock
exchange market).
Also, and this is my REAL belief, you are one of the best people in
Adobe Photoshop team who really cared for the opinions of the online
forums. Actually, I seldom see your colleagues even say anything! As if
you are the only guy entitled to answer people in newsgroups.
Eric Gill
news:1112859695.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I DO NOT LIE and you know that!
No, you most certainly are.
You are holding your opinion, based on press releases, forth as fact. I
disagree completely, based on exactly the same source.
You then make a number of claims disparaging Photoshop, Adobe and their
alleged upgrade policies, then ask Chris to "not insult our intelligence",
without bothering to support any of the aforementioned claims.
Do not attempt to insult our intelligence.
<snip>
Hecate
wrote:
The thing that always makes me ignore someone's opinion is when they
begin a sentence.."Everyone knows..."
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Bill Hilton
>
> No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
> was a major upgrade.
Given all the major changes in the color management flow and addition
of soft proofing it sure looked like a "major upgrade" to me.
Chris Cox
<nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:060420052123517894%cc...@mindspring.com...
> > In article <1112434523.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
> > > years.
> >
> > No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release
> > with major new features.
>
> Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe's marketing
> department?
Nope.
> No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
> was a major upgrade.
Unless, of course, they worked on it, read the full feature list, or
actually used PS6 to see all the improvements that went into it....
Chris
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I DO NOT LIE and you know that!
> Every one in the world (not only me) knows
> affirmatively that it has a MAJOR upgrade every 3 to 4 years.
And yet that is a bald faced lie.
EVERY time we bump the major version number, it's because we are doing
a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18
months.
> We all knew Adobe's policy, SO, do not insult our intelligence. (If you don't
> know about your company's policy then ask your broker at the stock
> exchange market).
There is no such policy.
So that's either very bad speculation, or a lie.
And please, don't insult our hard work and dedication to our customers.
Chris
Rick
Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact
same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
Scruff
Dude,
You don't come across very well as a representative for your company.
Right or wrong, you need to check out before Bruce pays a visit to your
office.
You do know he lurks this newsgroup, don't you?
Hell, I may even be him.
Brian
> "Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:dt6b51dhetj1e942l...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>The thing that always makes me ignore someone's opinion is when they
>>begin a sentence.."Everyone knows..."
>
>
> "Senior Graphic Designer"
>
> Does that mean he's getting on a bit? or that he has some poor unfortunate
> underling who has to simulate interest when the master speaks?
>
> Harry
>
>
LMAO @ Harry. That was good!
Brian.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you
are free to say whatever you like.
Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your
company's effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much
all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they
appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely
allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company
really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand
to 3D arena in the very near future?
Even if the person who conveyed the news to me was incorrect, then all
facts indicate that Adobe Photoshop will definitely transfer to 3D
arena, because of the fact that they need to upgrade themselves.
Inspite the fact that there are still many things to accomplish like
lockability and linkability of spot channels to layers, and the full
operation of filters in 16-bit mode, hexachromatic separation process
(CMYKOG) process, halftone preview (preview of actual offsett output at
certain angles and line frequency), and other few things. Adobe
Photoshop have some choices to invent new ideas that justify upgrade
(either major or minor) and as follows:
1- Make Photoshop a real hybrid between raster and vector: This choice
will make the Photoshop working like the way Macromedia Fireworks works
like a real hybrid between vector and raster. Working in this direction
will require Adobe to make a great sacrifice by shrinking the role of
Adobe Illustrator. That means that Photoshop may add all tools
necessary to eliminate Illustrator. This is a little bit hard task but
people at Adobe can do it.
2- Make Photoshop 3D enabled software: This choice is not impossible
and is the most likely choice to expand by a company like Adobe. Adobe
has always adapted good ideas of other parties. Incorporating 3D in
image retouching software is not weird (remember Fractal Design
Painter)! Also, 3D for Adobe Photoshop upgrade policy is terrific! I
mean in terms of dropping features in the eyes of buyers! Also, it is
the right time to cheaply buy software that were parts of
out-of-business (but great) software. These software couldn't continue
in business simply because they lacked the genius thinking of Adobe,
not because they are not good (from technical point of view)! Also,
expanding towards 3D capabilities along with the prepress quality
delivered by Photoshop, along with high speeds provided by computer
systems will enable designer to boost creation in a completely new
direction.
3- Borrow some Adobe Premier functionality into Photoshop: This choice
is not impossible but it would be largely useless for designers.
In all above choices, a radical change in Photoshop engineering will be
required.
Brian
All-in-one applications rarely prove to be the best at anything. Leave
PS where it is, it would be more logical to increase Illustrator's
powers in the 3D arena than PS's. It might then raise it to the standard
of PS.
:-)
Clyde
Remember that Adobe's goal is to make money. If giving you more makes
them more money, they will do it. If loading up PS to make a little
while cutting out the market for Illustrator and Premier makes them less
money, they aren't going to do it. Their marketing experts are much more
concerned with the overall money making of the company than with just
bring out new features.
Clyde
Marc Pawliger
Sorry it didn't seem to meet your needs - what are they? The fact 6.0
broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for
the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people
felt it was worth it for them.
--marc
Rick
That simply means Adobe's marketing budget was increased
for PS6.
Marc, you better than anyone remember formal reviews of
PS6. No defense of my statement is necessary.
Chris Cox
<nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:070420051524240538%cc...@mindspring.com...
> > In article <US25e.1925$lP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rick
> > <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:060420052123517894%cc...@mindspring.com...
> > > > In article <1112434523.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to
> > > > > four
> > > > > years.
> > > >
> > > > No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release
> > > > with major new features.
> > >
> > > Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe's marketing
> > > department?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > > No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
> > > was a major upgrade.
> >
> > Unless, of course, they worked on it, read the full feature list, or
> > actually used PS6 to see all the improvements that went into it....
>
> Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact
> same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2
reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that
for EVERY release of Photoshop.
Chris
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you
> are free to say whatever you like.
>
> Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your
> company's effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much
> all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they
> appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely
> allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company
> really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand
> to 3D arena in the very near future?
I can't comment on unannounced products or versions of products.
Chris
Marc Pawliger
<nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I wish it were that simple! In fact, during the times of Photoshop 6
the overall marketing dollars for individual products were decreased,
not increased, and investment in corporate branding and marketing ruled
the day. Check the annual reports and see.
> Marc, you better than anyone remember formal reviews of
> PS6. No defense of my statement is necessary.
I remember the entire 8 foot by 20 foot wall of reviews I had outside
my office, all of which were at least 4/5 stars or equivalent, if
that's what you mean.
Every release of a product concentrates on some theme or set of users
it is trying to reach. That means each release won't necessarily speak
to you or your needs. Every attempt is made to keep existing users
satisfied and excited by new features for them, but clearly that can't
succeed for everyone every time.
--marc
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Chris Cox wrote:
> In article <1113031783.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> I can't comment on unannounced products or versions of products.
Oh yes?! You already did.
You should be answering that way EARLIER. You accused me with lying
from the begining of this thread, and you allowed yourself to express
your denial in public. I suspect more and more, that, what was conveyed
to me about Photoshop 3D is correct in many aspects. I wonder why you
were upset? What's wrong with adding 3D capabilities and call that
MAJOR UPGRADE?
I know that some features need a lot of work and coding, in order for
them to be in final form. Enhancing the functioning of an already
available feature is a MINOR upgrade, even if you enhanced many
available features. However, adding new (many) features or changing a
substancial part of software structure is a MAJOR upgrade. These facts
are well-known. For example Autocolor, filter composition,
highlight/shadow, cannot be grouped under the features of MAJOR
upgrade. While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code
optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade.
MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a
third party.
I don't know if there is other than Chris and Marc (from Adobe) who can
convince people that PS CS2 is not a MINOR upgrade, and that Photoshop
is about to add 3D features VERY SOON.
SpaceGirl
> EVERY time we bump the major version number, it's because we are doing
> a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18
> months.
Just because it's called a major version jump doesn't make it so. They
could call it PhotoShop 20.0 :)
If the feature list is anything to go by, and it's taken 18 months to
complete... what on Earth have you guys at Adobe been doing!? Has the PS
code base become so complex it takes over a year to change a few basic
features? I suspect this is all to do with politics and marketing - PS
had to be released as part of the whole of CS2, and perhaps other
programs in the CS2 suit were taking a long time to update? And you wont
release one part without the other parts...? Or, again, perhaps waiting
until the computer market has moved on a bit so the average user has the
computing power to run some of the new features? (In the computer games
industry this happens all the time - design your products for the
average computer in two years time, which is the very top of the range
computer today).
Ah anyway. We WILL be updating to CS2 - some of the new features look
interesting, and will save time.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
SpaceGirl
>>Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact
>>same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
>
>
> As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2
> reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that
> for EVERY release of Photoshop.
>
> Chris
You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was
being released. Google for it.
SpaceGirl
That's down to good marketing - nothing to do with new features. PS is
*very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just
rehashes of old ones). I really like PS, but it's really expensive for
what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all. There are NO
NEW features - the ones they claim to be new are things you could
already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in.
All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again.
There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two
versions either.
Jan
I think it is both a hardware and a software issue. For many years now,
the 18 month cycle has been popular across the whole spectrum of
software. I suspect it has to do with some study made many years ago
which showed that the maximum profit occurred every 18 months. Or,
perhaps, at 18 the product reached saturation and maybe loyalty began to
drop. Competitors plan on releasing their newest and best 18 months
after their competition.
Rarely will you see a company waiting 18 months to issue a fix - even if
the fix is defective - so it is doubtful that it really takes 18 months
to write and publish.
What does happen, however, is that major changes rarely are published
all at once. The profit potential of spreading a big jump rewrite over
2, 3 or even 4 'new versions' is considerable. Press releases can give a
clue as to which you are getting.
For example, currently the digital market is obsessing over megapixels.
The hardware market is responding with machines more capable of handling
this. Yet Adobe is tooting 'vanishing point editing' when they should
be (IMHO) focusing on ease of use, far better scratch disk sizing (not
even 2X I understand) and color-matching improvements. 48 bit filter
capabilities would be nice, too.
Reality sucks.
Jan, PB, Jelly & Robbie - the 'A' Team!
Hecate
wrote:
>Every release of a product concentrates on some theme or set of users
>it is trying to reach. That means each release won't necessarily speak
>to you or your needs. Every attempt is made to keep existing users
>satisfied and excited by new features for them, but clearly that can't
>succeed for everyone every time.
>
That was quite clear with CS where it was clearly aimed at
photographers in general and digital photographers specifically.
Mike Russell
> "Senior Graphic Designer"
Not single out anyone in particular, but I would like to say that think
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh's heart is in the right place. There is enough
intentional nastiness here as it is. Please let's be a little more
supportive of each other.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
Hecate
<NOtheSpac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>Ah anyway. We WILL be updating to CS2 - some of the new features look
>interesting, and will save time.
Hi Miranda,
I think that's the most important point - is there enough in it to
upgrade. With virtually every piece of software I own, my upgrade
cycle is every other version. However, I went from 4 to 5.5 to 6 to 7
and then to CS. Part of that was the clever bundle pricing which meant
that if you wanted more than two apps it was cheaper to buy the
premium suite. So now I am also upgrading Illy, ID and Acrobat at the
same time, every time. FWIW< I think there's a lot more to be excited
about in Illy than PS this time around. Which is also quite clever. I
might not have considered upgrading if it was just PS, but Illy is
worth it - so it's back to the suite upgrade. ;-)
jjs
news:Q2g6e.788$dT4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> or ends their message with.........
>> "Senior Graphic Designer"
>
> Not single out anyone in particular, but I would like to say that think
> Mohamed Al-Dabbagh's heart is in the right place. There is enough
> intentional nastiness here as it is. Please let's be a little more
> supportive of each other.
Mohamed's heart and mind are in the right place. A couple years ago, Mohamed
posted specific deficiencies of Photoshop in a most articulate way. Nothing
has changed in PS since. I suspect there's a niche for what he's looking
for, and Adobe is just going to overlook it.
Eric Gill
@individual.net:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
>>>Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact
>>>same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
>>
>>
>> As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2
>> reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that
>> for EVERY release of Photoshop.
>>
>> Chris
>
> You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was
> being released. Google for it.
Okay.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photoshop+6
+major+upgrade&btnG=Google+Search
5 pages in, and the situation looks to be much more like Chris described.
Got some examples in mind?
Clyde
Ah, there in lies the rub... Adobe doesn't and can't afford to develop
for niche markets. They have to develop for an overall market. Their
homage to niche markets is through plug-ins.
Clyde
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
I think that Adobe always read what is published here and in their
online forums:
They have feature request forum. In that specific forum they listen
(mostly silently) to the people who request some features not available
in Photoshop. I personally know that they actually listened to some
original ideas that were first suggested by me, and they really
implemented it. However, they mentioned no credit because they just
don't want to run into legal problems of intellectual property. For
example Image Warp (that is introduced in CS2 now), stroke of more than
16 pixels, filters refurbishing, large-format printing and other things
were first suggested by me as concepts in this article that dates back
to March 2002:
http://members.fortunecity.com/dabbagh/photoshop
And this article was discussed on ng following this thread:
I wish that Adobe Photoshop people recognise these contributions and
write a credit for the people who suggested them. As far as I am
concerned I hereby declare that I will claim no financial advantage
whatsoever from Adobe if they mention a credit for me that I am the
creator of those ideas, or recognise the favor of whose created it if
it wasn't me.
No You Spam Me Sucker
to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the
features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number of
times people asked for...
1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.
3. Conditional statements in actions.
4. Password protection of action source code.
5. Live filters
They would have added these and many others by now. In fact the few Adobe
people that float around in these and the Adobe User Forums seem to have a
really negative opinion of user's comments. Chris Cox being one of the most
obnoxious and negative of all of them. He often poo poo's users suggestions
or just flat out says it isn't possible. Even though of course many programs
have such features.
It seems to me that Adobe for the most part goes off and does what they want
with no regard for what their customers want. Sure on occasion something
will get added that has been asked for but that isn't very often and a lot
of times it is half-assed. And, then of course we a lot of times get
features that we didn't ask for that are totally half-assed like CS's filter
gallery which is a big slow joke.
jjs
news:wST6e.14267$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely
>listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of
>the features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number
>of times people asked for...
>
> 1. Being able to save the history with the document.
You can save a history log to the metadata, but of course not use it. :(
Harry Limey
> 1. Being able to save the history with the document.
> 2. Being able to save history as an action.
How big would that make a saved file? - the default History setting is 20
(allowing you to undo 20 times) If you have a 5mb image that would make it
100mb!! - it would not take long to fill your drive, especially if you had a
large file to start with! - unless I have my sums wrong.
Harry
Brian
It is saved as a separate file and adds nothing to your image file.
Obviously, you have to name it in a way you will know what it is later
on. I already use this feature with the software I use. I can not only
apply it to any image, I can delete steps and add steps to the script
once it has been saved, to suit particular images.
Brian.
No You Spam Me Sucker
history since they added the feature and what do they do, that add a such a
feature but it is a worthless half-assed feature. Typical of most peoples
Adobe has added recently. I still say the problem is that to fix up most of
these half-assed features would require a re-write of Photoshop and that is
something Adobe is either too terrified of doing or they lack skilled enough
programmers to pull it off. Meanwhile Photoshop is falling behind. Just now
they are getting around to adding features that many other programs have had
for several versions. Really sad if you ask me.
No You Spam Me Sucker
matter. They could make it smaller if they basically saved the history as an
in file action that is simply replayed when the file is opened. But
Photoshop wasn't designed to work that way and it would require a major
re-write to get it to. For one thing it would have to remember everything
done like brush strokes, etc. Programs like Corel Photo-Paint and Painter
have worked this way for ages (as far as remember brush strokes and being
able to record them as actions and scripts.)
"Harry Limey" <harry...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3h7l5$3r9$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Clyde
Do you have any hard stats for any of this? i.e. How many people have
asked for what features? Remember that Newsgroups is not a good way to
get population statistics on anything. If you and 3 others have
repeatably asked for saving history that doesn't mean that there is a
statistically significant group of users who want it.
Also, silence doesn't tell you anything statistically either. I don't
have any need to save history with my file, but I've never stated that
any where before. How many users are like me and how many are like you?
I don't know, but I'm sure Adobe knows.
What do you mean "live filters"?
Clyde
Rick
Oh please. This issue isn't even debatable. A software
developer's willingness to listen to its customers is inversely
proportional to the amount of market share they have, and
Adobe isn't any different. Even millions of requests for the
most basic improvements, such as context-sensitive help in
Windows have been steadfastly ignored by Adobe.
jjs
> 5. Live filters
What are live filters?
Little Bopeeps Sheep
direct route to Adobe there have been Adobe personal in these forums that
say they do read them and pass the info along.
It seems to die at that stage however. It is really quite easy to see what
user's want and it shouldn't be that hard for Adobe to figure this out if
they really gave a crap. Which I am sure they don't.
I myself have spent a great deal of time sharing my ideas with Adobe.
Generally I refrain from suggesting a feature that wouldn't be useful for a
wide range of users.
Little Bopeeps Sheep
filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special
effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don't know how many times
that this is not possible with today's computer technology. That it would
slow the program down too much. Yet, I know of at least one other program
that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any
problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which
is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to
Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.
Adobe's response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not
in so many words of course), no one would want it (even when it has been
requests hundreds of times before) or it isn't possible or my favorite it
would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that
Photoshop wasn't designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response
several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as
well as the ability to save history as an action.
Adobe does pretty much what they want. I think a good example in CS2 is the
new perspective tools. I don't recall in since Adobe opened their user to
user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn't
more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won't turn out to be
useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds
of times that we are still waiting for.
My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe's starting
after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn't
asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and
large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for
over and over and over again. I have been doing this since Adobe opened the
forums. It has been very interesting.
If Adobe isn't going to listen to what people are writing in these forums
then I ask why they created them in the first place. I don't expects Adobe
to say yay and nay any of the suggestions posted. But one would expect that
the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions.
But, it doesn't. Adobe adds things like Filter Gallery no one wanted and
just about everyone hates and to make matters worse they half assed the
feature besides by adding layering abilities, but no opacity or blending
mode controls.
Marc Pawliger
Sheep <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
> Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare
> filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special
> effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don't know how many times
> that this is not possible with today's computer technology. That it would
> slow the program down too much. Yet, I know of at least one other program
> that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any
> problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which
> is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to
> Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
> 2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.
It certainly makes sense for generally small images - up to around 4K
pixels or so. That's why Adobe applications like After Effects can
apply filters live. When are talking about the full-range of image
sizes Photoshop supports - from that size up to 200K pixels square - it
quickly runs into those limits and users would not find the performance
affectable. We do not like to place arbitrary limits on which
operations operate on what size images so, for now, live filters are
not supported.
> Adobe's response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not
> in so many words of course), no one would want it (even when it has been
> requests hundreds of times before) or it isn't possible or my favorite it
> would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that
> Photoshop wasn't designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response
> several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as
> well as the ability to save history as an action.
Asking several times does not make the request more or less relevant.
In fact, asking multiple times may in fact decrease the impact of the
request. Adobe hearing the same request from multiple quarters and
sources that represent many users does make the request more relevant.
As someone else said in a similar thread, USENET does not represent a
good sample of the great many Photoshop users out there,
> Adobe does pretty much what they want. I think a good example in CS2 is the
> new perspective tools. I don't recall in since Adobe opened their user to
> user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn't
> more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won't turn out to be
> useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds
> of times that we are still waiting for.
The list of feature requests we have on hand is in fact huge.
> My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe's starting
> after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn't
> asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and
> large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for
> over and over and over again. I have been doing this since Adobe opened the
> forums. It has been very interesting.
> If Adobe isn't going to listen to what people are writing in these forums
> then I ask why they created them in the first place. I don't expects Adobe
> to say yay and nay any of the suggestions posted. But one would expect that
> the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions.
> But, it doesn't. Adobe adds things like Filter Gallery no one wanted and
> just about everyone hates and to make matters worse they half assed the
> feature besides by adding layering abilities, but no opacity or blending
> mode controls.
The purpose of the U2U forums is exactly that - _User_ to _User_
communication for the purpose of fostering a community of users that
share experiences and tips with one another.
It is fortunate several of us who work on Photoshop can also devote
time to participate in these discussions. The fact we do means we can
hear feature requests in these venues, however that is only one part of
research done when determining what features go into future versions.
--marc
Little Bopeeps Sheep
whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user's
to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn't listen
to its customers and your comments below just proves that.
Any company that thinks a feature request should to pretty much ignored
because it has been asked for over and over by its customers is a lame ass
company especially when apparently they give a feature that has been asked
for once or twice a higher importance. This is a what is called lame ass
behavior.
Thank you for proving my point about Adobe. This is also why Adobe Photoshop
will continue to fall behind.
"Marc Pawliger" <use...@accend.com> wrote in message
news:170420050236172354%use...@accend.com...
jjs
news:V2x8e.14993$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do
> whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user's
> to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn't
> listen to its customers and your comments below just proves that.
Okay, okay. What feature do you want the most. Maybe someone will be your
hero and hack a solution. Or not.
Little Bopeeps Sheep
are pretty equal on my most wanted list. I guess the best way would be
this...
I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more
powerful. This would include...
1. Being able to save history as an action.
2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)
3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering actions
source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from running the
action, just looking at the steps and changing them).
4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions. As
it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record the
action instead of editing problems.
5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in the
action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does when
it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track of what
an action does.
6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as well.
Besides the thumbnail above the description can be showed in the action
palette under the actions name (with the thumbnail to the right or left of
the name), this would also make it easier to keep track of what various
actions do.
7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference
option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc.
This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create
more powerful actions.
8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides ones
to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of all of
the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and general
action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.
Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would
like to see is the ability to save history with your file. This too would
require a major re-work of Photoshop to do effectively. None of these will
ever happen because Adobe doesn't have the balls or the programmers to
re-write Photoshop from the ground up. It is much easier for them to add
features that resemble patches to the program than it is to really add
features that are well integrated in the core structure of Photoshop.
"jjs" <jschei...@nix.net> wrote in message
news:1165hlm...@news.supernews.com...
Clyde
> Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do
> whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user's
> to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn't listen
> to its customers and your comments below just proves that.
>
> Any company that thinks a feature request should to pretty much ignored
> because it has been asked for over and over by its customers is a lame ass
> company especially when apparently they give a feature that has been asked
> for once or twice a higher importance. This is a what is called lame ass
> behavior.
>
> Thank you for proving my point about Adobe. This is also why Adobe Photoshop
> will continue to fall behind.
>
Remember the Adobe User Groups? I was the founding VP of the Chicago
branch. (REALLY no big deal.) It was created by Adobe to have a forum
for graphics pros to communicate with themselves and with Adobe.
In my experience with AUG, Adobe really did listen. Yes, sometimes they
told us that they couldn't do things. Sometimes they told us to help
them find out how widespread the demand was. OK, AUG failed because
graphics pros don't have time for extra meetings or running extra
organizations.
Even before that, I was involved in a pre-release meeting with Adobe for
Acrobat. It looked great and wonderful, until they told us that they
intended to sell the reader. I told them very pointedly that would never
fly. Bringing in a new concept into my corporation and having to buy
something for every desktop would never get passed the CIO. They need
wouldn't be there. Adobe listened very closely and asked questions.
Shortly after that they dropped the idea of selling the Reader.
Therefore, my experience is that Adobe DOES listen. I don't know
everyone they listen to. I don't know where they spend their resources
listening. Hell, I don't know if Adobe hasn't changed a lot since the
early '90s. Hey, there was a lot of cut backs in a lot of companies;
they may have cut all the marketing people who did that listening. I'm
pretty sure they don't "listen" to every source; no company has that
kind of time and resources.
Just to flatly say that Adobe or any other company doesn't listen isn't
very smart. Adobe wouldn't survive if they didn't. (I know you say they
won't, but there isn't much evidence for that either.) They got their
ideas for the improvements and additions in CS2 from somewhere. They
could have just made them up, but that has been a very dangerous
marketing strategy since the Edsel.
Clyde
jjs
> I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more
> powerful. This would include...
>
> 1. Being able to save history as an action.
> 2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)
Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have
to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and
Programmable.
> 3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering
> actions source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from
> running the action, just looking at the steps and changing them).
So you can sell Adobe actions, no doubt. Well, nothing will stop the hackers
from busting it, so forget that one.
> 4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions.
> As it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record
> the action instead of editing problems.
So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language
structure.
> 5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in
> the action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does
> when it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track
> of what an action does.
No fucking way, Jose. If you edit the action, PS would have no way to
re-render the thumbnail, and besides, changes usually cascade to the next,
and so-on, so all the thumbnails would have to be re-rendered. And people
are irritated by having to re-run actions?
> 6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as
> well.
That would be cool.
> 7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference
> option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc.
> This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create
> more powerful actions.
Programming language issues. Maybe what you should do is study up on Forth
and then PostScript and start hand-coding your images.
> 8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides
> ones to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of
> all of the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and
> general action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.
That might be cool.
> Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would
> like to see is the ability to save history with your file.
You can do that now. See this?
2005-04-17T18:06:42-06:00 File Untitled-1 opened
Make New: document
Preset: "4 x 6"
New Layer
Make layer
Type Tool
Make text layer Using: text layer
Text: "Show this dreamer what's up."
Warp: Warp
Style: None
Bend: 0
Vertical Distortion: 0
Horizontal Distortion: 0
Axis: horizontal
Text Click Point: 29%, 33.2%
Text Gridding: none
Orientation: horizontal
Anti-alias: sharp
Text Shape: Text Shape list
Text Shape
Text Shape Type: point
Text Orientation: horizontal
Transform: transform
xx: 1
xy: 0
yx: 0
yy: 1
tx: 0
ty: 0
Row Count: 1
Column Count: 1
With Use Row Major Order
Row Gutter: 0 points
Column Gutter: 0 points
Column Spacing: 0 points
First Line Alignment: Ascent
First Line Minimum Height: 0 points
Base: 0, 0
Style Range: style range list
style range
From: 0
To: 5
style: text style
PostScript Name: "Arial-Black"
Font Name: "Arial Black"
Font Style: "Regular"
Script: 0
Font Technology: 1
Size: 48 points
Horizontal Scale: 90
Vertical Scale: 100
Without Faux Bold
Without Faux Italic
With Auto-Leading
Tracking: 0
Baseline Shift: 0 points
0
Auto Kern: metrics
Font Caps Option: normal
Baseline Position: normal
Open Type Baseline Position: normal
Strikethrough: Strikethrough Off
Underline: Underline Off
Underline Offset: 0 points
With Use Ligatures
Without Use Alternate Ligatures
true
false
Without Use Oldstyle
Without Use Fractions
Without Use Ordinals
Without Use Swash Characters
Without Use Titling Characters
With Use Contextual Alternates
Without Use Stylistic Alternates
Without Use Ornaments
Figure Style: normal
Without Use Proportional Metrics
Without Use Kana
Without Use Italics
false
Baseline Direction: with stream
Text Language: English: USA
Japanese Alternate: Default Form
Tsume: 0
Grid Alignment: roman
false
2
0
0.5
2
2
Auto Justify
0
0
-0.2 points
-0.2 points
FWIW, there are hooks into CS to deal further with histories and actions,
but I am not sure how far we can get into that without violating the
license.
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
> > In article <1113031783.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > I can't comment on unannounced products or versions of products.
>
>
> Oh yes?! You already did.
Nope.
Not a bit.
>
> You should be answering that way EARLIER. You accused me with lying
> from the begining of this thread, and you allowed yourself to express
> your denial in public. I suspect more and more, that, what was conveyed
> to me about Photoshop 3D is correct in many aspects. I wonder why you
> were upset? What's wrong with adding 3D capabilities and call that
> MAJOR UPGRADE?
Because you really have no idea what we're doing in the next few
releases.
> However, adding new (many) features or changing a
> substancial part of software structure is a MAJOR upgrade.
Like, oh - maybe teaching Photoshop how to deal with floating point
pixels?
Changing the way placed files work so that they can be re-edited?
Adding new ways to sharpen images?
Adding new ways to reduce noise in images?
These facts
> are well-known. For example Autocolor, filter composition,
> highlight/shadow, cannot be grouped under the features of MAJOR
> upgrade.
Why not?
AutoColor is sort of old technology.
But Shadow & Highlight was very much new technology.
> While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code
> optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade.
> MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a
> third party.
That's one weird definition you've got there.
>
> I don't know if there is other than Chris and Marc (from Adobe) who can
> convince people that PS CS2 is not a MINOR upgrade, and that Photoshop
> is about to add 3D features VERY SOON.
Well, those of us here on planet earth know better.
Chris
Chris Cox
<NOtheSpac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
> >>Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact
> >>same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
> >
> >
> > As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2
> > reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that
> > for EVERY release of Photoshop.
> >
> > Chris
>
> You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was
> being released. Google for it.
I already did - and the only negatives I found were the same 2 bad
reviews that I already knew about.
Chris
Chris Cox
<NOtheSpac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Marc Pawliger wrote:
> > In article <US25e.1925$lP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rick
> > <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>news:060420052123517894%cc...@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>>In article <1112434523.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
> >>>>years.
> >
> >>>No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release
> >>>with major new features.
> >
> >>Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe's marketing
> >>department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
> >>was a major upgrade.
> >
> > Sorry it didn't seem to meet your needs - what are they? The fact 6.0
> > broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for
> > the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people
> > felt it was worth it for them.
> >
> > --marc
>
> That's down to good marketing - nothing to do with new features. PS is
> *very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just
> rehashes of old ones).
Wow.
Where did you get that idea?
> I really like PS, but it's really expensive for
> what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all.
It may not offer you much.
But it does offer a lot to photographers, movie and special effects
folks, designers, web designers, printers, etc.
> There are NO NEW features -
OK, that's GOT to be a troll.
Nobody's that dumb.
> the ones they claim to be new are things you could
> already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in.
Really?
How exactly do you get Photoshop to use floating point pixels (HDR)
with a plugin?
> All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again.
Bullshit.
Again.
> There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two
> versions either.
Yep - this has to be a troll.
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wish that Adobe Photoshop people recognise these contributions and
> write a credit for the people who suggested them. As far as I am
> concerned I hereby declare that I will claim no financial advantage
> whatsoever from Adobe if they mention a credit for me that I am the
> creator of those ideas, or recognise the favor of whose created it if
> it wasn't me.
Do we have to list every one of the thousands of people who requested
the same feature?
Chris
Chris Cox
Sucker <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens
> to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the
> features that users have asked for.
Which is complete Bullshit.
Otherwise based on the shear number of
> times people asked for...
>
> 1. Being able to save the history with the document.
And just how many terrabytes of storage do you have available to hold
that?
> 2. Being able to save history as an action.
Sounds nice, but I've explained several times that history and actions
ARE NOT THE SAME and history doesn't have the information necessary to
make an action.
> 3. Conditional statements in actions.
RTFM Scripting
> 4. Password protection of action source code.
And everyone else has asked: "why"?
> 5. Live filters
Sounds good in theory.
But just doesn't work on large images.
Chris
Chris Cox
Sheep <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
> Just read Adobe's over user to user forums. While this is not the most
> direct route to Adobe there have been Adobe personal in these forums that
> say they do read them and pass the info along.
>
> It seems to die at that stage however. It is really quite easy to see what
> user's want and it shouldn't be that hard for Adobe to figure this out if
> they really gave a crap. Which I am sure they don't.
Which is at odds with how many user requested features we add in every
release....
Chris Cox
Sheep <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
> Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare
> filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special
> effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don't know how many times
> that this is not possible with today's computer technology. That it would
> slow the program down too much.
And they're right.
> Yet, I know of at least one other program
> that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any
> problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which
> is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to
> Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
> 2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.
I've used Canvas.
That's about as far as you can get from "without any problems".
>
> Adobe's response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not
> in so many words of course)
Because nobody from Adobe has ever said that.
You're reading something into their statements which doesn't exist.
> no one would want it (even when it has been
> requests hundreds of times before) or it isn't possible or my favorite it
> would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that
> Photoshop wasn't designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response
> several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as
> well as the ability to save history as an action.
No you haven't.
You've gotten pretty detailed explanations of why it doesn't work that
way and why it really shouldn't work that way.
> Adobe does pretty much what they want.
Um, no.
We do what the customers want and sneed.
I think a good example in CS2 is the
> new perspective tools. I don't recall in since Adobe opened their user to
> user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn't
> more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won't turn out to be
> useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds
> of times that we are still waiting for.
And you think the user to user forums are the ONLY feedback Adobe has
from it's customers?
>
> My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe's starting
> after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn't
> asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and
> large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for
> over and over and over again.
I don't know what forums you're reading - but Adobe is implementing an
awful lot of what's been reqeusted.
> I have been doing this since Adobe opened the
> forums. It has been very interesting.
Yeah, but we still wonder what you're reading...
>
> If Adobe isn't going to listen to what people are writing in these forums
> then I ask why they created them in the first place.
Um, maybe because Adobe DOES listen?
> But one would expect that
> the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions.
And that is what happens.
Chris
Little Bopeeps Sheep
> news:k0A8e.15009$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>> I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more
>> powerful. This would include...
>>
>> 1. Being able to save history as an action.
>> 2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)
>
> Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have
> to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and
> Programmable.
>
>> 3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering
>> actions source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from
>> running the action, just looking at the steps and changing them).
>
> So you can sell Adobe actions, no doubt. Well, nothing will stop the hackers
> from busting it, so forget that one.
>
>> 4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions.
>> As it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record
>> the action instead of editing problems.
>
> So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language
> structure.
>
>> 5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in
>> the action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does
>> when it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track
>> of what an action does.
>
> No fucking way, Jose. If you edit the action, PS would have no way to
> re-render the thumbnail, and besides, changes usually cascade to the next,
> and so-on, so all the thumbnails would have to be re-rendered. And people
> are irritated by having to re-run actions?
>
>> 6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as
>> well.
>
> That would be cool.
>
>> 7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference
>> option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc.
>> This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create
>> more powerful actions.
>
> Programming language issues. Maybe what you should do is study up on Forth
> and then PostScript and start hand-coding your images.
>
>> 8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides
>> ones to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of
>> all of the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and
>> general action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.
>
> That might be cool.
>
>> Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would
>> like to see is the ability to save history with your file.
>
> You can do that now. See this?
Little Bopeeps Sheep
these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it
doesn't look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.
If you are going looking to professionals, then it is high time Adobe start
looking at all of their users and not just the 10% of professionals.
Professionals are important too but there are more intermediate and
hobbyists using Photoshop than professionals. You keep ignoring them and you
are just killing the product.
"Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:170420052102269860%cc...@mindspring.com...
Little Bopeeps Sheep
with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history.
Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some
half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core
level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that
it was savable.
As for history and actions not being the same. Again it is because Adobe
half assed it and took short-cuts to adding them instead of doing it right.
Had you even thought for half a second you would have seen it coming that
these are things people would want to do, these are natural feature desires
given history and actions.
You keep running the same lame ass excuses you always do. Adobe hasn't added
a feature to Photoshop in years that wasn't done in a half-assed way. Take
Filter Gallery. You make it big, slow and a pain in the ass. Do you bother
to think that hay we added layering capabilities to it so we might want to
add opacity controls and blending modes as well. After all these are
features people use often when layering things together. Just another
example of a half-assed feature and one that you didn't even bother to fix
so you can turn the thing off.
I think it is time that Adobe gets new programmers and marketing people. The
ones they have had their heads up their asses for far too long. Too many
brain cells have died for oxygen to do any good now.
"Chris Cox" <cc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:170420052100353176%cc...@mindspring.com...
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Chris Cox wrote:
> In article <1113119131....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > ........While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code
> > optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR
upgrade.
> > MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by
a
> > third party.
>
> That's one weird definition you've got there.
>
LOL! Don't be grumpy only! Be constructive and provide us with the
right definitions for the concepts MAJOR and MINOR upgrades, as they
are understood and adopted by Adobe! I will be more than grateful to
learn.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
jjs
>> Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would
>> have
>> to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and
>> Programmable.
>Yes it would and that is why it will never happen. Adobe doesn't have the
>balls needed >for doing such a major overhaul of the application. They
>would rather keep milking a >dieing cow instead of getting a new one.
Please share with us your programming experience.
>No I have no interest in selling actions. I have several interesting things
>I would like to >release free as actions but don't want people looking or
>messing with the code.
I don't buy that rationalization. If you were as generous as you expect
Adobe to be, you would leave it open.
>> So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language
>> structure.
>No. This is where being able to add an recorded action easily would be
>nice. You could >simply insert an if/then statement and tell the action if
>it does this then continue playing >from here, etc. No programming language
>required. In fact you could fix it quite easily >so you could just point to
>the statement that it should branch off to.
You don't understand the problem.
>Don't be stupid. Just look at Corel Painter. Corel Painter records
>everything including >brush strokes. You can actually create its version of
>an action that paints a picture and >you can watch it do it as it does.
How does that differ from CS?
>> You can do that now. See this?
>Again, don't be stupid. This file is worthless. You can't doing anything
>useful with it. It >isn't saved as part of the image file
Yes it is. It is in the Metadata.
> and it isn't undoable after loading up the image.
> For example saying you clone out a horse from a field, save the file as a
> PSD file and >later decide that you want the horse back. You have now way
> of using this text crap to >undo the cloning out of the horse.
Why don't you use file versioning like mature image developers do?
jjs
> Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save
> history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they
> added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and
> sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the
> product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done
> in such a way that it was savable.
Dear Sheep:
Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.
Stephan
Are you really Chris Cox from Adobe?
Is that how Adobe treats their customers?
I just can't believe my eyes...
Stephan
Little Bopeeps Sheep
customers. He one of those that should be kept away from the public as he
reflects very poorly on Adobe and what Adobe thinks of their customers,
their wants, needs and suggestions.
"Stephan" <Ste...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:psS8e.8183$u95....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Little Bopeeps Sheep
program a computer using punch cards? I can and much much more.
"jjs" <jschei...@nix.net> wrote in message
news:116789f...@news.supernews.com...
Hecate
<mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me save you the time:
Major Upgrade: A feature that you want
Minor Upgrade: A feature that other people want.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Chris Havel
set.
In article <dCV8e.15127$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
--
C
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
> On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh"
>
> Major Upgrade: A feature that you want
I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first
suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas
where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is
introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people
know about that.
>
> Minor Upgrade: A feature that other people want.
>
Oh hecate, cool down..... Let Chris answer, he is an authority.. I want
to know the answer from him. Please, let him answer himself (if he
dares to)... ;-)
Rick
> Hecate wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh"
> > Let me save you the time:
> >
> > Major Upgrade: A feature that you want
>
> I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first
> suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas
> where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is
> introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people
> know about that.
You're joking, right? How do you know you were the first
person to suggest anything? E.g. image warping has been
around at least since Kai's Power Tools ver. 3 (circa 1996),
and most likely well before that. You definitely were not
the first one to suggest adding something similar to PS.
jjs
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
>
> How about 42 years both for the government and private sector. Can you
> program a computer using punch cards? I can and much much more.
That's supposed to be a good thing?
jjs
news:1113904111.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first
> suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas
> where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is
> introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people
> know about that.
Step back and consider the fact that this newsgroup is but a small sample of
CS users. People all over the world have input to Adobe. The fact that you,
a member of the smaller sample, have made a suggestion indicates a high
probability that other people also made the same suggestion.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Definitely, Image Warping or image distortion tools existed in other
software long before I suggested anything at all! LOL. However, Image
Warping in the concept and the methodology introduced to Photoshop CS2
was suggested by me in March 2002. I have published this article:
http://members.fortunecity.com/dabbagh/photoshop/
You may read paragraphs 2-1 which indicate the way of achieving this.
It wasn't an original idea in vector software (as it was there in KPT
vector filters for Illustrator), but it was an original idea for Adobe
Photoshop.
Stephan
> Chris has always had a very obnoxious attitude when dealing with Adobe
> customers. He one of those that should be kept away from the public as he
> reflects very poorly on Adobe and what Adobe thinks of their customers,
> their wants, needs and suggestions.
Until recently I found his answers helpful.
Lately he became incredibly rude, if I was his boss and came across his
latest postings I'd fire him on the spot.
Stephan
Stephan
> In article <1113119131....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snip<
>
>>While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code
>>optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade.
>>MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a
>>third party.
>
>
> That's one weird definition you've got there.
>
No, it's a very good definition indeed.
What is weird is the way you, representing Adobe, are treating
customers, openly treating them like idiots when they dare suggesting
that your product is not "perfect" or that some major upgrades are in
fact minor.
Maybe you should go back to what you do best and have a colleague more
skilled in dealing with customers take your place here.
Stephan
jjs
Aw, give him some slack. Or, if you like, hack his name out of the credits.
:()
Hecate
<mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now you're being silly. That you, on a particular group, which is a
small subset of the number of people who make suggestions to Adobe,
are solely responsible for the inclusion of this is ridiculous. In
case you hadn't noticed, software companies take ideas from other
software companies all the time, and, as has already been pointed out
to you, this idea has been around for a long, long time.
Hecate
<mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's nothing to do with me being angry - it's a simple given - people
will consider anything they want to be a major upgrade and anything
they don't want to be a minor upgrade. You see it all the time when
people don't get what they want...
Stephan
> The problem is that you never see any body asking for them. I don't know who
> these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it
> doesn't look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.
>
> If you are going looking to professionals, then it is high time Adobe start
> looking at all of their users and not just the 10% of professionals.
> Professionals are important too but there are more intermediate and
> hobbyists using Photoshop than professionals. You keep ignoring them and you
> are just killing the product.
>
>
No, for "users" Adobe offers Elements.
Photoshop should stay what it is, a tool for the pros.
Stephan
Stephan
Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.
Stephan
Brian
Fair comment. :-)
jjs
> jjs wrote:
>> Dear Sheep:
>>
>> Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.
> Stupid answer.
> Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like
> crap.
Nope. It's more like suggesting to someone that they learn how to cook
before demanding impossible receipes.
Brian
Stephan
Nope too.The recipes in this case are not impossible at all.
Little Bopeepes Sheep was talking about features other software makers
now how to cook!
Ketchup or marinated tomatoes, chose your style...
Stephan
Fungusamungus
but from what I can gather of it:
Photoshop can cook for you now too? Hot damn! A graphic designing bachelor's
dream!
:Ş
Chris Cox
Sheep <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
> The problem is that you never see any body asking for them. I don't know who
> these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it
> doesn't look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.
They're users, sometimes at large companies, sometimes individuals.
But we keep in contact with many users through many different channels.
Not everyone has time to hang out in the forums all day.
Chris
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hecate wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh"
> > Let me save you the time:
> >
> > Major Upgrade: A feature that you want
>
> I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first
> suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas
> where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is
> introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people
> know about that.
I have yet to see any features "first suggested" by you.
Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years (I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since
1995).
We have many users, and we talk to them through many forums.
Most features fall into two categories: things that lots of people have
requested, and things that are so new in concept that nobody has asked
for them because they don't even know it's possible.
Chris
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
BTW - the code we're using for the basis of the warping code is older
than 2002.
Chris
Chris Cox
<Ste...@nospam.us> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
> > In article <1113119131....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >snip<
> >
> >>While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code
> >>optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade.
> >>MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a
> >>third party.
> >
> >
> > That's one weird definition you've got there.
> >
>
> No, it's a very good definition indeed.
> What is weird is the way you, representing Adobe, are treating
> customers, openly treating them like idiots when they dare suggesting
> that your product is not "perfect" or that some major upgrades are in
> fact minor.
I don't treat too many people like idiots -- people have to go well out
of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one.
By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.
Chris
Chris Cox
Sheep <bah...@bah-bah.com> wrote:
> Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history
> with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history.
> Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some
> half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core
> level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that
> it was savable.
No, it's done far better than anyone else has been able to do such a
feature. (and got a few patents for the methods used to make it so much
better)
Once again, you really don't know what you're talking about.
>
> As for history and actions not being the same. Again it is because Adobe
> half assed it and took short-cuts to adding them instead of doing it right.
No, again.
They're intended to do very different things - and they do.
> Had you even thought for half a second you would have seen it coming that
> these are things people would want to do, these are natural feature desires
> given history and actions.
Not if you've actually learned what they are and what they do.
> You keep running the same lame ass excuses you always do. Adobe hasn't added
> a feature to Photoshop in years that wasn't done in a half-assed way.
Sorry, but the other several million users seem to disagree.
Chris
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Chris Cox wrote:
> Do we have to list every one of the thousands of people who requested
> the same feature?
>
Who was the first to mention (in public) any idea, is the one really
entitled to a credit.
Another thing I don't really know: What is the approximate number of
Photoshop users in the whole world. Are there some approximate figures
along the years? I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in
1998 didn't exceed 5000 in the whole world... Is that true? Can anyone
provide an approximate toll for Photoshop users?
Brian
<snip>
I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in
> 1998 didn't exceed 5000 in the whole world... Is that true?
>
> Senior Graphic Designer
>
That sounds like a contradiction to me. "I know.......". Then, "Is that
true?"
Well obviously you don't "know".
Why not drop this whole argument and just enjoy the strengths of the
programme.
Regards,
Brian.
Stephan
> I don't treat too many people like idiots -- people have to go well out
> of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one.
> By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.
>
Since you represent Adobe and these people are CLIENTS you should
refrain to treat them like idiots in public places or forums.
Ask your boss what he thinks about it.
Stephan
Scruff
Didn't he just write that he doesn't do that?
Dave
<mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in
>1998 didn't exceed 5000 in the whole world... Is that true? Can anyone
>provide an approximate toll for Photoshop users?
>
>Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
>Senior Graphic Designer
well, I started working on Photoshop in 2003 which of course
brings the total up to at least 51000
Dave (sapa)
Senior Amateur Photographer (accredited)
Hecate
Sorry, but I'm with Chris - a client who's a real idiot is still an
idiot. I don't know about you, but I'm not so desperate that I need
idiots as clients - and as far as Adobe is concerned, there is a good
alternative for idiots - Microsoft PictureS*IT or whatever they're
calling it now.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Brian wrote:
> That sounds like a contradiction to me. "I know.......". Then, "Is
that
> true?"
> Well obviously you don't "know".
>
> Why not drop this whole argument and just enjoy the strengths of the
> programme.
>
Oh Brian! I wish I can have a specific answer about that from Chris. He
is an authority, and should state the right approximation.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Chris Cox wrote:
> In article <1113904111.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
> know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since
> 1995).
Poor that user.... So the feature were asked for since 1995... Now I
understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)... This is one hell
of a stunning fact!
jjs
The feature in question (perspective cloning) is questionable (IMHO) and is
available elsewhere as a plug-in. I certainly see it as a very limited-use
thing and I'm not at all unhappy that Adobe waited to incorporate it. Other
things were far, far more important.
Methinks the suggestions for more advanced prepress features was more
important but you haven't mentioned them recently.
Chris Cox
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He's a power user, and he was using third party plugins to accomplish
his warping even then.
But it wasn't something that most users needed until relatively
recently (as people become more and more sophisticated about what they
want to do with their images). And the cost of doing it right -- well,
it took one engineer most of the development cycle to get it done (and
even then, we didn't get it meshed with SmartObjects as well as I would
have liked).
Chris