New Photoshop 7 Review
Robert Barnett
I just completed my review of Photoshop 7. If you would like to take a look
the address for the site is: http://www.pcreviewonline.com
Thanks,
Robert
Robin McDonald
upgrade price was $149 (maybe). Two hundred for this upgrade was not very
appealing, but I can see myself buying 7 eventually especially since I can
usually get it for a little less with some patience. I appreciated the
list of requested features that did not make it in and so many were obvious
needed things I guess we won't see. My favorite I was more choices for the
lens flare. The main lens flare has become so recognizeable it has gone
from being cool to being a hideous boil on any piece and a guarantee your
portfolio will be thrown in the NO pile if two Photoshop lens flares are
found in it. The minute I see a lens flare with a red ring around it I say
in my head, "amateur". I can't help it. And feel bad because I know how
cool the people that put the flare on their piece think it adds to the work.
Its like a cruel trap. New lens flares would be better than a two healing
brushes with MMX bandaid for extra speed.
Robin
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote in message
news:CeZf8.1320$en5....@typhoon.sonic.net...
clayton²
the
> lens flare. The main lens flare has become so recognizeable it has gone
> from being cool to being a hideous boil on any piece and a guarantee your
> portfolio will be thrown in the NO pile if two Photoshop lens flares are
> found in it. The minute I see a lens flare with a red ring around it I
say
> in my head, "amateur". I can't help it. And feel bad because I know how
> cool the people that put the flare on their piece think it adds to the
work.
> Its like a cruel trap. New lens flares would be better than a two healing
> brushes with MMX bandaid for extra speed.
>
> Robin
spot on! even some stuff i've previously done and printed as artwork, i now
look at and cringe a bit ...
GordonG
> spot on! even some stuff i've previously done and printed as artwork, i
now
> look at and cringe a bit ...
Don't we all?
:)
/\BratMan/\
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote in message
news:CeZf8.1320$en5....@typhoon.sonic.net...
really take the toil out of making a digital image.
The version where I scan in my shit picture, then Photoshop does an analysis
of all the manipulations I have done to pictures in the past, then produces
my usual digital masterpiece.
Zimphire
"Robin McDonald" <atom...@pantsearthlink.net---Remove pants when
sending me mail> wrote:
Robin you need to check out "Knolls Lens Flare"
It's a plugin that gives you more flares. I am sure its out of the PC
version of Photoshop as well.
--
Zimphire
Ian Firth
*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com says...
> I just completed my review of Photoshop 7. If you would like to take a look
> the address for the site is: http://www.pcreviewonline.com
Robert, nice review.
Have Adobe fixed these bugs from 5.0 and 6.0 yet ?
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Barry Pearson
news:a5qfgf$pi3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
[snip]
> All very nice, but I am still waiting for the version of Photoshop
> that will really take the toil out of making a digital image.
> The version where I scan in my shit picture, then Photoshop
> does an analysis of all the manipulations I have done to
> pictures in the past, then produces my usual digital masterpiece.
Chuckle!
I find that 90% of what I scan in can be given the appropriate treatment with
just one button - and it is in Windows Explorer, not Photoshop!
But, seriously, Robert Barnett mentioned a feature that isn't implemented in PS7
that might even go some way towards what you (and I) want - "The ability to turn
the history list in to an action". Interesting thought.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
Lars Ekdahl
> >
> > I just completed my review of Photoshop 7. If you would like to take a
> look
> > the address for the site is: http://www.pcreviewonline.com
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> All very nice, but I am still waiting for the version of Photoshop that will
> really take the toil out of making a digital image.
> The version where I scan in my shit picture, then Photoshop does an analysis
> of all the manipulations I have done to pictures in the past, then produces
> my usual digital masterpiece.
What you are asking for is almost availiable already. Se a review at
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/editlab/editlab_1.htm
Lars Ekdahl at http://www.ekdahl.org/digital.htm
Robert Barnett
Robert
Manic Vampire
>
>It's a plugin that gives you more flares. I am sure its out of the PC
>version of Photoshop as well.
Also check out KPT's Plug in. Quite a selection of Lens Flares, among some
other cool effects in there.
=====
|\/| \/
=====
Robert Barnett
Ok, here we go.
Marquee and Grid Snap Bug - *Still There*
Auto Update Open Documents Bug - *Still There*
Dragging Windows Bug - *Still There*
Palette Focus Bug - *Still There*
Save For Web Bug - *Still There*
Gradient Bug - *Still There*
Right Click Layer Selection Bug - *Still There*
Right Click Layer Selection Bug - *Seems to have been fixed. When I wheel
scroll image zooms until scroll bars appear on window and then wheel
scrolls. Seems to be consistent.*
Robert
--------------------------------------------
Jack
Could you expand a bit on the "File Browser" enhancement?
1. Can you add keywords to images?
2. If keywords are added to jpg images is any image data altered?
3. Can files be sorted by keywords?
a. withing the same folder
b. across folders
4. Will thumbnails show regardless of image format? i.e. jpg, bmp, tiff,
PSD
Regarding the web album creater.
Can you give some examples of the enhancements rather than ..... "additional
templates"
The basis for these questions is to determine whether these features are of
"professional" quality or merely weak emulations of existing file management
and photo web creation software.
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote in message
news:CeZf8.1320$en5....@typhoon.sonic.net...
Zimphire
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote:
Your talking the windows version right?
--
Zimphire
Fungusamungus
If you create something in 45 steps (with your history palette set to say 50
steps), then go all the way back to step one, start recording an action, and
click on each successive step, does it record it like that?
--
Fungus
Turn up the heat to reply!
Spammers will be assimilated, annihilated, then forced to use Microsoft
products for the real punishment...
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1C8g8.27291$R16.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Fungusamungus
--
Fungus
Turn up the heat to reply!
Spammers will be assimilated, annihilated, then forced to use Microsoft
products for the real punishment...
"Zimphire" <j...@lobber.com> wrote in message
news:jiz-6AE594.1...@corp.supernews.com...
Robin McDonald
>
> It's a plugin that gives you more flares. I am sure its out of the PC
> version of Photoshop as well.
>
> --
> Zimphire
>
it in my plugins but when I use it, it puts squiggly purple lines all over
the image. I did a pretty cool animated photon looking thing with the
purple blue plasma flare years ago but I lost it. I think Knoll is one of
the guys who invented Photoshop. Thanks for not holding the (HB)joke against
me.
Robin
Ian Firth
*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com says...
> Marquee and Grid Snap Bug - *Still There*
> Auto Update Open Documents Bug - *Still There*
> Dragging Windows Bug - *Still There*
> Palette Focus Bug - *Still There*
> Save For Web Bug - *Still There*
> Gradient Bug - *Still There*
> Right Click Layer Selection Bug - *Still There*
> Right Click Layer Selection Bug - *Seems to have been fixed. When I wheel
> scroll image zooms until scroll bars appear on window and then wheel
> scrolls. Seems to be consistent.*
Thanks Robert.
I think I'll pirate version 7.0. They already have about $1100 of mine
for Photoshop alone. They don't deserve any more of my money if they
can't fix problems like this.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
j...@lobber.com says...
> Your talking the windows version right?
The bugs should be in the Mac version too, except for the Dragging
Window bug.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
"Robin McDonald" <atom...@pantsearthlink.net---Remove pants when
sending me mail> wrote:
Yes indeed the Knoll brothers invented Photoshop. Adobe bought it from
them. They both used to work at ILM (Industrial Lights and Magic) One of
them stayed there and the other works for Adobe now I beleive.
--
Zimphire
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <jiz-458A48.1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> j...@lobber.com says...
>
> > Your talking the windows version right?
>
> The bugs should be in the Mac version too, except for the Dragging
> Window bug.
> Marquee and Grid Snap Bug - *Still There*
Not in the Mac version
> Auto Update Open Documents Bug - *Still There*
Bot sure about this one
> Dragging Windows Bug - *Still There*
Nope
> Palette Focus Bug - *Still There*
Nope
> Save For Web Bug - *Still There*
What bug is this?
> Gradient Bug - *Still There*
What bug is this?
> Right Click Layer Selection Bug - *Still There*
No bug here.
But those are the ones I know aren't "features" of the Mac version. You
have to also remember .. I think until version 5 or 6 Photoshop was just
a port to the x86 side. Some of that code still may be legacy code.
--
Zimphire
Ted B.
"Fungusamungus" <fungu...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:yI9g8.6085$0S4.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Robert Barnett
got.
Robert
Robert Barnett
called features too. So I guess it depends on where your coming from.
For example in 7.0 in Save for Web the slice select tool is the default tool
and not the hand tool. Some could call this bug, but I am sure Adobe and
others call it a feature.
The gradient problem I don't see as anything important since the human eye
is never going to notice the difference.
Robert
Robert Barnett
Yes, you can add keywords and other data to images including JPG's. This
however isn't done in the file browser it is done through File > File Info.
The information you can enter in File Info includes...
General:
Title, Author, Author's Position, Caption, Caption Writer, Job Name,
Copyright Status, Copyright Notice, Owner URL and there is a go to URL
button.
Keywords:
You can add, remove and replace keywords here.
Categories:
You can add, remove and replace categories here.
Origin:
Date Created with Today button for adding todays date, City, State, Country,
Credit, Source, Headline, Instructions, Transmission Reference, Urgency.
Exif:
Shows Exif information in the file.
You can also load, save and appen any of this information.
From my experiments it looks like the information is added to or replaced
based on what you changed. For example if keywords were already in the file
they would stay there unless you deleted them. You could add to them without
deleting them.
As to answer to your third question. No it doesn't look like you can sort by
keyword in any fashion. If you can I haven't found a way to do it. The Exif
panel in the browser does show the keywords, etc. but that is it.
Thumbs show for all formats that Photoshop supports. At least that has how
it has been so far. But, I only have PSD, JPG and TIF files. But they all
show.
Web Album Creator Enhancements
There are 11 styles instead of 4 You can add an e-mail address as well as
choose between .htm and .html for the file extensions. You can add contact
info to the banner.
For large images you now have constrain options including width, height or
both. You can add titles including filename, caption, credits, title,
copyright.
For thumbnails you can have the same titles as for the large images.
There is also now a security option that lets you put text over the images
to help prevent theft. You have the folowing options for security. What the
text should be including custom text, copyright, filename, caption, credit
or title. You can choose the font, fonts size, color, opacity, position
(centered, top left, bottom left, top right, bottom right and rotation.
Well there you go.
Fungusamungus
banding than the linear one.
--
Fungus
Turn up the heat to reply!
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote in message
news:Uqwg8.353$44....@typhoon.sonic.net...
Ian Firth
fungu...@warmmail.com says...
> also, from that page, it seemed to me that the non linear gradient had less
> banding than the linear one.
That's because it was saved as a GIF for display in a web page.
To a professional, the gradient is a joke.
There is somewhat of a workaround, but the gradient still sucks.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com says...
> The problem I have with some of these "bugs" is they could just as easily be
> called features too. So I guess it depends on where your coming from.
As a programmer myself, they are all bugs, poor design, and poor coding.
Adobe calls anything they can't be bothered to fix a feature.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
I am sure you could code a program like Photoshop 10x better than Adobe
too.
--
Zimphire
Quadrant3
Did they learn that from Microsoft?
Barry Pearson
news:5e968ugbec3kn4ksp...@4ax.com...
From IBM (where MS got it from).
Zimphire
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
IBM wasn't into really making software. That is what they hired MS for.
MS wasn't really into it either.. that is why they had to buy a OS to
show IBM.
--
Zimphire
Barry Pearson
> In article <DJHg8.34545$R16.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>,
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> > From IBM (where MS got it from).
>
> for. MS wasn't really into it either.. that is why they had to buy a OS
> to show IBM.
Ah! Perhaps you show your origins! Perhaps I show mine!
I worked on mainframe software from about 1967 or so onwards. IBM most certainly
was into software - m/f software.
(MS was into compilers - they got the contract for DOS because the Digital
Research people couldn't be bothered! As you point out, they had to buy it in to
get started).
Eric Gill
<snip>
> But those are the ones I know aren't "features" of the Mac version. You
> have to also remember .. I think until version 5 or 6 Photoshop was just
> a port to the x86 side. Some of that code still may be legacy code.
Maybe. But I'm still waiting on some elaboration on these "bugs"- I
haven't noticed any in my normal workflow.
Robert Barnett
site with more information. So I do consider bugs, others I think are poorly
executed feature choices.
Robert
Eric Gill
Of those, there are exactly two that are about medium-level problems;
the rest are minor annoyances- some I'd even label "trivial".
Bitching about them against the backdrop of PS7 having no particularly
earthshaking new features is little more than whining.
Furthermore, asserting:
"They've had 5 months to fix these bugs, but chose not to since patches
don't make money, but Photoshop 7.0 will."
...in light of the major patches and optmizations to 6 is just foolish.
Ian Firth
j...@lobber.com says...
> I am sure you could code a program like Photoshop 10x better than Adobe
> too.
Give me a team of 200 people and $10 million and I'm sure I could.
Look at The Gimp to see what hard working people can develop.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
> ...in light of the major patches and optmizations to 6 is just foolish.
Patches ?
6.0 got one patch, and it was 5 months after 6.0 released and they fixed
about 20 bugs and didn't optimize anything except P4 functions.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
Gimp while a nice program is hardly a Photoshop replacement. Hell it
can't even do CMYK.
--
Zimphire
Eric Gill
> In article <3C8439F7...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>...in light of the major patches and optmizations to 6 is just foolish.
>>
>
> Patches ?
Patches.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
> 6.0 got one patch, and it was 5 months after 6.0 released and they fixed
> about 20 bugs and didn't optimize anything except P4 functions.
1) Fixed were serious problems instead of "I have to click twice to
select a Window" triviality.
2) You just listed two seperate patches/updates.
3) The plug-ins patch that contained the P4 optimizations included
improvements for all MMX based systems- that means all Intel and AMD
processors.
4) 6.01 in the very least had a major optimization in the Radial Blur.
It's hard to believe that anyone could forget the flap the accidental
release of the unoptimized version in 6.0 caused.
None of which holds a candle to the lack of compelling new features in
7. PS users who don't use OSX should be fairly annoyed.
Eric Gill
And the PS development team doesn't have 200 people, though I have no
idea what their development budget is.
Hecate
GMT, you supposed:
>And the PS development team doesn't have 200 people, though I have no
>idea what their development budget is.
And, of course, that number is unnecessary, as would be the Gimp as a
starting point. To give a starting point, Real Draw Pro, which as
excellent vector program was developed by one person in a few months.
Something as complex as PS? Well, my partner, with a small team,
develops software, just as, if not more complex, for a much more
strenuous area than the graphics world. Development time is usually
about a year from initial design to end product. And the customer is
such that it must work properly or it's absolutely no good to them. So
yes, Adobe could fix those bugs if they wanted to. The difference is
the product has no need to be bulletproof, so they figure they can get
away with it.
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Ian Firth
> And the PS development team doesn't have 200 people, though I have no
> idea what their development budget is.
Click Help > About some time, and watch it scroll... :)
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
> Patches.
No, patch, as in one patch, from 6.0 to 6.0.1.
> 4) 6.01 in the very least had a major optimization in the Radial Blur.
> It's hard to believe that anyone could forget the flap the accidental
> release of the unoptimized version in 6.0 caused.
Radial blur still worked though, it was just slow. Slow means time, and
time means money.
I use radial blur once a month, if that.
I make small selections for web images hundreds of times a month.
I undo ImageReady changes to my Photoshop files dozens of times a month.
I wait for Save for the Web hundreds of times a month.
It all adds up, and costs me a lot more in productivity than radial blur
ever did.
> None of which holds a candle to the lack of compelling new features in
> 7. PS users who don't use OSX should be fairly annoyed.
True.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Eric Gill
> In article <3C84D20E...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>Patches.
>>
>
> No, patch, as in one patch, from 6.0 to 6.0.1.
No, patches. Why did you not include the link to them that I had in my
message?
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
Indeed, why did you delete these points then pretend they didn't exist?
1) Fixed were serious problems instead of "I have to click twice to
select a Window" triviality.
2) You just listed two seperate patches/updates.
3) The plug-ins patch that contained the P4 optimizations included
improvements for all MMX based systems- that means all Intel and AMD
processors.
Perhaps because they showed that Adobe has indeed made major bug fixes
and optimizations and you are almost completely wrong in claiming they
did not?
>>4) 6.01 in the very least had a major optimization in the Radial Blur.
>>It's hard to believe that anyone could forget the flap the accidental
>>release of the unoptimized version in 6.0 caused.
>>
>
> Radial blur still worked though, it was just slow. Slow means time, and
> time means money.
> I use radial blur once a month, if that.
You are one person out of Adobe's client base. There were rather a lot
of people complaining of the unoptimized filter before it was fixed,
IIRC, including those claiming that Adobe had done it on purpose.
> I make small selections for web images hundreds of times a month.
> I undo ImageReady changes to my Photoshop files dozens of times a month.
After bitching so vehemently about it, one would think you'd learn not
to do that.
> I wait for Save for the Web hundreds of times a month.
I don't. But, then, I spend a bit of money on new faster machines from
time to time so that I can get my work done and have a life.
Save for web takes a fraction of a second to optimize anything of web
size. I think your solution would lie with AMD rather than Adobe.
> It all adds up, and costs me a lot more in productivity than radial blur
> ever did.
Enough to upgrade your machine or not?
>>None of which holds a candle to the lack of compelling new features in
>>7. PS users who don't use OSX should be fairly annoyed.
>>
>
> True.
I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more support from other users if you
take Adobe to task on that.
Hecate
you supposed:
>I undo ImageReady changes to my Photoshop files dozens of times a month.
>I wait for Save for the Web hundreds of times a month.
>It all adds up, and costs me a lot more in productivity than radial blur
>ever did.
>
The why don't you use a proper web-optimised program such as Fireworks
in conjunction with Dreamweaver?
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Hecate
you supposed:
Well, at a quick count, and removing all the marketing people, legal,
manufacturing, and all the other gratuitous inclusions, actual
engineers, i.e. the people who actually engineer the program. number
below 100. Not much below, but below 100.
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Ian Firth
> No, patches. Why did you not include the link to them that I had in my
> message?
Maybe I'm visiting a different site then.
I see one patch from 6.0 to 6.0.1.
Where exactly are all these patches you speak of ?
> Indeed, why did you delete these points then pretend they didn't exist?
Because I was focusing on the time element.
> Perhaps because they showed that Adobe has indeed made major bug fixes
> and optimizations and you are almost completely wrong in claiming they
> did not?
Real programmers attempt to fix all the bugs, and they don't take 5
months to do it. The majority of Adobe programmers are tasked with
making the next money maker, instead of supporting the customer. It's
standard practice by big greedy companies like Adobe, Macromedia and
Microsoft.
> You are one person out of Adobe's client base.
I'm sorry, I though I was a paying customer.
My business account is over $4000 lighter due to Adobe products, that
must count for something.
> After bitching so vehemently about it, one would think you'd learn not
> to do that.
Please explain how to create an animation in ImageReady without it
updating the file passed to it from Photoshop. Oh yeah, you can't.
> I don't. But, then, I spend a bit of money on new faster machines from
> time to time so that I can get my work done and have a life.
Go time a 2000x2000 image save as PNG-24 and get back to me.
> Save for web takes a fraction of a second to optimize anything of web
> size. I think your solution would lie with AMD rather than Adobe.
I do more than web work.
> Enough to upgrade your machine or not?
Not really, I'm still depreciating the machine I am on.
It's a dual PII 400 with 1GB of RAM, scrapping it for a 20% improvement
would be a waste. Which brings us to the side note that Photoshop still
doesn't take advantage of dual processors, even though they claim it
does.
> I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more support from other users if you
> take Adobe to task on that.
I've taken Adobe to task on all of this. Their reply was "we're aware of
that, use a workaround".
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
www.divsoft.com
Ian Firth
hec...@newsguy.com says...
> The why don't you use a proper web-optimised program such as Fireworks
> in conjunction with Dreamweaver?
I hate Fireworks, it's too limited. I do use Dreamweaver though for all
my web development.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
>Which brings us to the side note that Photoshop still
> doesn't take advantage of dual processors, even though they claim it
> does.
>
It does on the dual G4s.
--
Zimphire
Barry Pearson
news:k39d8uomb21nneuhu...@4ax.com...
OK, tell me too - what would I get from using Fireworks for the web work I do?
(I have 2 domains - see my sig).
I bought Dreamweaver 4 and Fireworks 4 as a package, but found Fireworks so
confusing for the simple things I wanted to use it for (web buttons, etc) that I
went back to using Paint Shop Pro. (I now use Photoshop for buttons - I use VERY
simply buttons!)
Then I bought Photoshop 6 which came with ImageReady 3 and a relatively easy
switch between them. This appears convenient to use after I have flattened my
master image, downsampled it, and changed its colour profile all in Photoshop. I
can experiment with unsharp mask in layers, and select the visually-best
compression for JPEG.
Then I build the pages in Dreamweaver, using the tools, properties & behaviours.
It is fiddly, and I'm sure I can save lots of time once I get the full workflow
(from scanning, through photo-editing, to printing & web construction) worked
out & automated.
So I am wasting what I spent on Fireworks, but apparently doing what I want.
Suggestions?
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
Robert Barnett
Have you tried loading ImageReady as a standalone program and not jumping to
it from within Photoshop. Maybe then it won't have the brother sister link
and you can do what you want to a file without it messing it up in
Photoshop.
Or, close Photohsop while your in ImageReady. Not perfect but that should
work. But, you are right that check box should work. Unless of course it is
one of those things that we just aren't getting and it really a feature and
not a bug. <shrug>
Robert
Robert Barnett
too long and you have to switch tools to often. For example draw a rectangle
and then want to resize it. You can't just click on it with the arrow tool
you have to select a special tool to do it with.
Robert
Hecate
you supposed:
>In article <k39d8uomb21nneuhu...@4ax.com>,
Yes, it is l;imioted. But what I do is do anything complex in PS and
then move to Fireworks to get the web features. Unlike IR it doesn't
screw things up <g>
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Hecate
Mar 2002 17:25:58 GMT, you supposed:
Draw square. right click, tranform/scale. Easy really.
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Hecate
2002 10:11:48 -0000, you supposed:
>"Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:k39d8uomb21nneuhu...@4ax.com...
>> Hi! Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com>. On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:24:13 GMT,
>> you supposed:
>>
>> >I undo ImageReady changes to my Photoshop files dozens
>> >of times a month. I wait for Save for the Web hundreds of
>> >times a month. It all adds up, and costs me a lot more in
>> >productivity than radial blur ever did.
>> >
>> The why don't you use a proper web-optimised program
>> such as Fireworks in conjunction with Dreamweaver?
>
>OK, tell me too - what would I get from using Fireworks for the web work I do?
>(I have 2 domains - see my sig).
It won't mess up the code like IR. It's compression algorithms are
more effective and make smaller sizes for the same apparent
resolution. It's web optimised and allows you to do in place
alterations of images in Dreamweaver. it has a much lower machine
overhead than IR.
It's actually very easy to do buttons and all the tools required are
to hand in the tool bar instead of hidden in menus or palettes. Plus,
of course the very rich right click menus.
I don't honestly see that Fireworks is complicated. I used it straight
out of the box, without referring to the manual, and I find I have to
hardly ever look at the help or the manual. Of course, I did run the
built-in tutorial first <g>
All in all, I find it much better than IR. For me, the most important
thing is that the code is correct without my having to manually alter
it. It does that. IR doesn't.
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Robert Barnett
Robert
Eric Gill
> In article <3C863988...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>No, patches. Why did you not include the link to them that I had in my
>>message?
>>
>
> Maybe I'm visiting a different site then.
> I see one patch from 6.0 to 6.0.1.
You seem blind to the filters optimizations patch, even though you
mentioned it in other context. Why is that?
> Where exactly are all these patches you speak of ?
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
>>Indeed, why did you delete these points then pretend they didn't exist?
>>
>
> Because I was focusing on the time element.
Bug fixes and optimizations is the subject Ian- what you have been
bitching about. Therefore:
1) Fixed were serious problems instead of "I have to click twice to
select a Window" triviality.
2) You just listed two seperate patches/updates.
3) The plug-ins patch that contained the P4 optimizations included
improvements for all MMX based systems- that means all Intel and AMD
processors.
>>Perhaps because they showed that Adobe has indeed made major bug fixes
>>and optimizations and you are almost completely wrong in claiming they
>>did not?
It appears I was dead on.
>
> Real programmers attempt to fix all the bugs, and they don't take 5
> months to do it.
Please list all major productivity products that have had all their bugs
fixed right here (and make sure they were fixed overnight):
> The majority of Adobe programmers are tasked with
> making the next money maker, instead of supporting the customer. It's
> standard practice by big greedy companies like Adobe, Macromedia and
> Microsoft.
It's standard practice of all companies that want to stay in business.
You are, of course, free to use something like GIMP, which is not
developed by a big company. It doesn't meet your "no bugs at all"
criteria, in fact, it's about the opposite, but at least you'll have the
pleasure of knowing it's not made by a large company.
>>You are one person out of Adobe's client base.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, I though I was a paying customer.
Yes; one in tens or possibly hundreds of thousands. More people
benefited by a more significant margin over the bug fixes that were
released (like the Radial Blur example you axed without addressing).
That, unfortunately, is the way a company that wishes to stay in
business works.
> My business account is over $4000 lighter due to Adobe products, that
> must count for something.
Indeed, they spent rather a lot of time with you on rather trivial issues.
>>After bitching so vehemently about it, one would think you'd learn not
>>to do that.
>>
>
> Please explain how to create an animation in ImageReady without it
> updating the file passed to it from Photoshop. Oh yeah, you can't.
Without actually knowing your workflow, saving a copy comes immediately
to mind. Why don't you do so?
>>I don't. But, then, I spend a bit of money on new faster machines from
>>time to time so that I can get my work done and have a life.
>>
>
> Go time a 2000x2000 image save as PNG-24 and get back to me.
Why in the world would you place an 11.5 megabyte image on the web, Ian?
Do you hate your clients that much, or perhaps you are selecting a
monstrously difficult example that has no real-world application for a
different reason?
>>Save for web takes a fraction of a second to optimize anything of web
>>size. I think your solution would lie with AMD rather than Adobe.
>>
>
> I do more than web work.
With the "Save for Web option?" Why? Or did you just forget what subject
we were talking about?
>>Enough to upgrade your machine or not?
>>
>
> Not really, I'm still depreciating the machine I am on.
> It's a dual PII 400 with 1GB of RAM,
That's a pretty old box to still be depreciating, Ian.
> scrapping it for a 20% improvement
> would be a waste.
I agree. Where in the world would you find a new machine that is that
slow, though?
> Which brings us to the side note that Photoshop still
> doesn't take advantage of dual processors, even though they claim it
> does.
It does quite well on the operations it's been optimized for, which is
all they claim.
>>I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more support from other users if you
>>take Adobe to task on that.
>>
>
> I've taken Adobe to task on all of this.
I was speaking of the scarcity of new features in PS7, Ian.
> Their reply was "we're aware of
> that, use a workaround".
I'm suprised they wasted so much time. I think you're bitching just for the attention.
Eric Gill
No more than it does on Dual PII/III/4, Athlon MP.
Certain functions and filters are specifically optimized and/or threaded
for SMP work, some are not, which Adobe is quite upfront abot.
I wonder if Ian is using the Win95 line and doesn't realize that
*nothing* actually takes advantage of his second processor.
Marc Pawliger
j...@lobber.com> wrote:
Photoshop has taken advantage of multiple processors since 1994 and
Photoshop 3.0. This is on Mac and Windows and is not limited to specific
processors. If the OS supports MP, so can Photoshop. (Photoshop supported
MP on the Mac before the OS did, too. Remember Daystar Digital?) Not all
operations and plug-in filters have been changed to support MP, but the
ones that books and users have told us are most used have been.
Marc Pawliger
Husky
<*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I just completed my review of Photoshop 7. If you would like to take a look
>the address for the site is: http://www.pcreviewonline.com
Oddly enough their catalog problem is one I've been trying to push to
all these file manager program writers all along. They're more
inclined to redundancy and now it seems photoshop is also jumping on
the redundancy bandwagon.
I realize that PS is ported to work with many different OS so Windows
is the only one I can speak of.
Why do these programmers insist on re-inventing the wheel every time
they want a catalog database display ?
Windows has the option to create a thumbnail file in every directory
either as default or selectively and after careful examination the
thumbs.db created by windows carries the same info that almost every
one of these catalog programs does.
Get with the program people the wheel already exists, just use it.
Could clean up so much wasted space by every program needing their own
database...
Ian Firth
> I wonder if Ian is using the Win95 line and doesn't realize that
> *nothing* actually takes advantage of his second processor.
You think I would bring this up if I wasn't using an SMP aware OS ?
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
> You seem blind to the filters optimizations patch, even though you
> mentioned it in other context.
Obviously.
> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
That page shows me one, and only one patch for Photoshop. 6.01 Update.
Maybe my eyesight is failing me.
> Why in the world would you place an 11.5 megabyte image on the web, Ian?
Where did I say that I wanted it for the web ?
Photoshop is much more than a web tool, it's an image editing program.
I use it for a lot of things.
What do you use it for (please post a link to some examples).
Ian Firth
*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com says...
> Or, close Photohsop while your in ImageReady. Not perfect but that should
> work. But, you are right that check box should work. Unless of course it is
> one of those things that we just aren't getting and it really a feature and
> not a bug. <shrug>
The checkbox is leftover from version 5.0.
It is disabled when using Photoshop and Imageready (this is direct from
David Howe at Adobe).
It only works when you pass a file to another application not developed
by Adobe. Does anyone know of any other applications that let you work
concurrently with a PSD file ?
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Eric Gill
From the content of the rest of your messages, I wouldn't be surprised
in the least.
Eric Gill
> In article <3C88D8EB...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>You seem blind to the filters optimizations patch, even though you
>>mentioned it in other context.
>>
>
> Obviously.
>
>
>>http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
>>
>
> That page shows me one, and only one patch for Photoshop. 6.01 Update.
> Maybe my eyesight is failing me.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=1188
This was a seperate update; while I'm sure your selectively spotty
memory has long forgotten, it was originally just called the P4 update,
which was not the best name since it contained more than that.
>>Why in the world would you place an 11.5 megabyte image on the web, Ian?
>>
>
> Where did I say that I wanted it for the web ?
Quote:
"I wait for Save for the Web hundreds of times a month."
It might have something to do with the fact we were talking about the
"Save for Web" feature Ian, after you bitched about it it.
Perhaps if you wouldn't butcher the message so badly you would remember, eh?
> Photoshop is much more than a web tool, it's an image editing program.
> I use it for a lot of things.
> What do you use it for (please post a link to some examples).
You first, Ian. I'd like to see where you've posted this 11.5 MB PNG-24
file.
You can also list those major productivity products that have had all
their bugs fixed, since you forgot to in this reply.
And tell us what modern machine is only 20% faster than your PII-based box.
Are you enjoying all this attention?
Ian Firth
> It might have something to do with the fact we were talking about the
> "Save for Web" feature Ian, after you bitched about it it.
> Perhaps if you wouldn't butcher the message so badly you would remember, eh?
Well, it's called Save for the Web right ? Should I call it something
else so you can understand my point ?
And if I want to save a JPEG, or GIF or PNG for game development, and
want better control over optimization, what should I do ?
> You first, Ian. I'd like to see where you've posted this 11.5 MB PNG-24
> file.
What are you, thick ?
It's not for the web, it was an example. I output a lot of formats for
different programs. I use IFF for World Construction Set, JPEG, BMP, TGA
for textures for 3DS Max, etc.
Anyway, visiting the web site in my sig would be a very goo dplace for
you to figure out what I do, and how I use Photoshop.
> You can also list those major productivity products that have had all
> their bugs fixed, since you forgot to in this reply.
>
> And tell us what modern machine is only 20% faster than your PII-based box.
Sorry, I don't have expendible cash like you. My dual PII system was
$5,000 3 years ago, it's depreciating over 5 years. Remember when 1GB of
RAM was expensive ? I can't afford a new system every year just because
Adobe can't optimize code and likes to add bloated features like Layer
Styles.
Ian Firth
> From the content of the rest of your messages, I wouldn't be surprised
> in the least.
Is there some reason you need to make this personal, or are you just a
prick in general ? That or you work for Adobe.
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry, I don't have expendible cash like you. My dual PII system was
> $5,000 3 years ago, it's depreciating over 5 years. Remember when 1GB of
> RAM was expensive ? I can't afford a new system every year just because
> Adobe can't optimize code and likes to add bloated features like Layer
> Styles.
Layer Styles is hardly a bloated feature.
I just love how people post opionions in these threads and state them as
fact.
*sigh*
--
Zimphire
Eric Gill
> In article <3C893CEB...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>> From the content of the rest of your messages, I wouldn't be surprised
>>in the least.
>>
>
> Is there some reason you need to make this personal,
Bad habit I have in dealing with the irrational.
> or are you just a prick in general ?
Nope, nor a hypocrite.
> That or you work for Adobe.
Heh. Right. Anyone who is actually pleased with their Adobe product
*must* work for Adobe.
Eric Gill
> In article <3C89409D...@yahoo.com>, eric...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>It might have something to do with the fact we were talking about the
>>"Save for Web" feature Ian, after you bitched about it it.
>>
>
>>Perhaps if you wouldn't butcher the message so badly you would remember, eh?
>>
>
> Well, it's called Save for the Web right ? Should I call it something
> else so you can understand my point ?
You *could* try actually composing your messages clearly enough that
people understand your situation.
> And if I want to save a JPEG, or GIF or PNG for game development, and
> want better control over optimization, what should I do ?
Use a different program, format or the like, instead of using a feature
designed for something else and bitching that it doesn't do what you
want it to, then calling it a "bug" and demonizing the author.
>>You first, Ian. I'd like to see where you've posted this 11.5 MB PNG-24
>>file.
>>
>
> What are you, thick ?
Not thick enough to use a program's feature for something it wasn't
designed for then complain that it doesn't work very well for that task.
<snip>
> Anyway, visiting the web site in my sig would be a very goo dplace for
> you to figure out what I do, and how I use Photoshop.
I wasn't very interested aside from establishing exactly what the hell
you were trying do, cramming print-size files into a feature intended
for the web..
>>You can also list those major productivity products that have had all
>>their bugs fixed, since you forgot to in this reply.
>>
>>And tell us what modern machine is only 20% faster than your PII-based box.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't have expendible cash like you.
Or your purchases haven't been very wise.
> My dual PII system was
> $5,000 3 years ago, it's depreciating over 5 years. Remember when 1GB of
> RAM was expensive ? I can't afford a new system every year just because
> Adobe can't optimize code and likes to add bloated features like Layer
> Styles.
...which happens to be an enormous time saver for the vast majority of
their users, and runs perfectly fine on a much faster modern machine
that costs less than a third of yours.
You forgot to list those bug-free major productivity packages, Ian, but
nevermind.
Ah, well. This really has been fun, but it just crossed the line into a waste of time. Ta.
Ian Firth
> Ah, well. This really has been fun, but it just crossed the line into a waste of time. Ta.
It did that on your first post.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Ian Firth
j...@lobber.com says...
> Layer Styles is hardly a bloated feature.
Search Usenet for all the complaints about how long the Layer Styles
dialog box can take to open. It was probably the number one complaint
when 6.0 released.
> I just love how people post opionions in these threads and state them as
> fact.
I love how people can't let other people state their opinions, without
assuming they were posted as facts.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <jiz-2C9A62.1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> j...@lobber.com says...
>
> > Layer Styles is hardly a bloated feature.
>
> Search Usenet for all the complaints about how long the Layer Styles
> dialog box can take to open. It was probably the number one complaint
> when 6.0 released.
I am sure I'd find tons of complaints about other things. Guess what
these are opinions
> I love how people can't let other people state their opinions, without
> assuming they were posted as facts.
Well when you say "Layer is a bloated feature" that is stating it as
fact.
When you say "Layers in a bloated feature in my opinion" that is stating
as a opinion.
:/
--
Zimphire
Ian Firth
j...@lobber.com says...
> Well when you say "Layer is a bloated feature" that is stating it as
> fact.
No, that is my opinion.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Zimphire
Ian Firth <i...@divsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <jiz-AC0C53.0...@corp.supernews.com>,
> j...@lobber.com says...
>
> > Well when you say "Layer is a bloated feature" that is stating it as
> > fact.
>
> No, that is my opinion.
Ok good. From now on state it as a opinion. And don't get mad at people
for misunderstanding you when you're not being clear.
--
Zimphire
Ian Firth
j...@lobber.com says...
> Ok good. From now on state it as a opinion. And don't get mad at people
> for misunderstanding you when you're not being clear.
Everything on Usenet is an opinion. :)
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Trevor Dennis
>Everything on Usenet is an opinion. :)
Apart from rude comments about Mike C. ;-)
--
Trevor Dennis
Remove s-p-a-m to email
Barry Pearson
> Hi! "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk>. On Thu, 7 Mar
> 2002 10:11:48 -0000, you supposed:
> >OK, tell me too - what would I get from using Fireworks for the
> >web work I do? (I have 2 domains - see my sig).
>
> It won't mess up the code like IR. It's compression algorithms are
> more effective and make smaller sizes for the same apparent
> resolution. It's web optimised and allows you to do in place
> alterations of images in Dreamweaver. it has a much lower machine
> overhead than IR.
I've just tried converting a PSD file to JPEG (that I also did yesterday using
ImageReady). In ImageReady I used level 35 and got a 104 KB file, and Fireworks
I used 53 and got a 107 KB file. The ImageReady image is much higher quality -
the Fireworks version is totally unacceptable. It is also convenient to switch
directly to & from ImageReady from Photoshop.
In fact, neither is good enough - I normally use higher qaulity than level 35 in
ImageReady, and only used that to try to get about 100 KB. Perhaps the
comparison changes at different levels of compression, but I am not impressed so
far. I'll see what sizes I get for good enough indistinguishable JPEGs. (I may
also try a blind test on my web site to see if others can tell the difference!)
All my web code is put there by Dreamweaver - I haven't progressed beyond a
minimalist approach to web development, and pretty well the only use I have for
code is roll-over effects on buttons and pop-up windows for showing my
photographs.
> It's actually very easy to do buttons and all the tools required are
> to hand in the tool bar instead of hidden in menus or palettes.
> Plus, of course the very rich right click menus.
[snip]
It was struggling with buttons for button-bars that put me off Fireworks 4. It
simply didn't "obey" PC-principles that I am used to. Perhaps I'll give it
another go, but it may simply have nothing to offer for minimalist web
development.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
Barry Pearson
news:MPG.16f77f5f1...@netnews.attbi.com...
(I note the smiley).
There are ways of distinguishing between simple opinions and something more
serious. I deal with matters of law in a couple of the newsgroups I subscribe
to, where precision matters, and confidence that someone is being precise is
important.
There is no real substitute in those cases for identifying authoritative sources
of information. And people in such newsgroups tend to adopt a style where they
make it clearer whether they are stating opinions or verifiable facts.
Hecate
2002 10:04:12 -0000, you supposed:
>"Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:7hif8u41ikr951gb9...@4ax.com...
>> Hi! "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk>. On Thu, 7 Mar
>> 2002 10:11:48 -0000, you supposed:
>[snip]
>> >OK, tell me too - what would I get from using Fireworks for the
>> >web work I do? (I have 2 domains - see my sig).
>>
>> It won't mess up the code like IR. It's compression algorithms are
>> more effective and make smaller sizes for the same apparent
>> resolution. It's web optimised and allows you to do in place
>> alterations of images in Dreamweaver. it has a much lower machine
>> overhead than IR.
>
>I've just tried converting a PSD file to JPEG (that I also did yesterday using
>ImageReady). In ImageReady I used level 35 and got a 104 KB file, and Fireworks
>I used 53 and got a 107 KB file. The ImageReady image is much higher quality -
>the Fireworks version is totally unacceptable. It is also convenient to switch
>directly to & from ImageReady from Photoshop.
That surprises me. Because it's almost always the other way round
when I compare the two.
>In fact, neither is good enough - I normally use higher qaulity than level 35 in
>ImageReady, and only used that to try to get about 100 KB. Perhaps the
>comparison changes at different levels of compression, but I am not impressed so
>far. I'll see what sizes I get for good enough indistinguishable JPEGs. (I may
>also try a blind test on my web site to see if others can tell the difference!)
Maybe it does. And maybe it has to do with the actual size of the
images. I never usually go below 60 (more often 70) with Fireworks and
still get better compression than IR.
<snip>
>> It's actually very easy to do buttons and all the tools required are
>> to hand in the tool bar instead of hidden in menus or palettes.
>> Plus, of course the very rich right click menus.
>[snip]
>
>It was struggling with buttons for button-bars that put me off Fireworks 4. It
>simply didn't "obey" PC-principles that I am used to. Perhaps I'll give it
>another go, but it may simply have nothing to offer for minimalist web
>development.
Button bars are fairly easy. You can either use the ones that
Fireworks has or design your own and import them. What you need to
remember is that Fireworks treats button, graphics and animations for
web work as symbols.
What you do is import the graphics one by one using
Insert/Library/Other. As you import each button hit F8 and it will
convert to either animation, graphic or button depending on what you
choose in the dialog box. Then you go to Modify/Symbol/Edit and the
button editor comes up and you could import other rollover states into
the over, down, and overwhiledown tabs. You set your links and alt
text etc through the Link Wizard available on the active areas tab.
When you've finished your button bar you just go to export and it
will automatically export as html with the relevant files of each
state for each button and all the code prewritten. In DW you then just
go to Insert/Flash HTML and select the file and it imports complete.
Incidentally, on the down state tab in the button editor you can also
select the Nav Bar Down option and the Show button down option so that
the button will show down when it's on it's relevant page. So, eg. the
Home?Main/WHatever page button will show down when on the Home page
and so forth. Lots of other tricks you can use as well :)
--
Hecate
hec...@newsguy.com
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Thank you for this briefing about PS7. I am eager to see how
distortion mesh and background seamless tiling is done! Now I can rest
assured that Photoshop people are realizing some of my suggestions in
my article "PHOTOSHOP IS AN OLD MAN" previously announced in this ng.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
"Robert Barnett" <*remove_first*r...@galaxyflyer.com> wrote in message news:<CeZf8.1320$en5....@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> Hello,
>
> I just completed my review of Photoshop 7. If you would like to take a look
> the address for the site is: http://www.pcreviewonline.com
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert
Bill Perkins
"The Screensavers" edition, on the TechTV channel. Quite impressive. There
didn't seem to be any heavy memory or equipment requirements.
Bill Perkins
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4972a2d6.0203...@posting.google.com...
Robert Barnett
features, but I have to admit that what is there I am starting to really
like.
BTW one thing I found that wasn't in my review that I think is pretty nifty.
Now when you go to scale, rotate, distort, etc. a layer (transform tools) it
is show live while you are dragging the cursor. No more drag, click, release
to see what it is going to do. You see it all live now. That is a pretty
cool new addition.
Robert
--
Laws are to protect the common man. But, the take a crook to interpret them!