Photoshop CS — great upgrade for digital photographers

I’d like to say a few words about the new features that are of interest to digital photographers.

If you have a valid serial number don’t let all the scare talk about activation keep you from this upgrade, it’s the best one yet.

Bill
(no, I do *not* work for Adobe 🙂

Most of the posts about CS are about activation, but I’d like to say a few words about the new features that are of interest to digital photographers. I’ve been using Photoshop since V4, including buying the V5, 5.5, 6 and 7 upgrades, and I think CS is the best upgrade ever for digital photography. Here are a few reasons why …

The Shadow/Highlight tool does an excellent job of plucking extra details out of the shadow areas, which is very useful if you’re scanning film, especially slides. The default settings are for backlit subjects that should have been shot with fill-flash and are overkill for most of my shots, but I changed the shadow ‘amount’ and ‘tonal width’ defaults to 25% (and usually modify them depending on the image) and see more subtle effects in the shadows. If you could build a very complex, subtle shadow mask and use curves to pull out the details without adding noise you’d be able to mimic what this tool does, but it does it effortlessly and it’s a very valuable additon to the digital toolbox, well worth the price of the upgrade I feel.

The RAW converter is now built-in and it’s so much better than the Canon crap I was using it’s not even funny. This is also a very worthy upgrade if you don’t have one of the expensive 3rd party converters.

CS now has much better 16 bit support, including layers, adjustment layers and adjustment layer masking. I know there’s debate about whether or not you need 16 bits (or at least Dan Margulis says you don’t), but if you want it you’ve got it.

To me, with the way I use Photoshop, these are the three top new features in CS. There are several other things that are also useful for digital photographers though, including a robust panorama stitching option, a "Photo Filter" that mimics various color correction filters like the 80, 81, 82 and 85 series, a histogram that’s always visible, the Color Replacement Tool for fixing red-eye or matching colors between files and a Filter > Blur > Lens Blur option that lets you play with various degrees of bokeh.
I work with four basic types of files, 6 Mpix digital camera tiffs and 4,000 dpi scans of 35 mm, 6×4.5 cm and 6×7 cm film. I set up some test suites to check CS vs V7 for speed and the V7 files running the same long actions took 175% to 270% longer to complete than the same tasks on CS, so CS is a good bit faster too.

Basically, it’s a great upgrade for me.

What about activation? All I had to do was open up my firewall once to let CS call the mothership and I was activated in seconds, then I disabled CS’s ability to access the net and it hasn’t asked for permission since. (There’s also an option to phone in for the activation number if you don’t want to go over the net even once). From what I understand activation looks for some unique ID number on your hard drive so when you open the ap it checks to see that you’re still using that same drive. I can see how this is a hassle if you change drives often but otherwise it’s not a big deal to me. I was able to activate on two computers without any problem.

If you have a valid serial number don’t let all the scare talk about activation keep you from this upgrade, it’s the best one yet.

Bill
(no, I do *not* work for Adobe 🙂

There’s no debating that 16 bit editing is superior to 8 bit. I see many software vendors jumping on the 16 bit bandwagon.

Soon, JPEG2000 will be
included in digital cameras, rather than large TIFF and RAW formats.

(Bill Hilton) wrote:

If you have a valid serial number don’t let all the scare talk about activation keep you from this upgrade, it’s the best one yet.

Bill
(no, I do *not* work for Adobe 🙂

It’s not exactly what most people talking about the activation here cuz there is/are cracked version to skip the activation completely, so no scare talk or doesn’t need a second like you have to spent.

Most folks here are talking about the trouble in the future, the more control of your toy you give to Adobe and similar *not* about the courage you have to activate yours.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:58:26 -0500, Uni
wrote:

There’s no debating that 16 bit editing is superior to 8 bit. I see many software vendors jumping on the 16 bit bandwagon.

Many people jumping a bandwagon doesn’t mean there’s something good. You know how many people are one the Windows bandwagon already. You know how many flies eat s….

16 bit image correction and adjustment layers are fine but 16bit _editing_ is fiddling in the dark without seeing what you do on >98% of all PCs sold. No 48bit display modes, no 48bit capable monitor and you can’t see what you do.

Soon, JPEG2000 will be
included in digital cameras, rather than large TIFF and RAW formats.

I’d bet large amounts that no camera from a >10% market share manufacturer will be available with JPEG2000 before 2006.

(Xalinai) writes:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:58:26 -0500, Uni
wrote:

There’s no debating that 16 bit editing is superior to 8 bit. I see many software vendors jumping on the 16 bit bandwagon.

Many people jumping a bandwagon doesn’t mean there’s something good. You know how many people are one the Windows bandwagon already. You know how many flies eat s….

16 bit image correction and adjustment layers are fine but 16bit _editing_ is fiddling in the dark without seeing what you do on >98% of all PCs sold. No 48bit display modes, no 48bit capable monitor and you can’t see what you do.

Well, the issue is cumulative loss of precision. Retaining more precision means that you can do more before the image begins to degrade. I worked for a company that paid many bucks for hardware with 12 bits per color channel, simply because gentle airbrushing just didn’t work at 8 bit depth.

Soon, JPEG2000 will be
included in digital cameras, rather than large TIFF and RAW formats.

I’d bet large amounts that no camera from a >10% market share manufacturer will be available with JPEG2000 before 2006.

You may be wrong, if JPEG2000 is exempt from the patents that supposedly cover JPEG. I understand that Sony, among others, are already paying royalties.

[…]
You need precision during processing – if you stack of adjustment layers calculates in integer math you will lose image information from bottom to top and it is almost neglectable if 16bit or eight bit integer math has been used. Intermediate data needs to be high precision double or 64bit floating point.

(Joe) writes:

(Bill Hilton) wrote:

If you have a valid serial number don’t let all the scare talk about activation keep you from this upgrade, it’s the best one yet.

Bill
(no, I do *not* work for Adobe 🙂

It’s not exactly what most people talking about the activation here cuz there is/are cracked version to skip the activation completely, so no scare talk or doesn’t need a second like you have to spent.

Huh?

Most folks here are talking about the trouble in the future, the more control of your toy you give to Adobe and similar *not* about the courage you have to activate yours.

Huh?

Could you try translate that into English? I can’t parse, or understand, either of those "sentences".

In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

[…]
You need precision during processing – if you stack of adjustment layers calculates in integer math you will lose image information from bottom to top and it is almost neglectable if 16bit or eight bit integer math has been used. Intermediate data needs to be high precision double or 64bit floating point.

Forgive my stupidity, but are you absolutely sure that PS/CS uses FP for those calculations, or do they just use big integers? Is not the image (usually) processed in relatively small, discrete chunks and presented on the screen as a contiguous image? I ask because some members of the math community were astonished to learn, for example, that PS doesn’t use FFTs. So perhaps they don’t use FP for things we assume they would. Adobe developers are smarter than I could dream of being. Maybe they do process a whole image for certain filters (cut out?) but what do I know?

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:56:00 -0600, (jjs) wrote:

In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

[…]
You need precision during processing – if you stack of adjustment layers calculates in integer math you will lose image information from bottom to top and it is almost neglectable if 16bit or eight bit integer math has been used. Intermediate data needs to be high precision double or 64bit floating point.

Forgive my stupidity, but are you absolutely sure that PS/CS uses FP for those calculations, or do they just use big integers? Is not the image (usually) processed in relatively small, discrete chunks and presented on the screen as a contiguous image? I ask because some members of the math community were astonished to learn, for example, that PS doesn’t use FFTs. So perhaps they don’t use FP for things we assume they would. Adobe developers are smarter than I could dream of being. Maybe they do process a whole image for certain filters (cut out?) but what do I know?

I assume PS CS still uses integer math (now 16bit), they would have had to rewrite major parts of the program otherwise – but there are people who know and who could repeat their tests.
There was a very interesting discussion on that topic several weeks ago.

There are other (cheaper) products that have a different approach but lack other features.

Michael

In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

[…]
You need precision during processing – if you stack of adjustment layers calculates in integer math you will lose image information from bottom to top and it is almost neglectable if 16bit or eight bit integer math has been used. Intermediate data needs to be high precision double or 64bit floating point.

Forgive my stupidity, but are you absolutely sure that PS/CS uses FP for those calculations, or do they just use big integers? Is not the image (usually) processed in relatively small, discrete chunks and presented on the screen as a contiguous image? I ask because some members of the math community were astonished to learn, for example, that PS doesn’t use FFTs. So perhaps they don’t use FP for things we assume they would. Adobe developers are smarter than I could dream of being. Maybe they do process a whole image for certain filters (cut out?) but what do I know?

Are you real or playing dumb?

English – Most folks don’t like the activate not because it’s a hard thing to do, but they don’t like what gives them no benefit.

Do you get it or you really need real English or some foreign language to make you feel better.

Are you real or playing dumb?

He is still waiting for a comprehensible sentence from you.

English – Most folks don’t like the activate not because it’s a hard thing to do, but they don’t like what gives them no benefit.

This one is a good example of your poor written skills, I can understand it if English is not your first language.

Do you get it or you really need real English or some foreign language to make you feel better.

He gets it but he would prefer a clearly written post in the first place, not one that takes a couple of readings to understand.
Stuart

Stuart wrote:

Are you real or playing dumb?

He is still waiting for a comprehensible sentence from you.

So he played dumb and you play dumber?

English – Most folks don’t like the activate not because it’s a hard thing to do, but they don’t like what gives them no benefit.

This one is a good example of your poor written skills, I can understand it if English is not your first language.

Good for you! which means I may know what you say in your own language and you may not know mine.

Do you get it or you really need real English or some foreign language to make you feel better.

He gets it but he would prefer a clearly written post in the first place, not one that takes a couple of readings to understand.
Stuart

I hope he does.

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

"Stuart" wrote in message

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

"Stuart" wrote in message

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

I am not english but it is my native language.

jjs wrote:

"Stuart" wrote in message

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

Oh, we are playing this game, are we? ‘Queen’s English’?? You’re not from one of the home counties are you?

In article wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Stuart" wrote in message

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

Oh, we are playing this game, are we? ‘Queen’s English’?? You’re not from one of the home counties are you?

Learn the language, you f*king Colonial lowlife.

In article wrote:

What is your native language? It is certainly not the Queen’s English, nor American English.

I am not english but it is my native language.

Then you might learn the language you criticize another of abusing. The word English is capitalized, and your post had errors regarding tense.

Please highlight and correct the errors for me, so as not to make the same mistake again.

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?
Just curious as ‘Joe’ doesn’t really pin it down to anything, if that is even your real name.

Stuart

jjs wrote:

Colonial, where did you get that from?? Oh….my reference to the Home Counties (that is county not country), which surround London.
You really have got your knickers in a twist over this one.

Have you always been a twat or is it just a bad day today?
By the way, the two posts you just replied to were deleted […]

In article wrote:

jjs wrote:

Colonial, where did you get that from?? Oh….my reference to the Home Counties (that is county not country), which surround London.
You really have got your knickers in a twist over this one.

I was jesting, but it sure didn’t come out that way.

Have you always been a twat or is it just a bad day today?
By the way, the two posts you just replied to were deleted […]

Deleting or canceling posts rarely works anymore. You might delete a post on Google, but the cancel is rarely propagated to the rest of the servers.

"Stuart" wrote in message

Please highlight and correct the errors for me, so as not to make the same mistake again.

you said

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

I will address just your first sentence. It could not be more incorrect. Slanging is not a word. A comma is to occur before the word ‘but’. Use the

word ‘number’ instead of ‘amount’. English is to be capitalized, and ‘English-speaking’ is preferred. The word ‘which’ is to be used to distinguish from another occurrence: the word ‘that’ is preferred in your sentence, and finally, ‘persons are’ should be ‘persons is’.

Regardless of the grammar, it is bad form to use the word ‘but’ to excuse the very fact that what you are doing is evinced by the first clause.

Enough. I’m stupid about PS so you will have chances to correct me within the context of this group. 😉

jjs wrote:

"Stuart" wrote in message

Please highlight and correct the errors for me, so as not to make the same mistake again.

you said

I am not getting into a slanging match but the amount of posts which are poorly written by an english speaking person are very high. So where is your country of origin then? What is your first language?

I will address just your first sentence. It could not be more incorrect. Slanging is not a word. A comma is to occur before the word ‘but’. Use the

Slanging may not be a word you find in a dictionary, but ‘slanging match’ is a commonly used term, which in itself is slang.

word ‘number’ instead of ‘amount’. English is to be capitalized, and ‘English-speaking’ is preferred. The word ‘which’ is to be used to distinguish from another occurrence: the word ‘that’ is preferred in your sentence, and finally, ‘persons are’ should be ‘persons is’.

Are you an English teacher by any chance?

Regardless of the grammar, it is bad form to use the word ‘but’ to excuse the very fact that what you are doing is evinced by the first clause.

Must be an English teacher.

Stuart

Enough. I’m stupid about PS so you will have chances to correct me within the context of this group. 😉