Too early to judge. They may not have listed the little stuff. I’m hoping they at least got to Alt-F, A (save as) as you mentioned.
"Tile size tweaks" may go a long way to fix "slow" setups. MP tweaks might cover the 2 gig ddr problem as well.
We shall see. 🙂
MP = multi-processor.
Like Ho, I’m not getting a good feeling about this.
Ditto at what Ho said. Don´t hold your breath for a dot release. – And us who were waiting for a dot release before upgrading 7? I guess we´ll skip this version altogether.
Mat, IMO, CS really is a worthwhile upgrade if (BIG if) it likes your specific system.
It seems to like older systems. (Like me!;-))
CS is worth it for the Shadow/Highlight alone. It’s great not just for correcting problems, but gives a great look see at some "creative" (I hate that word. Overused, IMHO!) possibilities.
The browser needs work.
I also believe that PS in general needs serious attention to the flattening problem with large files/large adjustments. I have been checking around, and I am finding others as perplexed as I am. They have their own horror stories, ands no one to talk to about it.(See "Posting Pictures" in the Lounge basement.) Notice the plethora of responses to my last post!
I see no reason to go to the "Lounge basement" to figure this stuff out, Lawrence. I’m looking for experiences from other users right here.
it’s a long post nick and larry probably didn’t want to retype it all. don’t be a lounge snob, ’tis not nice.
here’s a link right to larry’s post so you don’t need to get your feet dirty wading through the scum of the forums:
Lawrence Hudetz "Posting Pictures" 4/10/04 11:08am </cgi-bin/webx?14/36>
Thanks, dave. I should have done that myself.
Anyway, LOL!
CS is worth it for the Shadow/Highlight alone
Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t this what I’m doing all the time in 7.01 with curves? (either by hand or from a growing library of presets).
Is it some special treatment to the image that I missed reading about CS, or does it just automate what I’m already doing manually.
Rob.
rob, not knowing exactly what you’re doing, i can say that S/H is a bit like a more customizable version of the flash fill filter from elements. except it gives you more control of the shadows as well as the fills. if you’re a curves pro (i’m not) you might not have as much use for it as some. Best way to find out is to DL the trial and find out for yourself if it’s worth it to you.
dave
Without having studied it, Highlights/Shadows sounds like a Levels adjustment, or a good old Cntrast Masking. Recipe in the Lounge Repository.
The shadow/highlight adjustment is different than either curves or levels, more like having them simultaneously in one move. It feels more like traditional darkroom work than curves or levels do. You get all the feedback at once.
Having worked darkrooms for 30+ years, I consider that tool to be one of the best. Wether it’s worth the $169 is a personal call. For me, had it not been there, I would have wondered if CS was worth the upgrade, and I was upgrading from PS6.
Rob and Mathias – no, it’s not much like curves or levels.
It’s a locally adaptive adjustment — it’s more like applying a different curve for each pixel (or area of the image).
It’s sort of like automatic dodging and burning.
You really should try it.
Thanks for the heads up Chris.
Different curve for each pixel? Now, that’s adjusting!
I did a comparison between contrast masking and Shadows/highlights just now, and I can say that they are very complementary. They both do their jobs, and the results are not the same. So, dropping Contrast masking in favor of S/H is not recommended, but ignoring S/H is also not recommended.
Try it. You’ll like it! 🙂
You´re just trying for my money!
I’ll take it, Mathias!
Oh, you mead Adobe! Do I get a cut? 😉
Mmm, Ok. I have to sleep over this but I’ll certainly dream about "different curves for each pixel".
But a pixel is on a point of the curve line. It is not covering a (part of the) curve. In other words: if you would apply a very steep curve to a single pixel, would this pixel then show an increased contrast???
Thanks for the reply.
Rob
If you wait for the dot release, you´ll save the price of an upgrade
Mat, I don’t understand that. You’re gonna pay for the price of an upgrade at some point, either before or after a dot release.
Dave and Lawrence, I have nothing against the Lounge and don’t consider them "scum". The times that I’ve visited there, they seemed like a nice bunch of people. Alas, I don’t have the time to keep up with the posts there. My point was that if there is a Lounge, it should be for what it was intended to be (off-topic stuff). What I meant, and think I said, was that PS stuff should be discussed here. Much along the lines of, when posters here ask to be emailed with an answer, someone explains to them that that defeats the purpose of having a forum.
Please understand, I’m only trying to enjoy the forums here as I have known them.
Nick
You´re right, Nick. As long as the dot release is free as Adobe´s are..
So, eh, what I´m trying to do here is ehm, justify me not purchasing the product, so ehm, get off me back!
Photoshop 7 rocks!
Dave was ribbing you, Nick. And I was going along with the joke. No offence, given or taken. 🙂
The reason I posted there is that is the place for images, so I am led to believe. I actually posted my initial inquiry in the correct place.
Got nowhere there, either. seems like an intractable problem. 🙁
Hey, Mathias, Photoshop rocks (sometimes)! And, I have pictures of rocks to prove it!
so ehm, get off me back!
You know better, Mat, I am nothing but old, and your friend.
Lawrence, not trying to make an issue of it, but what’s wrong with posting a link to a photo here in the forum? We’ve been doing that for years, with no problems. If people need to post photos in the Basement to make their point about PS issues, then I think there’s a problem.
BTW, your problem that you linked to in the Lounge Basement is indeed interesting. I haven’t run into it myself, but I haven’t done that particular kind of work to find it. See what I mean?
I do, Nick.
I have been systematically investigating the process by which the images become corrupt on screen, but since I do not write software, I cannot do anything about it. It is sufficient to say that if you have a file in the hundreds of Megs, and attempt to run some extreme changes such as colorizing to 100%, then modifying those colors with additional layers, you will encounter this problem to the same degree I did.
Only those files whose ratio between 100% and screen size is in the order of 2:1 (50% or greater in the percent box) will not suffer this problem. As the ratio increases, the problem worsens.
Dave was ribbing you, Nick.
<nodding>
🙂
You’d be suprised at how much on-topic off topic conversations happen there. It’s just a bit more laid back than in the main forums.
Lawrence,
Only those files whose ratio between 100% and screen size is in the order of 2:1 (50% or greater in the percent box) will not suffer this problem. As the ratio increases, the problem worsens.
What you see is normal. It won’t be fixed because Adobe can’t fix that which isn’t broken.
<
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.2cd110b0>
It’s only normal because it is declared normal. It is a defect, pure and simple, IMHO.
If you can’t fix it, it ain’t broke!
Look, how many of you would put up with buying a house that looks a certain way until you sign the papers? Flattening is "siging the papers" in my perspective. I have said yes to what I see, and that’s what I worked for.
The image in question at 100% enlarges to the center, and while i could see that the colors at the center were changing a bit, they were nothing like what happens well off center.
I did not say or imply that a fix was simple but some kind of accommodation of the shift needs to be flagged during processing. Even in painting, and I am sure that the pointillists had to deal with it, one has to step back and view the entire scene. If yellow turns maroon when stepping back, well, you got a problem.
I can work with it since now I know how it changes and when. But it took an unreasonable amount of my time to get to the gist of the matter, and in the meantime, I am left with a great image that has a certain markertability that I can show on the screen but cannot reproduce in it’s entirety any other way.
That is acceptable in a lab, when you are developing a process or implementing a design, but not in the marketplace.
What other gotchas are lurking in the software? Trust goes out the window.
