I’ll bet Steve Jobs has a Photoshop killer up his sleeve, just like he had Mac OS X for Intel up his sleeve. With little incentive for us to buy Photoshop CS4, this could be the time for Apple to just take over.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
This is absolutely, stunningly horrible news for many pro Mac users. I can hardly believe this is happening on the platform that literally gave Adobe its start. I’m just beside myself and going to look for alternatives to Photoshop. I would switch to Windows Vista, but all the time I’d waste working in that crappy OS would outweigh the benefits of the 64-bit speed increase. I’m really in a rock and hard place…
This is absolutely, stunningly horrible news for many pro Mac users.
I really don’t understand what is all the comment about. I am a pro Mac (Pro) user and since my first Mac (I believe a 6100 ppc or so) and PS3 every update of PS and Mac has provide me with much faster and easier productivity. I am now working with multiple (and layerd) files of 150 MB each at a speed that is incomparable to prior configurations. I’m not a technician but I don’t expect that 64-bit is the only factor that can improve speed in the following generations so I keep on updating.
John Nack gave a reasonable explanation for it and any (pro) Mac user that would switch to Vista for this reason and face all the other problems of Windows including all the virus software and promising but not working software must be out of his or her mind in my opinion… 🙂
there’s nothing wrong with vista, its just as bad as osx. Try them in a mixed enviroment for some real fun.
150mb is a small file…try working on a couple each with 200 layers for some fun.
it doesnt matter to me what we work on…apart from the key mapping being the only speed bump.
People must have plenty of time on their hands if they actually care about what the logo is on their screen at the time. I’m more interested in profit vs work, and if vista is faster (and possibly a cheaper platform) then we’ll dump the fruit. Simple as.
150mb is a small file…try working on a couple each with 200 layers for some fun.
Somehow I manage to work with less than ten layers most of the time.
Saving a few older versions of a file and using lots of History-brushing (and a few saved Merged layers and alpha channels) can keep things working a lot faster and more efficiently.
I am really not too concerned about when, or if, Photoshop moves to 64-bit or not.
[But I really would appreciate it if Adobe finally got around to fixing the History Palette in CS4!]
Because I make considerable use of a number of History Snapshots and then use the History Brush to brush-in color corrections, sharpening, blurs et al into different areas of an image (the old LivePicture way of working!) I would like the Snapshots part of the History Palette to have a separate set of scrollers from the scrollers in the History States part of the Palette.
That way I could keep the open palette small but be able to focus on the actual Snapshots from which I want to paint.
I have been begging for this simple little thing since Photoshop v.7.O. Perhaps in CS4? PLEASE .
"In our testing, when an app ISN’T using a large data set, the speedup due to running in 64-bit mode is around 8-12%."
as being when it ISNT not hauling large files the speed up is 8-12…so what is it when it IS hauling large files.
As i say, they are both as bad as each other. We’ve got all 3 at work, xp, vista and OSX…they all need shooting equally. None of them are a step forward except in fund raising terms.
<yawn> IMO 64-bit or not for CS4 is just not that big a deal. Very few PS users today are even on max hardware, and speed is already for most quite acceptable. PSCS3 on a MP shows improvement with up to at least 16 GB of RAM, but how many folks have it installed? And RAM is inexpensive.
I just repurposed a 2006 MP for my own usage and except for making sure a fast scratch drive was available CS hardware needs had zero impact on my configuration. I built for Aperture, which is a hardware hog.
Ramón- Aperture (at least for Nikon D2x) does IMO a better job at RAW conversions than ACR (just fyi, I am aware that you dislike Aperture). So does Nikon Capture but I do not like the interface.
That’s your own self-centered and Nikon-centric opinion. There are other platforms. Does Aperture allow for ACR-like manipulation of scanned TIFFs? End of story for me. (Let me know if that’s wrong.)
As for digital, ACR does a far better job of converting PEF files than anything else out there. What’s the difference? Easy, Pentax communicates with Thomas Knoll and his team, in contrast to the delusions of adequacy that Canon and Nikon have about being able to write software of any kind.
I can see what you mean. I use layer masks on adjustment layers to brush corrections in or out but then again, so many users so many ways of working… 🙂
PS Sorry to go off topic but it seems I’m not the only one…
Like Ann, I’ve been using snap shots and the History Brush for many years, ever since watching a video tutorial by Eddie Tapp.
Yes, the History palette needs to be fixed. The better fix would be to have snap shots on a separate palette. An easier fix for the programmers might be to make the History palette "grow" in the opposite direction as you work, with the last steps on top, the oldest one on the bottom.
Actually just having two separate Scrollers for each half of a single palette would be just fine by me. It would save further "Palette Bloat", and would, I would think, be pretty easy to code into the existing software.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
