ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC

KW
Posted By
Kermit Woodall
May 26, 2004
Views
2394
Replies
40
Status
Closed
ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC

This must-have PhotoShop plug-in is now available for the Apple Macintosh and Windows platforms! Cinematte is an advanced plug-in for PhotoShop that can automatically create masks and clipping paths using blue/green screen technology. Support for PhotoShop’s Layers and Actions allows batch processing and multiple layers. Allows blue or green screen background for input and can output layer masks, mattes, transparencies and keyed foregrounds.

A Snap for Photographers

Photographers love Cinematte because it allows them to composite backgrounds in later to suit the client’s needs. Cinematte’s controls make creating mattes and transparencies simple.

A Must-Have for the Print Industry

Creating catalogs, brochures or flyers? Cinematte automates what used to be a laborious task of creating clipping paths. Now you can simply use Cinematte to generate a transparency and either use it directly to composite with background layers or turn it into a path with PhotoShop’s Paths Palette!

Easy to Use

A PhotoShop standard interface, with friendly online help, lets you create transparencies easily and quickly. Simple, straightforward, and standard controls let you work in an integrated real time preview so you can see the results of your work instantly!

Cinematte Features

.. Macintosh OS 8.6 through OS X compatible or any version of Windows .. Works with PhotoShop Elements through PhotoShop CS and JASC PaintShop Pro .. Large preview mode option for detail work
.. Uses and supports PhotoShop layers and Actions
.. Totally resolution independent – works on any size RGB image up to 20mb+ .. Supports both blue and green screen backgrounds
.. Sophisticated color-spill algorithms
.. Foreground color protection keeps your colors accurate .. Multiple output options for keyed foregrounds, mattes and more

Inexpensive

Cinematte is available immediately at a direct price of $189.95 plus shipping and handling. You can order by calling (804) 282-1157 or order online from our web site at www.novadesign.com

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

B
Brian
May 26, 2004
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
DA
Duncan Allan
May 26, 2004
Agreed, especially when they send them to countries other than their origin!

Duncan

"Brian" wrote in message
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
R
Roberto
May 27, 2004
This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn’t like they are selling chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup.

On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product. Once is definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.

Jerry

"Brian" wrote in message
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
GP
Gene Palmiter
May 27, 2004
Its an unsolicited commercial…its SPAM. It’s cross-posted all over the place. It’s not true either. Over and over again they claim to be a leader in computer graphics. ..but who has ever heard of them? Not me.

"nospam" wrote in message
This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn’t like they are selling chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup.

On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product. Once
is
definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.

Jerry

"Brian" wrote in message
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.

B
Brian
May 27, 2004
This is not spam.

It absolutely *is* spam… unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to invade Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon commercialism will be everywhere.
TT
Tom Thomas
May 27, 2004
Brian wrote:

It absolutely *is* spam… unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to invade Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon commercialism will be everywhere.

I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.
B
Brian
May 27, 2004
I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.

How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn’t, of course).

Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where does the line get drawn?
P
patrick
May 27, 2004
"Tom Thomas" wrote in message
Brian wrote:

It absolutely *is* spam… unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to invade Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon commercialism will be everywhere.

I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.
——————————-
Tom
That’s true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute and puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for you!" Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick
TT
Tom Thomas
May 27, 2004
Brian wrote:

How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn’t, of course).

Perhaps, knowing what you know today; however, the group was chartered at a time when few people would have envisioned how grossly commercialized (and concurrently uncivilized) the Internet would become.

Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where does the line get drawn?

As with most facets of life, we each draw our own line.
Unfortunately, our lines sooner or later are stepped upon by someone who has drawn the line at a different point. C’est la vie? ——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.
GP
Gene Palmiter
May 27, 2004
I can’t help but feel that if someone came on and wrote that they have created a new plug-in for chromakeys….they would not be attacked. That is information…the rest is advertisement.

"patrick" wrote in message
"Tom Thomas" wrote in message
Brian wrote:

It absolutely *is* spam… unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to
invade
Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon commercialism will be everywhere.

I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.
——————————-
Tom
That’s true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute
and
puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for
you!"
Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick

E
edjh
May 27, 2004
/snip/

I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.
——————————-
Tom

That’s true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute and puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for you!" Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick
ANN: is short for ANNOUNCEMENT and is quite commonly used. When you see it you know it’s probably an ad and can ignore it.


Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
R
Roberto
May 29, 2004
Oh, well just because you haven’t heard of them makes it bogus. Well I have never heard of you, does that make you bogus. As I said posting such a message once is fine. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup, commercial or not.

If you have a problem with this then you should have a problem with Joe Smoe posting his web site address to a site that has ads on it (place by him or not) that sells anything. Commercial is commercial.

In this case I do have a problem because they did cross post, which by itself isn’t a problem, but that couple with the constant reposting is. Any one that is interested in the product would have already since the thing with the first post. Posting it over and over is needless and anything.

Jerry

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
Its an unsolicited commercial…its SPAM. It’s cross-posted all over the place. It’s not true either. Over and over again they claim to be a leader in computer graphics. ..but who has ever heard of them? Not me.
"nospam" wrote in message
This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn’t like they are
selling
chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup.

On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product. Once
is
definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.

Jerry

"Brian" wrote in message
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.

R
Roberto
May 29, 2004
It gets draw by complaining to them. Not because the posted the message, but because they kept on posting it. While this type of message is allowed there was no need to keep reposting. In fact had they only posted it once and even went to the trouble of posting to each group separately I doubt anyone would have had a problem. At the very least and the very most it is was poor judgment on their part. Send them an e-mail suggesting that if they want to not be hated to be more sensible in their posting habits.

No need to be mean or rude. They just need help understanding.

Jerry

"Brian" wrote in message
I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.

How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn’t, of
course).
Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where does the line get drawn?
R
Roberto
May 29, 2004
You can also filter it out. I filter out attachments in newsgroups, as I don’t trust. luckily I have the brains to know that when someone announces something I can either read it out skip it. I already knew what this plug-in was and I have a good idea of who uses it (whose does the most blue and green screening?) This is not a product for most people, how many people have the lighting and blue or green screens setup for such work at home. Not many.

Some could also argue that the bull shit Adobe spouts out about Photoshop is a bunch of crap to. Lets face Photoshop is starting to fall behind other programs on the market. Feature wise, speed wise and in the ever growing number of bugs and the so far total lack of a patch to correct the bugs.

If you don’t like these posts, then filter them out. Or don’t read them.

Jerry

"edjh" wrote in message
/snip/

I’m not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop specifically permits the posting of announcements for new, Photoshop-related products.
——————————-
Tom

That’s true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute
and
puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for
you!"
Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick
ANN: is short for ANNOUNCEMENT and is quite commonly used. When you see it you know it’s probably an ad and can ignore it.


Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
VJ
vic_jay
May 30, 2004
STOP these advertisements. They are SPAM at best. I hope your software finds it way to Kaaza!
DH
David Haley
May 31, 2004
This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 17:08:36 GMT, "nospam" proclaimed:

Some could also argue that the bull shit Adobe spouts out about Photoshop is a bunch of crap to. Lets face Photoshop is starting to fall behind other programs on the market. Feature wise, speed wise and in the ever growing number of bugs and the so far total lack of a patch to correct the bugs.

No intention to start a flame-war here. I just invested money into buying Photoshop, so it’s not pleasant to hear that it’s falling behind; I’d heard the contrary from people I consider knowledgeable in the area. What would you have suggested instead?

Thanks,

-dhaley


~david-haley
GP
Gene Palmiter
May 31, 2004
As a matter of fact…chances are if they are a leader in computer graphic…I have heard of them. I am not claiming that they have heard of me….but the odds are very good that I have been reading trade magazines since before they would have gotten a mention in one.

"nospam" wrote in message
Oh, well just because you haven’t heard of them makes it bogus. Well I
have
never heard of you, does that make you bogus. As I said posting such a message once is fine. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup, commercial or not.

If you have a problem with this then you should have a problem with Joe
Smoe
posting his web site address to a site that has ads on it (place by him or not) that sells anything. Commercial is commercial.

In this case I do have a problem because they did cross post, which by itself isn’t a problem, but that couple with the constant reposting is.
Any
one that is interested in the product would have already since the thing with the first post. Posting it over and over is needless and anything.
Jerry

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
Its an unsolicited commercial…its SPAM. It’s cross-posted all over the place. It’s not true either. Over and over again they claim to be a
leader
in computer graphics. ..but who has ever heard of them? Not me.
"nospam" wrote in message
This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn’t like they are
selling
chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup.

On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product.
Once
is
definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.

Jerry

"Brian" wrote in message
Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.

R
Roberto
May 31, 2004
David, don’t worry Photoshop is good, I guess my big complaint is that in a lot of ways it is behind the times, it is also full of half completed features.

In the behind the times categories we have…

Filters, even the basic and most useful of the lot that haven’t been updated in years.

We are still lacking a customizable interface so that you can create a completely custom work environment that works for you and save it for use later. Just about every other image editor does this.

Full built-in scripting support, with editor and basic protections for the authors scripts. Instead what we have is a poorly done scripting plug-in with poor documentation, no editor, and only one of the supported languages having direct menu access support in Photoshop and no protection of any kind for the authors scripts. Mean while programs from Jasc and Corel have had these capabilities for years.

Filter layers. Adobe says they can’t be done, but they have been available in other programs for years including Canvas and Adobe’s own video editing programs.

There are others in this category. On the half done features arena we have.

Natural media brushes that are some of the suckiest I have ever seen. If real watercolor brushed looked like what Photoshop renders artists would have gouged out their eyes years ago. Not to mention that Photoshop isn’t even smart enough to tell a pen from a mouse and turn off the pressure sensitive stuff for mouse users so you have to go do this each time you change brushes. This gets old fast and why you have to do this is unless you turn those things off you can paint with a mouse.

The new Filter Gallery, is one big waste of screen space. It doesn’t support all of the filters in Photoshop. It allows you to layer them, but doesn’t have opacity or blending mode controls. You also can’t turn the damn thing off when you are fed up with it, it uses a generic image to show what the filter will look like. Overall, a half done mess.

File browser. While this does seem to be getting a little better with each new version, it should have been done right and finished by now. It is still far too slow, and is still far too limited in the file formats it supports and is far too limited in features.

The history palette. Instead of just giving us multiple undo’s which is what was asked for they give us the history palette, but only half of it. You can’t save your history steps with your image, it is limited in the number of steps you can have, you can’t turn the history in an action and it can only be edited linearly. Again, another great feature but only half done.

Actions. Awesome idea, but only half complete. There are now logic commands (if/then/else statements). No editor for changing your actions. No way to password protect them. They need to be made more like a macro language like in Word, etc. You need to be able to password protect the editing of them and you need a way to edit them without having to recreate them.

Again, the list of half done features goes on and on. You mention any of this to Adobe and their canned answer is that it can’t be done. Which is bull because these things and more have been done in other programs like Corel Photo-Paint, Jasc PaintShop Pro and even Painter which they had the chance to buy but didn’t. That would have really give you nice natural media painting tools in Photoshop.

Jerry
"David Haley" wrote in message
This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 17:08:36 GMT, "nospam" proclaimed:

Some could also argue that the bull shit Adobe spouts out about Photoshop
is
a bunch of crap to. Lets face Photoshop is starting to fall behind other programs on the market. Feature wise, speed wise and in the ever growing number of bugs and the so far total lack of a patch to correct the bugs.

No intention to start a flame-war here. I just invested money into buying Photoshop, so it’s not pleasant to hear that it’s falling behind; I’d
heard the
contrary from people I consider knowledgeable in the area. What would you
have
suggested instead?

Thanks,

-dhaley


~david-haley
DH
David Haley
Jun 1, 2004
This day of Mon, 31 May 2004 16:34:42 GMT, "nospam" proclaimed:

David, don’t worry Photoshop is good, I guess my big complaint is that in a lot of ways it is behind the times, it is also full of half completed features.

In the behind the times categories we have…

Filters, even the basic and most useful of the lot that haven’t been updated in years.

We are still lacking a customizable interface so that you can create a completely custom work environment that works for you and save it for use later. Just about every other image editor does this.

Full built-in scripting support, with editor and basic protections for the authors scripts. Instead what we have is a poorly done scripting plug-in with poor documentation, no editor, and only one of the supported languages having direct menu access support in Photoshop and no protection of any kind for the authors scripts. Mean while programs from Jasc and Corel have had these capabilities for years.

Filter layers. Adobe says they can’t be done, but they have been available in other programs for years including Canvas and Adobe’s own video editing programs.

There are others in this category. On the half done features arena we have.
Natural media brushes that are some of the suckiest I have ever seen. If real watercolor brushed looked like what Photoshop renders artists would have gouged out their eyes years ago. Not to mention that Photoshop isn’t even smart enough to tell a pen from a mouse and turn off the pressure sensitive stuff for mouse users so you have to go do this each time you change brushes. This gets old fast and why you have to do this is unless you turn those things off you can paint with a mouse.

The new Filter Gallery, is one big waste of screen space. It doesn’t support all of the filters in Photoshop. It allows you to layer them, but doesn’t have opacity or blending mode controls. You also can’t turn the damn thing off when you are fed up with it, it uses a generic image to show what the filter will look like. Overall, a half done mess.

File browser. While this does seem to be getting a little better with each new version, it should have been done right and finished by now. It is still far too slow, and is still far too limited in the file formats it supports and is far too limited in features.

The history palette. Instead of just giving us multiple undo’s which is what was asked for they give us the history palette, but only half of it. You can’t save your history steps with your image, it is limited in the number of steps you can have, you can’t turn the history in an action and it can only be edited linearly. Again, another great feature but only half done.
Actions. Awesome idea, but only half complete. There are now logic commands (if/then/else statements). No editor for changing your actions. No way to password protect them. They need to be made more like a macro language like in Word, etc. You need to be able to password protect the editing of them and you need a way to edit them without having to recreate them.
Again, the list of half done features goes on and on. You mention any of this to Adobe and their canned answer is that it can’t be done. Which is bull because these things and more have been done in other programs like Corel Photo-Paint, Jasc PaintShop Pro and even Painter which they had the chance to buy but didn’t. That would have really give you nice natural media painting tools in Photoshop.

Jerry

Well, thanks for your answers. The bad news for me is that a lot of that really does sound like it would have been useful. I have to admit that the file browser seemed awfully slow (it eats up all my cpu/memory, it’s faster to open up explorer and go to thumbnail mode, and drag the files into photoshop), in addition to the filter gallery being incomplete.

The good news is that most of the concerns seem to be for somebody more advanced than myself. 🙂 Then again the goal is to become more proficient so maybe I will start caring about all that. The other piece of good news is that I bought the student version for "only" $300, so I guess it’s less painful than if I had spent the full $700 or however much it costs for the normal version. As far as I can tell, the student version is fully featured, but just has ‘Education’ on the splash screen.

As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can’t be done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we’re having trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that stuff would mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don’t feel like doing." To be honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC program. :/ Not that I don’t like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in fact); I just don’t want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is slow in part because it’s loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes the porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars and stuff look like the Mac OS, and don’t use the Windows environment.

In any case I appreciate your explanations, thanks for going into that for the novice Photoshop user. 🙂

-dhaley


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 1, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by […]

As a programmer why don’t you decompile the code and look for yourself. Until then, spare us your impressionistic speculation.
DH
David Haley
Jun 1, 2004
This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:48:19 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by […]

As a programmer why don’t you decompile the code and look for yourself. Until then, spare us your impressionistic speculation.

Look, what’s your problem? Why are you getting so snotty about it? This is a known problem with nearly *every* piece of software that builds on previous versions. If you knew just how much software is crippled from being built off of old and outdated design, maybe you’d see where I’m coming from. I like Adobe’s software, otherwise I wouldn’t have forked out the cash for it. That doesn’t mean they don’t suffer from the same ills the whole software industry does. In the meantime, I see no need for you to be so rude about it.

-dhaley


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 1, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

Look, what’s your problem? Why are you getting so snotty about it?

You are right, I was being snotty. Permit me one more. You come in here all hyper-critical about Photoshop, but uninformed as to what it can do. Instead of trying to find what it does do, even without scripting, you immediately presume it can’t be done then suggest that PS do it _your_ way. I find that typical of programmers, and rather wearying.

This is a known problem with nearly *every* piece of software that builds on previous versions. If you knew just how much software is crippled from being built off of
old and outdated design, maybe you’d see where I’m coming from.

I know perfectly well how Byzantine code can become after a few generations of coping with changes in the underlying OS, programming styles, features, and so on. I’ve been at it for a long time.

I like Adobe’s
software, otherwise I wouldn’t have forked out the cash for it.

Welcome aboard.
DH
David Haley
Jun 1, 2004
This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:02:34 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

Look, what’s your problem? Why are you getting so snotty about it?

You are right, I was being snotty. Permit me one more. You come in here all hyper-critical about Photoshop, but uninformed as to what it can do. Instead of trying to find what it does do, even without scripting, you immediately presume it can’t be done then suggest that PS do it _your_ way. I find that typical of programmers, and rather wearying.

And I find you to be rather sensitive and defensive about something. Hyper-critical of Photoshop? Sure pal, that’s why I spent so much money on it. Perhaps it’s not much to you, but on my student budget $300 is a significant amount of cash. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I spoke in praise of the software. My only comment was a more general sidenote on software in general – not just Photoshop.

I’m very amused at your comments about scripting. I see that you just recently told off a programmer who got upset regarding their misconception of Adobe’s scripting and automation… I however have made no such comment about scripting, and I have made no assumptions about what it can or cannot do. You will note (if you bother to read my posts) that I was responding precisely to what Jerry said – not making a single assumption beyond that.

So if I have struck a sore nerve in you, I apologize, but you should actually bother to read what I write instead of reading "programmer" and dismissing me completely. Like I have said I’m not sure what your problem is, but you’re criticizing me for things I haven’t even said.

This is a known problem with nearly *every* piece of software that builds on previous versions. If you knew just how much software is crippled from being built off of
old and outdated design, maybe you’d see where I’m coming from.

I know perfectly well how Byzantine code can become after a few generations of coping with changes in the underlying OS, programming styles, features, and so on. I’ve been at it for a long time.

Then why, no offense, did you get so pissy about my comment, if you know full well how true it is?

Like I said above you’re acting way over-defensively, and you seem to have some kind of knee-jerk, gut hatred of programmers. Rather sad IMHO. In the meantime I would really appreciate that you go read my posts, point out exactly where I am "hyper-critical" and all the other adjectives you attributed to me, and if you cannot, apologize for too hastily categorizing me where I do not belong.

-dhaley

I like Adobe’s
software, otherwise I wouldn’t have forked out the cash for it.

Welcome aboard.


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 1, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:02:34 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

And I find you to be rather sensitive and defensive about something. Hyper-critical of Photoshop? Sure pal, that’s why I spent so much money on it.

I’m going to stop after this post. Flame wars don’t interest me, but your compaint gives me one more opportunity to suggest that people, especially programmers, who spring for spendy software should read the documentation before whining.

Perhaps it’s not much to you, but on my student budget $300 is a significant amount of cash.

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

So, you are an expert programmer while still a student! My congratulations on your prodigal success. FWIW we do have a few excellent PS scriptors here. One answered your earlier question and another hasn’t chimed in now, possibly because he’s not amused by flame wars; his name is Warren Sarle. When he writes, read. Good stuff.

I’m very amused at your comments about scripting. I see that you just recently told off a programmer who got upset regarding their misconception of Adobe’s scripting and automation…

Did I? Good.

So if I have struck a sore nerve in you, I apologize, but you should actually bother to read what I write instead of reading "programmer" and dismissing me completely. Like I have said I’m not sure what your problem is, but you’re criticizing me for things I haven’t even said.

Hey, it’s my ‘sore nerve’, not yours. No apology neccessary. So we had a tif, or is that .tiff? In any event, I’m cool. So are you. We are each a bit smarter from this.

Peace and enjoy PS.
DH
David Haley
Jun 1, 2004
This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:02:34 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

And I find you to be rather sensitive and defensive about something. Hyper-critical of Photoshop? Sure pal, that’s why I spent so much money on it.

I’m going to stop after this post. Flame wars don’t interest me, but your compaint gives me one more opportunity to suggest that people, especially programmers, who spring for spendy software should read the documentation before whining.

Whining? *sigh* You’ve yet to substantiate a single of these accusations of yours. I’m not sure what your gripe with me is, other than I dared mention being a programmer, and a single fault of PS which isn’t really Adobe’s fault but is proper to nearly any application these days.

Perhaps it’s not much to you, but on my student budget $300 is a significant amount of cash.

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if you could confirm that.

So, you are an expert programmer while still a student! My congratulations on your prodigal success. FWIW we do have a few excellent PS scriptors here. One answered your earlier question and another hasn’t chimed in now, possibly because he’s not amused by flame wars; his name is Warren Sarle. When he writes, read. Good stuff.

I never claimed to be an ‘expert programmer’, simply a ‘programmer’. Given that I’ve been at it for, oh, 12 years now I think I deserve at least that. I know nothing about PS scripting, never claimed to either.

Where did Warren Sarle answer one of my questions? Are you confusing me with somebody else?

I’m very amused at your comments about scripting. I see that you just recently told off a programmer who got upset regarding their misconception of Adobe’s scripting and automation…

Did I? Good.

Yes… and somehow your response to him suggests to me you just don’t like programmers in general. 🙂

"He did not understand what PS can do in the first place and demanded that somehow it read his (programmer) mind rather than him reading the docs."

So if I have struck a sore nerve in you, I apologize, but you should actually bother to read what I write instead of reading "programmer" and dismissing me completely. Like I have said I’m not sure what your problem is, but you’re criticizing me for things I haven’t even said.

Hey, it’s my ‘sore nerve’, not yours. No apology neccessary. So we had a tif, or is that .tiff? In any event, I’m cool. So are you. We are each a bit smarter from this.

Peace and enjoy PS.

Will do, that is after all why I bought it. Contrary to your accusations I actually do like the software a great deal. 🙂 I was just miffed to see an Apple interface in a PC application, and made a side comment about why I thought that was.

-dhaley


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 1, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if
you could
confirm that.

Fair enough. I’ll write to them today and get back to you.
J
john
Jun 1, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if
you could
confirm that.

I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable. Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither proprietary nor private information.

Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
(That’s Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.

Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)

This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a current Student ID and current registration is required for students and proof of current employment for Faculty. I’m pleased that they are quite strident on that point.
DH
David Haley
Jun 1, 2004
This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:43 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if
you could
confirm that.

I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable. Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither proprietary nor private information.

Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
(That’s Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.
Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)

This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a current Student ID and current registration is required for students and proof of current employment for Faculty. I’m pleased that they are quite strident on that point.

OK, then, well, it seems that the Stanford Bookstore is ripping us off rather horribly. Hmph. Not the first time they’ve been known to do that. Grr. :/ They have us show the ID and everything too, so it wouldn’t be that.

-dhaley


~david-haley
C
Chris
Jun 2, 2004
In article ,
David Haley wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:43 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if
you could
confirm that.

I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable. Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither proprietary nor private information.

Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
(That’s Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.

Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)

This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a current Student ID and current registration is required for students and proof of current employment for Faculty. I’m pleased that they are quite strident on that point.

OK, then, well, it seems that the Stanford Bookstore is ripping us off rather horribly. Hmph. Not the first time they’ve been known to do that. Grr. :/ They
have us show the ID and everything too, so it wouldn’t be that.
-dhaley

~$150 is about right for the academic upgrade from a previous version. Stanford has the upgrade for $169, as does the university in my neck of the woods (Oregon State). New, both stores do indeed have it for $299. Minnesotans have it goood …


C
DH
David Haley
Jun 2, 2004
This day of Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:01:07 GMT, Chris Havel
proclaimed:

In article ,
David Haley wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:43 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, (jjs)
proclaimed:

$300? That’s a bundle. I think our local university students get a better deal than that.

I am glad for your local university students. I’d be curious though if
you could
confirm that.

I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable. Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither proprietary nor private information.

Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
(That’s Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.

Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)

This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a current Student ID and current registration is required for students and proof of current employment for Faculty. I’m pleased that they are quite strident on that point.

OK, then, well, it seems that the Stanford Bookstore is ripping us off rather horribly. Hmph. Not the first time they’ve been known to do that. Grr. :/ They
have us show the ID and everything too, so it wouldn’t be that.
-dhaley

~$150 is about right for the academic upgrade from a previous version. Stanford has the upgrade for $169, as does the university in my neck of the woods (Oregon State). New, both stores do indeed have it for $299. Minnesotans have it goood …

We were talking about new versions, right? Are those $161, $126 prices above for the new or the upgrade versions? If new, one does wonder how the Minnesotans do manage to get such low prices… and why we others get left out. 🙂

-dhaley


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 2, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

We were talking about new versions, right? Are those $161, $126 prices above for the new or the upgrade versions? If new, one does wonder how the Minnesotans do manage to get such low prices… and why we others get left out. 🙂

David, because the price seemed so low, I checked with two sources at Winona State University: the ITS purchasing manager and the license management person and the prices I gave are for the real CS packages, not the upgrades. How do they get such a price? Well, MNSCU is seven universities plus I don’t know how many technical colleges. Volume may be the big factor: it’s virtually all the public colleges/universities in the state. And I don’t think those prices include the nifty packaging (facetious face here), but just the software (download), and media is extra, but it is cheap. I don’t think the CS packages are sold through the bookstore, but through ITS.

(College bookstores are destined to become more like souvenier shops than text-book stores as the e-book becomes more popular. Publishers are waking up. Faculty are already assembling their own e-book anthologies of material from _several_ books per class instead of a couple books. But I digress, as usual, because that’s my area.)
R
Roberto
Jun 2, 2004
Well, I guess that is the catch 22 on this. Each person is different, but one thing we all have in common, well actually two things. One, we love Photoshop even with its flaws. And, two when it comes to features we feel are in complete, everyone is going to have something different they would like done.

For me I am just more concerned that Adobe doesn’t seem to be fixing or finishing things, they simple add more features and many of them aren’t finished or complete either. Some are, but some aren’t and I find most of the ones that are incomplete are more of an annoyance than simply not having a feature at all.

Here is hoping Adobe wakes up and pulls the bacon from the fire. They did with Illustrator which 5 years ago I thought was a dead burnt duck.

Robert
R
Roberto
Jun 2, 2004
I would just ignore JJS, it shoulds like he/she is on the rag or something.

Jerry
CC
Chris Cox
Jun 6, 2004
As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can’t be done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we’re having trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that stuff would
mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don’t feel like doing." To be honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC program. :/
Not that I don’t like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in fact); I just
don’t want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is slow in
part because it’s loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes the porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars and stuff look like the Mac OS, and don’t use the Windows environment.

Photoshop is Windows native, using Windows native controls and UI widgets wherever possible (some controls just don’t exist on either platform). There is no porting library, and it can hardly be called a port as there is an equal amount of platform glue for each platform.

When we say something can’t be done, it means we’ve looked into it and found reasons it can’t be done. Sometimes those reasons are obvious (like OS limitations) and sometimes they’re not (like the performance impact of dealing with images larger than available RAM).

As a programmer, you really should do you research first.

Chris
B
Bernie
Jun 6, 2004
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:34:42 GMT, "nospam" wrote:

Full built-in scripting support, with editor and basic protections for the authors scripts.
[…]
Mean while programs from Jasc and Corel have had
these capabilities for years.

Jasc has only had scripting for the most recent version (8). Hardly "years".
DH
David Haley
Jun 6, 2004
This day of Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:36:48 GMT, Chris Cox
proclaimed:

As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can’t be done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we’re having trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that stuff would
mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don’t feel like doing." To be honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC program. :/
Not that I don’t like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in fact); I just
don’t want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is slow in
part because it’s loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes the porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars and stuff look like the Mac OS, and don’t use the Windows environment.

Photoshop is Windows native, using Windows native controls and UI widgets wherever possible (some controls just don’t exist on either platform). There is no porting library, and it can hardly be called a port as there is an equal amount of platform glue for each platform.
When we say something can’t be done, it means we’ve looked into it and found reasons it can’t be done. Sometimes those reasons are obvious (like OS limitations) and sometimes they’re not (like the performance impact of dealing with images larger than available RAM).
As a programmer, you really should do you research first.
Chris

You haven’t addressed however the issue of software design that is old but not rebuilt from scratch due to time/budget constraints. I’m sure that in many cases you have very good reasons, but I’m just as sure that in other cases there are other factors at play. No fault of your own; it happens whenever you have software built by accretion. Mind you, I like Photoshop a lot in the time I’ve used it so far (otherwise I wouldn’t have spent the money on it.) But I think that for any software company to claim they’re immune to accretion – unless of course they actually do redesign and rewrite every version from scratch – would be arrogant and presumptuous. Sorry for the harsh terms but none other come to mind at the moment.

-dhaley


~david-haley
J
john
Jun 6, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:36:48 GMT, Chris Cox
proclaimed:

[…]
As a programmer, you really should do you research first.
Chris

You haven’t addressed however the issue of software design that is old but not rebuilt from scratch due to time/budget constraints. […]

How could PS _not_ have been rewritten, bottom-up, top-down or ‘from scratch’ as you suggest, over all these years given the new features, and huge changes in the underlying OSes? I’m wondering if you have ever cut code for the early Macintosh OS and seen how bloody byzantine code had become to accomdate the OS changes, and besides it’s a whole different model than WindoZe. WindoZe, too required code rewrites for the same reasons.

You are a bright person, David, and I am confident that we will enjoy your contributions over time, but you seem to be offering challenges provoked by a the fodder I find in CS instructors who retired on the job several years ago, possibly the same would-be-geeks who think that ‘ports’ are recompiles, simple tweaks of word size, and black-blue-red-pink-whatever box (analogies of unspecific horrific perversions of ‘object oriented’ programming) approaches.

Maybe your next resume should be sent to Adobe. Seriously.

In any event, it’s a good discussion and if Chris Cox finds the energy and time perhaps he can enlighten the rest of us – again.

best,
jjs
R
Roberto
Jun 6, 2004
Chris, if the things Adobe says can’t be done can’t be done then why are they in most cases done in other programs. Take live plug-ins for example. I know Adobe and you yourself have said these can’t be done. Yet, programs like Fireworks and Canvas have done this for years. For Fireworks the plug-ins have to be updated so that they support it, but that isn’t a big deal.

To me it makes you and Adobe sound like your full of crap and just don’t want to do it. Instead we get crap like the new Filter Gallery that is not only worthless and a screen hog it is an only half done feature and doesn’t include opacity or blending mode support.

Jerry

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can’t
be
done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we’re
having
trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that
stuff
would
mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don’t feel like doing."
To be
honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC
program.
:/
Not that I don’t like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in
fact); I
just
don’t want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is
slow
in
part because it’s loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes
the
porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars
and stuff
look like the Mac OS, and don’t use the Windows environment.

Photoshop is Windows native, using Windows native controls and UI widgets wherever possible (some controls just don’t exist on either platform). There is no porting library, and it can hardly be called a port as there is an equal amount of platform glue for each platform.
When we say something can’t be done, it means we’ve looked into it and found reasons it can’t be done. Sometimes those reasons are obvious (like OS limitations) and sometimes they’re not (like the performance impact of dealing with images larger than available RAM).
As a programmer, you really should do you research first.
Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Jun 7, 2004
In article , David Haley
wrote:

This day of Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:36:48 GMT, Chris Cox
proclaimed:

As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can’t be done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we’re having
trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that stuff would
mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don’t feel like doing." To be
honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC program.
:/
Not that I don’t like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in fact); I just
don’t want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is slow
in
part because it’s loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes the porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars and stuff
look like the Mac OS, and don’t use the Windows environment.

Photoshop is Windows native, using Windows native controls and UI widgets wherever possible (some controls just don’t exist on either platform). There is no porting library, and it can hardly be called a port as there is an equal amount of platform glue for each platform.
When we say something can’t be done, it means we’ve looked into it and found reasons it can’t be done. Sometimes those reasons are obvious (like OS limitations) and sometimes they’re not (like the performance impact of dealing with images larger than available RAM).
As a programmer, you really should do you research first.
Chris

You haven’t addressed however the issue of software design that is old but not rebuilt from scratch due to time/budget constraints.

I don’t need to address it – it happens, but it doesn’t have to hold you back (assuming you replace parts as necessary, or just before they’re necessary).

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Jun 7, 2004
In article <PGIwc.15395$>, nospam
wrote:

Chris, if the things Adobe says can’t be done can’t be done then why are they in most cases done in other programs.

Because they aren’t, or aren’t done in a way that’s up to our standards.

Take live plug-ins for example. I
know Adobe and you yourself have said these can’t be done. Yet, programs like Fireworks and Canvas have done this for years. For Fireworks the plug-ins have to be updated so that they support it, but that isn’t a big deal.

That is a good example.
Look at the applications trying to implement them — they fall to pieces with images over a few meg.

Try Fireworks with a 100 Meg image and 20 layers.
Now try it with a 2 Gig image and 400 layers.
Doesn’t work so well, does it?

Photoshop users work with images that large on a daily basis. (and they’re getting larger all the time)

There are a lot of things that are easy on small images, or when you’re only dealing with a few layers — but that rapidly become too complex to apply to larger images (especially when the images can’t fit into RAM).

Now, we haven’t said this was impossible – but it is something that needs careful design to make it work on real world images (and it has to work for everyone, not just web graphic designers).

The existing attempts prove that it really isn’t feasible, yet.

To me it makes you and Adobe sound like your full of crap and just don’t want to do it.

And your comments make me think that you haven’t even started to think about the implications.

Might it be possible that things in the real world are more complicated than in your programming classes?
<sarcasm> Yeah, just a bit. </sarcasm>

Instead we get crap like the new Filter Gallery that is not only worthless and a screen hog it is an only half done feature and doesn’t include opacity or blending mode support.

It shouldn’t have opacity or blending support – it’s just a rewrite of the Gallery Effects filters. It’s a screen "hog" because users demanded larger previews.

And do you don’t seem to realize that developing large features takes time both to develop and to test. You can’t do everything overnight (or sometimes even in a single release cycle). (How many attempts did it take Microsoft to get NT working reasonably well?)

Chris

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections