One would think that Adobe would be smart enough to understand a basic concept- that those who are trying to read Adobe’s instructions DON’T KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR PRODUCT. That is why folks read instructions, right? Because they do not understand how to use the product.
SO does Adobe write instructions that a college educated person can follow?
NO. NO. NO.
If I was the CEO of Adobe I’d be firing the incompetent people who are in charge of explaining how Adobe’s Photoshop CS 4 works.
Part of this is due to geeks who are better left to programming than writing instructions.
When personal computers were first introduced- it was geek heaven. The idea that using a computer to accomplish something relating to one’s work took a back seat to geeks who thought it was fun and interesting to have complicated programs- most of which few in the real world understood- or frankly- wanted to take the time to learn.
So it is with Photoshop. As a photographer I have zero interest in wanting to suffer through hours- days even- of trying to figure out how to use a given component within Photoshop. My time is worth something. I have work to get done, and the last thing I want to suffer through is a bunch of geek nonsense in trying to get a given task competed in PS.
Does adobe even bother to define the geek terms it uses within PS? No.
Does adobe even try to write instructions that are easy to follow? No. That is why aftermarket books are written to try and help people decipher PS. That is probably also why this blog exists.
BECAUSE ADOBE IS DOING A TERRIBLE JOB.
For the considerable money I’ve spent for ADOBE products, I expect better. Much, much better.
So that’s the overview.
What I wanted to do was capture the winter sun, on the Winter solstice- in Alaska- as the sun moved across the horizon- form sunrise to sunset. This was a span of 3.5 hours. I took about 18 shots that I’d like to try and merge into one shot where the picture would be a composite of where the sun was in the sky- about every 15 minutes. This would then show the movement of the sun across the sky on the shortest day of the year.
All shots were taken from a tripod- set up in a fixed location for the duration of the shoot.
Dealing with -15 temperatures for about four hours was preferable to dealing with PS CS-4 and trying to make this composition.
So far I’ve had ZERO luck. The instructions Adobe provides are no help.
Add to the problem is that the RAM of the computer can not handle more than about a quarter of the shots taken.
Has anyone ever done something like this? Are there comprehensible step by step instructions about how to do this somewhere on the web?
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
One would think that Adobe would be smart enough to understand a basic concept- that those who are trying to read Adobe’s instructions DON’T KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR PRODUCT. That is why folks read instructions, right? Because they do not understand how to use the product.
SO does Adobe write instructions that a college educated person can follow?
NO. NO. NO.
If I was the CEO of Adobe I’d be firing the incompetent people who are in charge of explaining how Adobe’s Photoshop CS 4 works.
Part of this is due to geeks who are better left to programming than writing instructions.
When personal computers were first introduced- it was geek heaven. The idea that using a computer to accomplish something relating to one’s work took a back seat to geeks who thought it was fun and interesting to have complicated programs- most of which few in the real world understood- or frankly- wanted to take the time to learn.
So it is with Photoshop. As a photographer I have zero interest in wanting to suffer through hours- days even- of trying to figure out how to use a given component within Photoshop. My time is worth something. I have work to get done, and the last thing I want to suffer through is a bunch of geek nonsense in trying to get a given task competed in PS.
Does adobe even bother to define the geek terms it uses within PS? No.
Does adobe even try to write instructions that are easy to follow? No. That is why aftermarket books are written to try and help people decipher PS. That is probably also why this blog exists.
BECAUSE ADOBE IS DOING A TERRIBLE JOB.
For the considerable money I’ve spent for ADOBE products, I expect better. Much, much better.
So that’s the overview.
What I wanted to do was capture the winter sun, on the Winter solstice- in Alaska- as the sun moved across the horizon- form sunrise to sunset. This was a span of 3.5 hours. I took about 18 shots that I’d like to try and merge into one shot where the picture would be a composite of where the sun was in the sky- about every 15 minutes. This would then show the movement of the sun across the sky on the shortest day of the year.
All shots were taken from a tripod- set up in a fixed location for the duration of the shoot.
Dealing with -15 temperatures for about four hours was preferable to dealing with PS CS-4 and trying to make this composition.
So far I’ve had ZERO luck. The instructions Adobe provides are no help.
Add to the problem is that the RAM of the computer can not handle more than about a quarter of the shots taken.
Has anyone ever done something like this? Are there comprehensible step by step instructions about how to do this somewhere on the web?
And spend some time watching the instructional videos on the Adobe site. They cover everything pretty well.
Apart from the excellent "Classroom in a Book" series, I think Adobe kind of gave up on having well-written comprehensive guides to their products some time ago and rely on video tutorials (their own and 3rd party) to satisfy their users.
Plus of course the host of books, good bad and indifferent, which greet every upgrade.
I THINK I barely comprehend what the OP is after. It can be done with Layer masks rather easily.
I would look at the composition as a series of vertical "strips" cut out of the whole picture, each one containing the relevant image of the sun. Imagine these strips placed side by side by side in a progression, which would all add up to the entire parade of suns marching across the sky.
This could be done by putting each strip on its own layer and making the progression seamless with Layer Masks or possibly by actually making a new file for each strip and using File>Automate>Photomerge.
What I wanted to do was capture the winter sun, on the Winter solstice- in Alaska- as the sun moved across the horizon- form sunrise to sunset. This was a span of 3.5 hours. I took about 18 shots that I’d like to try and merge into one shot where the picture would be a composite of where the sun was in the sky- about every 15 minutes. This would then show the movement of the sun across the sky on the shortest day of the year.
Aren’t you supposed to create a layer for each image? Aren’t you supposed to load each layer with its own image? Don’t you need to set the opacity such that each layer shows its image?
Add to the problem is that the RAM of the computer can not handle more than about a quarter of the shots taken
It is your job to solve this problem.. Your images are too big.
Has anyone ever done something like this? Are there comprehensible step by step instructions about how to do this somewhere on the web?
Certainly, lots of people have done this. But it is your job to search the internet for tutorials.
C’mon guys. The learning curve for Photoshop is as steep as there is in software with a broad market. I upgraded a while back from Elements and found it a substantial challenge and I have been using the product since Album days. I can see insiders sneering at newbies to Autocad or Visual C++ but Photoshop has a much broader user base. MAlaska just wants to get the job done but has too much power on his hands and not enough experience controlling it, much like my trying to get to the grocery in a racing-class Ferrari on an icy day. Where is the turn signal control?
It requires professional-strength dedication for learning it.
I ask you, MAlaska, how would you make it easier to learn?
Be specific, and be clear. And be careful with the CAPSLOCK SHOUTING! Remember, were merely other users here, just like you. We can hear you just fine if you type without the bees in your bonnet. 🙂
I spent 30 bucks and purchased: Photoshop CS4 on demand, by Steve Johnson, Perspection, Inc. I will give that a try.
I’ve also done some Google searches as suggested. So far I’ve made zero progress with the work I needed to get finished yesterday.
One suggested splicing together the images- I’d considered that- and rejected that- because the light changes significantly between sunrise and high noon, and sunset. It is worth a thought, though.
As far as how Adobe could get its act together:
1. Why not have a glossary of geek terminology? Adobe doesn’t understand that their geeky Adobe parlance is not known to most folks? Come on. What is the definition of a layer, or a mask? A channel mask? etc.
2. What does a DVD cost? About 25 cents. If Adobe is intent on using videos to explain its products, then that should be INCLUDED (on a DVD) within the multi-hundred dollar software they sell. Having videos on its web site doesn’t help those who are in remote regions who have dial up (slow) internet. And even with high speed internet- it is more convenient to have a DVD included with the software.
3. Instructions that are full of undefined tech geek are worthless. Use language and words that are understood by people.
4. Make the CS4 program itself more intuitive so people can actually get work finished without having to waste time.
Instructions that are full of undefined tech geek are worthless. Use language and words that are understood by people.
I understand what you are saying. You have obviously never been involved with technical writing or you would realise that highly complex technology requires technical documentation using accepted technical terms.
You can’t make it like a bedtime story for kiddies.
If the explanation of terms in the Help files is inadequate there are wonderful articles on digital imaging terminology available on the interweb thingy.
I smell the posse, they are a comin’ fer ya! A bunch of smelly irregulars if ever there was a bunch of smelly irregulars. Best you high tail it out of here, pardner, lessin you get a whif of ’em. They gots a ‘dobe bible in one hand and a lot of hooey in the other, and the smelly ones dont cares which gets hurled your way.
John Joslin- I agree and disagree with you. I have done technical writing- especially in the field of science. If I write a technical, or scientific, paper I am writing for my audience. For folks with advanced degrees in their field of expertise, there is nothing wrong with using highly technical words.
But the people who are using PS range from the geeks to average people. The trick for Adobe is to work to find a way to communicate to average people. I have no doubt that Adobe’s inability to properly explain how its product works is costing them market share to competitors.
Anyone remember the Apple story?- Why people were dumping IBM PCs for computers that had software that was intuitive and easy to use?
That wasn’t too long ago.
Newspapers are written at about a sixth grade level. Why? Because if the paper is written at a college level then most nitwits will not understand the articles- and that will result in fewer sales- diminished market share.
But isn’t it interesting that newspapers- with articles written at the sixth grade level can communicate important, and technical concepts? From global warming to politics- the news is conveyed.
Anybody who is a regular in this forum will be aware that, far from being an Adobe apologist, I am one of their most vociferous critics.
I didn’t defend the quality of Adobe’s documentation. Quite recently I was bemoaning the downward slide in the quality and accuracy of their manuals that started after Photoshop Version 6.0. What I said in this thread was "Why should they bother?".
Why should they bother indeed?
This has been the problem with Adobe products in recent times. They know they are the acknowledged market leader with most of their programs and there are not yet any viable alternatives of the same professional standard. Couple this with corporate executives, bean counters and marketeers who care more about schedules and the bottom line than they do about the product and you have the Adobe of today.
Photoshop is SO hard to learn. Well, yea. If it were easy everyone would be using it and there would be no need for our professional services. let me be absolutely honest here. I am not a highly educated person, not even close. When I developed an interest in photography I simply read every bit of information that was available. I’m pretty much self taught and, at times, my work may show that. At any rate, I’ve been able to make a living solely with photography for the last dozen years.
I started learning Photoshop at version 5.0. I knew nothing about it but I again read everything pertaining to it. I bought books that I found hard to comprehend. I even got "Photoshop for Dummies" which taught me enough of the basics to go back and understand the more technical books. Layers were, for me, the easiest part to learn. I still think layers are magical. It amazes me that I can move various parts in a photograph.
For a long time I would bring in a new layer from another file and then erase what I didn’t want. I made adjustments directly to layers. It was slow and I made many mistakes but I always accomplished what I wanted. Only in the last few years have I better understood Adjustment Layers and Masks. What an awaking! Learning something new in Photoshop is so cool. And the best part is we continue to learn more and more.
So yes, Photoshop is rather hard to learn. I think that is a good thing. But one must have the desire to learn.
I’m not defending Adobe here. I’m still fuming over CS and REactivation.
MAlaska, Photoshop CS4 is a very old application, that has evolved over the years, it is not the 11th full version, with two .5 versions. So its arsenal of functions grew with the years. Its target was professional photographers, or desktop publishing specialists. Over the years, many other audiences have been targeted. Therefore, many of the paradigms used may sound arcane, but do have a history. It is NOT an application that can be learned in one day/week. And I can say, after using it for more than 10 years, that I am still learning little tidbits of information. So, buckle up your belt, and enjoy the ride!
Layers appeared in Version 3, they offer a way to store different portions of the image in separate planes, allowing to be composited together, with transparency, or to be composed together with different methods of blending.
Also, what exactly are you trying to achieve: to place multiple instances of the sun in one image? merge all the images so that the color variations will be evened out? to have merged slices of the different positions of the sun?
Just goes to show if he hadn’t wrapped his question up in a rant he’d’ve probably had an answer and done the job by now. 🙂
Ed’s suggestion to use Photomerge sounds good if the variations in sky tone can be accommodated. Depending on the RAM and Scratch space he has, it may be better to merge the 15 shots in batches of 3 and then merge the resulting five.
I want to do something in Photoshop. I don’t know how to do it in Photoshop. I don’t want to take time to learn how to do it in Photoshop. Photoshop is stupid.
I want to use atoms and build the perfect woman. I don’t know how to take atoms and build the perfect woman. Women are stupid.
I believe stack modes are in the extended version of Photoshop. You could select all your layers at once, convert them to a smart object, then go to Layer-Smart Objects-Stack Mode and select Maximum. That might work, maybe with a combination of some masking and double-clicking on a layer to adjust the "blend if" sliders on "this layer". (alt-click on the blend if sliders to break them apart and have a smooth transition between the tones that are made visible) If you don’t have extended, you can try simply changing each layer mode to lighten or lighter colour, or possibly screen, and again making adjustments to what parts of each shot is made visible by use of masks and/or the blend if sliders.
Well maybe it just time for a new sheriff in town. Teach these gents a new paradigm.
We ain’t gents and we don’t use words like parry-dime.
Look at quickstart guides and dummies books. And don’t expect to become an overnight sensation with Photoshop. After a year or so of using it every day, you can consider yourself an advanced novice.
Q Photo- and others. Go back and read my post. The problem is not that I do not want to learn the nonsense that goes into making this image- it is that ADOBE is not doing its job to explain how its product works.
Maybe all those (aftermarket) books I see in the bookstore are defacto proof that Adobe does not know (or care) about what it is doing to consumers.
How incompetent is Adobe? Within their software package is a CD that has a video on how to use CS4. But it is only one short video on one subject. There are a bunch of other videos for other Adobe products I have no interest in. I am not making this up.
Then they direct us back to their web site to get the other videos about their product instead of just providing them within their expensive product. Again, Adobe- how many users have dial up internet and can’t access the info they need?
Simple (understandable) instructions are all I ever asked for from Adobe.
To this point I have made no further progress- despite what seems to be good advice posted here.
Anyone know how to get all the different images into one "layers" box? Is the termonology of "flattening" the way the multiple images are merged into one? Why not just call it "image merge"? Assuming this ever happens- is it better to zoom and crop all the images before they are merged together into one composition? If not, why?
PS- Part of my venting here is the hope that someone from Adobe might read this and get a clue and prevent others from having to go through this in the future.
They have a host of 3rd party professional authors and tutors all dying to make a buck with their books and videos; and it saves Adobe from having to pay more authors and instructors to do what they would have done themselves in the old days.
because if you think of your layers as being in a stack, the way they’re presented to you in the layers palette, then "flattening" means to flatten that stack down.
I think you just need to find a good glossary to help translate for you.
If you went into electrical engineering (or doctoring! ;)) as a complete novice, you wouldn’t expect to know all the technical terms. You also wouldn’t expect doctors or engineers to change their terminology – that’s been in use for years and years and is firmly agreed upon so that others in their profession can communicate effectively and know what each other are talking about – simply to allow non-doctors/engineers to understand.
To that end, I say again, go back to google as your glossary to help you understand and communicate effectively with your program and other image editing professionals.
For example… use the search terms (without the quotes):
"image editing"
and add another term like:
"layers"
and up pops a definition of "layers" as it relates to image editing.
In other words, you need to speak the language. Those already speaking it don’t need to change the language just because you or any novice doesn’t understand it.
I’ve resisted responding to this thread. The OP has installed on his machine one of the most amazing buckets of bits ever assembled by the human mind. The capabilities of this software are limited only by your imagination and the effort you are willing to invest in coaxing out the mysteries of this software.
This is a lifelong journey and it is a joy to discover and learn.
I think the problem here is that you want to know Photoshop without learning Photoshop.
I’ve been using it for about 14 years and there’s no too many days that go by that I don’t learn something new.
This isn’t on Adobe…it’s on you. Photoshop is not a toy, it’s a professional level application for which scores of books are available in addition to countless websites and video, both free and paid for.
Any professional tool, whether is be software or a table saw, is going to be sold with some assumptions.
If you look at all the material out there you’ll see that it’s quite impossible for Adobe to give you what you want. Photoshop is so many things to so many people that many of the books out there focus on only one aspect of the program.
If you want to learn it, then by all means, stick around. You’ve got some real experts here, ready and willing to help you out. I’ve been active in these forums for more years than I can remember but one thing I can assure you is that ranting at the regular contributors because you’re upset with the lack of materials included with the software isn’t going to endear you to anyone.
We are not Adobe, we are fellow users, who at one point were just like you…new to Photoshop.
At the risk of redundancy and becoming tedious I would like to second the remarks of Mr. Milbut. I am a (retired) ophthalmic surgeon. You could buy a device I often used called a vitrectomy machine and keep it in your kitchen. They are comparatively expensive in their area as Photoshop is in its area. It took me some time, measured in years, to master vitrectomy and if the truth is known, I could have learned even more. My early efforts fortunately were guided and overseen by one who had previously mastered the technique. More was at stake, clearly, than an electronic image. My point is that every field of endeavor has its learning curve. Kicking against the pricks does not help but study and patience do. As is widely recognized, doctors have their own argot, not always familiar to the laity. The same is true for lawyers, photographers and Photoshop gurus, etc.
When I first dove into Photoshop, I was enthralled with the possibilitieshaving grown up with a darkroom in my parents basement and a bit of a fan of photography (though a rather poor photographer.)
I’d dabbled a little bit at jobs I worked with versions 2.5 and 3.0, and bought my first version at 4.0
I read the entire help file and PDF manual, experimented with every tool, every option, every parameter, read as many tutorials as I could find online, bought magazines, bought books…played, and made 10,000 mistakes.
But I learned it, and I didn’t whine about not knowing the definition of something, or how it worked. I did whatever necessary to figure it out. The actual process of discovery and learning was a big part of the fun, and I looked forward to it with more zeal than just about anything I’d ever encountered in my life.
But it ALL started with the Help Files, the PDF manual, exploring and experimenting.
Hope your eye gizmo didn’t decide to up and quit working on a random basis, Logan’s Run/Farah Fawcett at the controls-style, or have a perpetual case of "update drivers" syndrome well after such drivers have been installed. Besides, we all know lasek surgery is 100% perfect even in the control of a second-rate amateur. I’ve know quite a few who see otherwise (make that, used to see).
Anyone know how to get all the different images into one "layers" box?
Have you tried drag-and-drop? There was also a mention here of a function called photomerge. Try it.
Is the termonology of "flattening" the way the multiple images are merged into one?
Yes, have you tried?
Why not just call it "image merge"?
Because there can be other functions that could fit under that name.
Assuming this ever happens- is it better to zoom and crop all the images before they are merged together into one composition? If not, why?
It depends what you intend to do. Do you intend to mask the images in the final composition, so that you can try the effect of revealing different portions? Then no. Is the part of the image that you intend to merge with another one just a small portion? Then yes.
Did you take a look at the links I provided, from the Adobe site?
MAlaska, First I hope to make it clear that I meant nothing malicious. I was using humor (I think) to make my point, something many of us do here. My main point is that if I can learn Photoshop then anyone can learn it.
That being said, I agree with you completely about the extra DVD. When I first saw it I ASSUMED that it was to give a detailed explanation of the newest features. Instead, it was basically a commercial for other adobe products. I understand your disappointment.
Please realize that many have joined this thread attempting to offer help and suggestions. The majority are here to learn and to help others. If you stick with it, and learn some of the wonders that Photoshop is capable of, you will be glad you did.
The list of truly knowledgeable people here is too long to, well, list here. Among them is dave milbut. Just as some people have problems with big words, dave has problems with big letters. It is evident that dave often forgets his meds. John Joslin is also very informative and helpful. He is best known as being the person responsible for the breakup of the Beatles.
Phos, Buko, Ed and Ho deserve mention, as does PEC. Verdict is still out on Expert Here.
As I stated before about my reading everything pertaining to Photoshop, that certainly includes this forum. Come back and learn. Q
First I hope to make it clear that I meant nothing malicious. I was using humor (I think) to make my point,
ditto. Q better much speakee me than. 🙂
Among them is dave milbut. Just as some people have problems with big words, dave has problems with big letters. It is evident that dave often forgets his meds.
😮 right after i say good things about your goodun wording?!! i usually leave off the caps to save electricity. i don’t pollute, because i give a hoot. 😉
MAlaska, I’d like to suggest that if your machine has limited RAM that you downsize them before experimenting with merging them. That will make the merging process, whichever one you try, go more quickly.
In experimenting with assembling the image- (still no luck) RAM continues to be a problem. Only 384 MB of RAM on the machine I have CS4 loaded on. I’ll try a RAM upgrade- at least 1 GB.
Do any of you have opinions on this issue? I’ve tried RAM purge, and that doesn’t do it. Does 1 GB RAM provide for reasonable performance?
The camera I am using is a 21MP 1DS Mark III- Reducing the image size(s) is possible, but then that starts to defeat the reason for getting the Mark III…
In desperation, I even tried to download the Adobe videos- no luck. Dial up just does not cut it here in my Alaska igloo. (The weather guys promise -40 to -50 soon).
512 MB is the minimum published system requirement. I’m surprised that CS4 runs at all on your machine. Even 1 GB is not going to help much with 21 MP images.
Whatever one might think about the instructions for using the program, the OP has no excuse for not understanding the system requirements on the product page!
* 1.8GHz or faster processor * Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 2 (Service Pack 3 recommended) or Windows Vista® Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise with Service Pack 1 (certified for 32-bit Windows XP and 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Vista) * 512MB of RAM (1GB recommended) * 1GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on flash-based storage devices) * 1,024×768 display (1,280×800 recommended) with 16-bit video card * Some GPU-accelerated features require graphics support for Shader Model 3.0 and OpenGL 2.0 * DVD-ROM drive * QuickTime 7.2 software required for multimedia features * Broadband Internet connection required for online services*
A minor observation now that I’ve stopped laughing my head off. A learning curve flattens in direct proportion to the amount of stress one is under. That is to say, when you’re under the gun, don’t expect to become a genius at something in twenty minutes. This applies to Photoshop and ah, French. Especially French.
Even in optimal circumstances – not one like this wherein you’re fighting your own tools i.e. your computer doesn’t have the oomph to carry the software – learning a program like Photoshop is going to be a cumulative experience like anything else. You need to allow yourself the stress-free environment to take the time to understand what the directions are and experiment with stuff that doesn’t make or break your career. Everyone here will tell you that we all learned by doing.
384MB of RAM isn’t enough for the OS, let alone Photoshop. Trying to do meaningful work on such a machine is kind of like digging a ditch with a teaspoon.
In experimenting with assembling the image- (still no luck) RAM continues to be a problem. Only 384 MB of RAM on the machine I have CS4 loaded on. I’ll try a RAM upgrade- at least 1 GB.
Do any of you have opinions on this issue? I’ve tried RAM purge, and that doesn’t do it. Does 1 GB RAM provide for reasonable performance? The camera I am using is a 21MP 1DS Mark III- Reducing the image size(s) is possible, but then that starts to defeat the reason for getting the Mark III…
that many megapixel camera will create huge files especially if used in many layers
your computer RAM is not even adequate for any Photoshop files unless you are only using small files for web use
You got a nice expensive camera but how OLD is that computer? you should at least have a P4 3.0 GHz or faster 1 GB RAM would be minimum 2 is better, 3-4 more ideal you also need scratch disc space on a second harddrive (or two more, removable can be used as well)
PS makes large temp files while you work to keep track of history and uses extra disc space to put them
you can ask for less steps of history (for undoing) to save RAM in preferences………… default is 20 steps a second drive for scratch must be selected under preferences and there is a slider to assign more percent of comp usage to PS
there is a way to change the window notification at bottom left of each image window (in CS at bottom of all windows) change it from file size to efficiency so you can see the performance as you work (little arrow>show>efficiency)
MAlaska, you are obviously an individual with great patience. I think if you bend your will to it, you will have a long and rewarding coexistence with Photoshop… and you will feel positively liberated when the new RAM is aboard.