Slashdot Mirror
New Photoshop Details Leaked
Odie writes "Oops. Looks like Adobe accidentally let slip the details of the next Photoshop version due on Friday. According to BetaNews, the next version, dubbed Photoshop CS2, is supposed to add several new features such as Image Warp and Vanishing Point, as well as changing around the file browser to allow users access to royalty-free images from five providers for use in their work.
The new version is due in May according to the press release which BetaNews saw."
I don't believe the screenshots, I bet they've all been photoshop'ed...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Yeah, but remember, it comes with many security updates.
So by Saturday it'll be all over the P2P networks.. not like anyone uses any more is it? I mean why use a pretty good image editing program when you can just steal one which has a simpler design (yet less useful add ons) and get into the Internet memes.
I like muppets.
What are the chances they'll make a linux version. I haven't gotten any versions past 6 to run with wine.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Oops. Looks like Adobe accidentally let slip the details of the next PhotoShop version due on Friday. According to BetaNews, the next version, dubbed PhotoShop CS2,
Let me be the first to correct the editor and say it's Photoshop, not PhotoShop.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
I hope the new version is out before a change to the $1 bill happens.
A tool known as Vanishing Point will allow the user to recolor and transform objects in an image without altering its perspective.
Maybe its just me, but I've never had a problem with the perspective on an object while I was modifying the color. Now, if I'm using the transform function, I probably do want to alter the perspective.
What does this tool do again?
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
I went to a Pro Photoshop conference a couple months back where Burt Monroy had a talk. He's an alpha tester for Adobe and people were asking about whether adobe was working on certain features.
One feature he mentioned that was a big one for the next version of photoshop, and something they were having a lot of trouble with, was Layer Filters. Much like the Adjustment Layer, you can apply a filter on a layer and turn the effects of the filter on and off. It's more than the LayerEffects because those are limited to drop shadows and glows and the like, where LayerFilters let you apply a blur or noise or even KPT and third-party filters.
I'm psyched about that. although, I feel that Photoshop is getting quite bloated. My favourite version of photoshop is still 5.5. Too bad it doesn't work in OSX. CS does have some nice features, though...
IllustratorCS is getting a bit bloated lately, too. Runs like crap on lower-end machines. Illustrator used to be the one adobe product that ran well even on older hardware (until version 9 with those Raster Effects).
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
The only thing this program can't do is make me a talented photographer.
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
Considering the time it takes to start the program (from clicking the icon to scanning plugins to open the window with picture), I think 5 days starting time for the next version isn't that bad.
Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks it a bit much when applications software costs more than the OS?
Then again, judging by how popular it is I guess it must be worth it to some people.
I really wish other media (sound, music, pictures) was as clear cut as software when it comes to free usage.
For example, if I wanted to write a piece of software and needed icons for it, I might be able to find some but rarly do you get any kind of guarentee that they won't turn around and sue you.
Point is, this feature is welcome as long as they are very explicit about *exactly* how you can use this material.
As long as it restricts loading of certain documents such as paper currency, I am not interested. Adobe is a tool.
The Kiss Pandas eat, shoot, and rock!!!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's depressing to see how many people will cough up half a grand on the next release of Photoshop every year or two, even though the new features are very small improvements. They complain constantly about product activation problems, but they don't even consider the idea of using a different product.
And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it, nevermind formed an opinion, nevermind see it as a cause for avoiding the company.
Use something else. Anything else. I've purchased no Adobe software in the past five years (except I discarded an OEM bundled thing that came with my camera). Unfortunately, companies like Microsoft and Adobe has reached a critical mass where they're immensely insulated from consumer backlash: consumers with apathy and ignorance far outspends the consumers with objections.
[
the announcement is this friday, not the actual new version of photoshop. that is due in may.
Does Photoshop fully support 16 bits per color yet? Before anyone complains, it's not for the extra colors, it's for the extra brightness levels some display devices can handle.
I do use the File Browser, find it useful, and don't like you thinking that just because it isn't important to you that no one else should have it either.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Will it come with a stop watch?
the details of the next PhotoShop version due on Friday... The new version is due in May...
So, wait. Is the new version due on Friday, or is it due in May? I'm seriously confused by this poorly worded sentence.
Will someone remind me what it is the Slashdot editors do?
You probably shouldn't click this.
But but what we really want to know is if it will run on Linux?
(Now, where is that Avery template for the $300 bill with Schwarezenegger on it?)
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I think it is called marketing and its goal is to create buzz...and /. bought it, hoook, line and sinker
Here is the original press link as linked by one of the comments on the article's page.
[alk]
php.net has the best documentation for php, it's free and easy. I guess I'm obligated to plug an editor like nano, vi, or whatever. This off topic so I'll stop there.
CS as in Creative Suite. CS = "8", CS2 = "9"
Deliriant isti Americani.
am i the only one who's excited about finally (after how many versions of the premier general purpose graphics program) getting a WYSIWYG font selector?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
PhotoShop CS2? Not a very creative name for this Creative Suite.
Brings new meaning to the word paintball.
Gentlemen, start your torrents!
They have a total monopoly in the professional image editing marketspace. There are no other products. Gimp (which I prefer in many cases) can't do half of the things a professional graphic artist needs, plus the UI is too different to efficiently switch. And when looking at photo editing, I havent' seen ANY product that has good RAW support other than Photoshop (and its support is mediocre at best).
Photoshop is a professional tool aimed at a professional market. $149 is nothing, and even the full retail price is a pittance compared to what professional users get out of it. Photoshop's a hell of a lot cheaper than assembling and maintaining a darkroom.
You can make $149 back in no time, not to mention it's chump change compared to printing equipment. For that matter, the Photoshop CS upgrade was $169, so CS2 is cheaper.
I appologize for abusing the thread, but can anyone recommend a decent, inexpensive or maybe free at all, Windows software for printing photos? All I want is cropping tool, borderless printing support (so I don't have to go thru all the "Page/printer setup" options every time), good noise remover (something like NeatImage built in), and some usual simple contrast, color cast, levels adjustment tools. Some basic organizer wouldn't hurt either. I checked PhotoShop Elements, but it's pig slow and totally unintuitive. Finding a "good" printing tool in the suite is a pain. EZPhotoPrint packaged with my Canon printer is kinda ok but lacks any image adjustment options and batch selection/reviewing is brain-damaged. Also the processing filters there ("Image optimizer" or something) result in totally wrong skintones. I presume it won't work with anything but Canon too. I just want something safe to recommend my friends/relatives and of course to use it myself. It's a frustration so far, I hate it when people argue that there are tons of software for Windows 'cos really most of it is crap, frankly. New photoshop is good and stuff for professionals I presume but something for the rest of us with digicams would've been nice. Will there be more user-friendly/faster/proper PS Elements?
I realize PS is still big with the Pro crowd, but there are more and more alternatives that make PS less and less relevant each passing year.
Hell, Adobe can't even make a version of their PDF reader that doesn't take 7 seconds on the fastest PC to load.
They make MS look like programming geniuses sometimes.
Usually the better deal is to upgrade the whole suite at once. The retail version of all the products together is $1,000, but you can get the upgrade for $550. That's a hell of a bargain for three world-class apps. (Acrobat is fine too, I suppose, but it's hardly in the same class.)
I agree, and I love the fact I can just type in php.net/functionname and it will get me what I want. And if It doesn't have what I thought it would have, it reverts to a search. Sweet! Now, if they could do a live tie-in to that data, it would be awesome because the PHP 4.1 reference they have in there now is severly lacking.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
If you say anything like that again we're going to awp you in the head.
Its free on the internet.
Of course, even at "free" there are many better alternatives for the home user.
Believe it or not, not every compound word belongs in CamelCase, even in the Age of teh Intarweb. It's written Photoshop.
This can be important. There was a very old desktop publishing package called "PublishIt". Many did call it "PubliShit".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
and sue the "leakers"?
Err, in this case, Adobe itself leaked! ahem!
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
The original story can be seen at the Neowin article here.
IANAPP: I Am Not A Photoshop Professional.
As powerful as Adobe software is, every time I look at their user interfaces, I feel as though I'm at the controls of an alien spaceship. "Kiptain! Eet's... Eet's... I don't know, Sar!"
More often than not, I end up firing the photon torpedoes at myself.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
What I've been waiting could best be described as Shake for stills. Many times I find myself wanting to use layer combining to create an mask channel, or use the same alpha channel as the mask for multiple layers (in ways that a masked layer group won't allow). Combine this with Photoshop's existing tools and the Filter Layers that have been alluded to and you'd have a really powerful compositing system. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be offering such an environment.
Special tools to remove blemishes and Redeye?
Photoshop porn edition? Make your models perfect
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
the worst thing about CS was that Alt-F-A did not do a File Save As. Man that pissed me off. The filter browser was nice, but not worth the upgrade. Unless there is something massivly impressive w/ CS2 I'm stilling with 7.
-Rick
The Gimp is free. I had some issues learning it. My previous preferred tools (before I moved to Linux) were CorelDraw and CorelPaint. I now find the Gimp quite good for my rather limited needs. My daughter, on the other hand, does some quite spectacular stuff with it. It's probably worth the effort.
gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
For a commercial product, $149. is pretty cheap. They also have special pricing for students.
"who make a shitload of money using it."
Yeah...pretty soon you'll save enough to get an apartment and move out of your mom's basement.
Dude. $40K/year is entry level money for people with any kind of skills these days.
Has Adobe fixed the numerous bugs and issues with Photoshop as well as actually made many (or any) of the features that they introduced since version 5 usable and production ready (versus just being useless eyecandy BS)?
Its all well and good that Adobe wants to crap out another version of Photoshop, but I have zero confidence that this version won't suck. Adobe is synonymous in my books with simply not caring about its users and releasing products and features that no one wants or needs or uses unless you are some warez monkey who wants to use filters to make cool art.
Sound like a plan?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
We know counterfeiters love it. What about others?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
The Reality Distortion Field made me do it!
I used to use the "SHEAR" tool in Deluxe Paint all the time (a PC app from 1988). Then when I was forced to switch up to Photoshop, they didn't have that Shear tool. (They had something called shear but it worked like the "SKEW" tool instead. There was NO way to do a circular bend on image selections!)
I'm still using version 6 which STILL has no bending of images.
Do you think CS2 will finally have it?!
Don't complain about Photoshop's price. It really is dirt cheap compared to other professional grade applications. If you want something cheaper, use The Gimp. It's available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
Photoshop Source!
Are these compelling features to anybody? It seems to me like Photoshop is a product that's just reached the limit of being able to produce worthwhile upgrades. I'm sure a lot of these features are nice, but come on. Photoshop 6 does the job just fine. Version 7 is better, but a couple hundred dollars better? The same goes for CS and now CS2. I applaud adobe for making what is, to my mind, one of the most usable pieces of software ever given complexity of the job it does, but you've got to let your customers off the hamster wheel upgrade cycle at some point... don't you?
I know it's off-topic, but it's still funny.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I can't find any details on this. Does anyone know if the next version of Photoshop will be taking advantage of CoreImage on Macs? OpenGL-accelerated filters would help a lot on my Powerbook.
As long as you remember, "the pen is mightier than the sword". Forgetting the space after "pen" can be even mightier.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
next it will be checking email
when will companies "get it" i dont want fucking internet access in every application, there is no need for an image editor to even have tcp facilities ! and they still want to bundle their web shite into the app which is just an excuse to sell YOU as a resource to their "partners"
...And I just got done downloading CS...
... does it run ON Linux? /me ducks HAR HAR
Some of the RAW features are pretty compelling. For instance the ability to more easily batch process RAW files without the main executable being loaded can be pretty useful. And the ability to crop and strighten an image before you even do the raw processing is really nice since it lets you keep the RAW file around as the canonical imagine instead of a TIFF file with rotation and cropping applied.
For anyone not using RAW images though I would have to say the changes sound more marginal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Okay so I haven't read TFA yet, but... First they're leaked (title), and then it's from a press release?? Huh?
screen
Now this is real cool stuff. And they don't make it a secret. Just download a recent CVS snapshot and give it a try.
Dude. $599/day for 220 working days a year is over $131k/year; math not your best subject?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Your math is lacking.
Assume a full days billing is $600. (he claims to make more).
$600 dollars per day * 5 days per week * 52 weeks per year is $235000 dollars/year.
I question whether he actually makes a quarter million dollars a year, but if taken at face value its more than $40k/year.
This is the version I've been waiting for. You know, the one where you can take a grainy picture of a person standing two blocks away and zoom in to create an 11x14 enlargement of the person's index fingerprint. Come on Adobe!
Once again, Adobe trots out some useless eye candy for their bloated whale, Photoshop. When will people learn that the next wave, the cutting edge is Gimp? Honestly, if you can't do it in Gimp, is it worth doing?
Looks like the only thing this program can't do is make coffe. But me for instanse don't need all these new features since i'm not a Photo junky. And it sure aint cheap, so i guess i'll stay with GIMP or Paintshop Pro.
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
Yeah, but I'd like to run transcode, which is a notoriously complex and bleeding-edge piece of software. And I don't want to wait a year to run software which is available now.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Nobody spends half a grand on the new version of Photoshop -- Adobe has offered upgrades forever and ever amen, at under $200. CS was a $169 upgrade. CS2 will reportedly by a $149 upgrade. Neither of those is anywhere near "half a grand."
That said, it's unlikely anyone using Photoshop professionally is "coughing up" anything, anyway. You're talking about the kinds of people spending $3000 on printers, $2000 for the cheapest of camera bodies, and easily the full price of Photoshop on a single lens... full retail is a pittance and the upgrade price is mere pocket change. A number of people using Photoshop are using it to process images from digital medium-format backs that their manufacturers only lease, not sell, because they're so ungodly expensive.
What's a token feature and a very small improvement to you can be a vast timesaver for the people who need it. Sure, I don't need the healing brush or layer comps, but they sure do make it easier and faster.
And use something else -- What? An airbrush and an Xacto? There's nothing on the market to compare to Adobe Photoshop.
Your logic is lacking. Your assume he works every day, most free lance artists do not. Artists who like job security are the ones who lack high salary. Now, I'm not a artist, but my consulting fee starts at $150/hr. If I made that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 days a year. I be pretty well off, but I don't. I average between 10-15 billable hours a week. I don't work 52 weeks a year either. I block in weeks where I know its going to be slow and take the time off.
When you freelance, it's pretty stupid to take on enough work to work everyday, because some project will by the way side this way and you might get blacklisted from any future work from the companies ball you dropped.
When you freelance you also pay your own health insurance and other work expenses.
Most people who think that good photographs are created in Photoshop are simply lousy photographers. If you know your craft, you'll need to do very little work in a photo editor.
God, I get so sick of this line of thinking. Why was it valid for a photographer like Ansel Adams to use extensive darkroom manipulation to get a great print, yet somehow unacceptable for a modern photographer to use Photoshop in much the same way? I hate to break it to you, but I think Ansel Adams would have LOVED Photoshop.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
I'm sure they'd love to have their products run on Linux
They should be ecstatic then! Photoshop 7.0 runs perfectly on Linux under a basic unmodified Wine installation, sans its Save-for-Web feature.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Come on guys, think a little here: Factor in some vacation, holidays and do the math right, and you end up with $130k that he supposedly bills each year. From that, take away cost of equipment, insurance, all sorts of taxes etc., and his income might end up being lower than that of many slashdot reading nerds. Nothing to get all riled up about.
That marketing trick is SO old now.
I don't suppose there's any chance for an interface with, say, Ourmedia or the Wikimedia Commons as an image provider, is there? There's lots of royalty-free, Creative Commons/GFDL-or-better stuff to be had there, of various grades of quality.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Despite the name, Photoshop is not only used for photo manipulation. I don't even own a digital camera and I use Photoshop extensively in the creation of textures for video games, abstract art, graphic design (as in logos and banners and such), interface design, and so forth. For all of these things, Photoshop is wonderful, and what you probably consider "gimmicks" in the realm of photo manipulation are indisposable tools for some of the things that I do.
All that said, I could certainly think up ways to redesign the interface from scratch a lot better, since I generally don't like monolithic apps like this on principle; but given that that's the paradigm we're working in, with an app-centric monolithic world, I think Photoshop does a pretty decent job of what it does.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Wait, since when is there an AP course in "Computer Graphics/Advanced Comp Graphics"? I remember there being an AP computer science course, but I couldn't take it because my school didn't offer computer science; our shiny new Pentium labs were solely for learning typing.
Of course, that was six years ago. Goddamn, I'm old.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing Adobe should be releasing with CS2 is fixing the serious memory bugs they introduced in CS on the PC. Those who use Photoshop for large files (or even medium files) and have used both version 7 and CS know what I'm talking about. CS is much slower when you open more than an image or two. Scratch space usage for even a small couple MB file went from a few MB to nearly a GB.
I and others have complained to Adobe about this. They kind of acknowledge it but don't seem particularly concerned. I'm not sure anyone at Adobe actually uses the program on the PC or they would be going nuts too.
Also, lets hope they have 64-bit support for WinXP-64.
You're right, I didn't factor in the freelance aspect of it all and assumed a full schedule which brings the salary expectations into a more normal realm. I was mostly taking offense at the remark that he wasn't making even the $40k starting salary. He obviously is if he can keep even a little busy with freelance work at those rates.
$600/day is cheap for a good graphic designer or illustrator. I write web applications, my rate is approx $1100/day (well, £550 as I'm in the UK).
Charge out price salary.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Since when is Photoshop releasing their new product considered "news"? Maybe if it contains some features that track the images we make or something like that-- but why not a post on how you can lower your home heating bill by switching to oil heat or maybe some great v1agr4!
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Don't worry, there will be a new "Enhance" menu. It will have sub-items "zoom in on that", "Can you see what's behind that", "What is that a reflection?" and "Clear that up". These commands only work if someone is looking over your shoulder, never alone. It has been rumored that there will be a "run through APHIS" command, but this may be disabled in the consumer edition. Myself, I would rather add "Undo stupid changes" to Edit, but that's just me.
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
Adobe started putting product activation (as did Macromedia) into their stuff with CS, I believe. Mainly Photoshop for Windows. Maybe Acrobat too.
Well, I just rebuilt my system last night and realized that, unlike Macromedia's software suite, I can't transfer the activation to new hardware without going through the phone call rigamarole. Or so I thought. Adobe didn't follow Macromedia's lead until Acrobat 7, I think, so I was left calling and asking friggin' permission to move my installation to a completely new computer.
In the end, I re-activated on a completely different set of hardware via the Internet anyway. Don't know if was a grace re-activation or what, but I wonder if it'll happen again like that. Perhaps I'll be calling after the next upgrade.
I hope this becomes standard fare for software requiring product activation. I can't say if it's a necessary evil or just plain evil, but for God's sake make it easy to upgrade to a new machine.
IronChefMorimoto
According to Think Secret, Illustrator CS2 is being re-compiled as a Mach-O application, which should result in some much needed performance advantages.
... that small companies like http://www.softmaker.de/product.htm can do it. They have so much more resources.
Wait...
Have you ever tried using anything else? Or are you just blindly chanting the tune of your local Abobe salesman?
I would argue, that if you feel you need a certain program to be creative. Your not really that creative at all, I for one have never heard two artist discussing who has the best brush.
And it actually seem to me, that most good graphics artist doesn't seem to care a flying f**** what program they use.
For example, say you worked on the last Potter movie and you was placed before one of the Cinepaint boxes (a gimp fork for video) would you then be forced to tell your boss you couldn't make the wanted effect/retouching because you can't be creative without Photoshop?
The manuals were definitely written by aliens. From a Douglas Adams novel.
They actually had repeating loops:
Step 6 on page 80 sends you back to step 2 on the original page. Endless loop, and you still don't know what the hell is going on.
Photoshop took me over three months to figure out enough just to do my job, and another year before I was confident with the lesser used aspects of it. But once you nail down the Ass-Hat dialect of Martian the guys at Adobe use, it's a simple enough program.
-FL
The transcription to Latin glyphs is Sklyarov, even though it's an uncommon construct in English. It's pronounced just like that: Skl - ya - rov.
It's not spelled Skylarov, even if that looks better in English.
"Photoshop is quite analogous to Windows: the company was not the first to produce such a product, and their product absolutely sucked when it first came out. Then, they spent years incorporating suggestions from end users, adding features, and becoming a de-facto standard platform for plug-ins. Now, every Photoshop monkey incorrectly thinks that Adobe invented it all. Everybody gets trained on Photoshop and they think anything else is bad. And most of the alternatives have disappeared from the market."
The phrase you're looking for is "Darwinistic Evolution".
The edumacated way to say it is 'biasednessitude'. Or you could just say 'bias'.
I have PS CS Mac, and I don't see how they expect me to pony up the dough for the upgrade, even though their upgrades are cheap. I'm maybe using 20% of the features right now, and I absolutely don't feel constrained by anything except their RAW converter. But it's unlikely that it will significantly improve, and even if it does, I don't think it will exceed the image quality offered by well known market leaders (Capture One for example). I think a lot of designers will think the same way. Watch Adobe try to pull the same trick as the one Microsoft attempted to pull - subscriptions. Pay us $300 a year and you'll get a new version of photoshop every time it comes out. Needless to say, it's not gonna work. I know designers who are still using PS 3.
Man, that drives me crazy! STOP trying to think FOR me, dammit! I don't want ANY auto features if I can't switch them off. I know how big I want my work window, so stop changing it according to some ill-inspired whim of whatever chief Adobe designer happened to be sprouting 'decisions' that week.
If I wanted my machine to treat me like a child, I'd use safety-scissors, mittens would dangle on strings from the sleeves of my winter coat, my Mom would still dress me and I'd have bought an Apple.
-FL
Free, dead-brain simple, and with nice features such as Gmail and Moz-Thunderbird integration, and order prints online trough kodak. Installed for my mom, and she loved it. http://www.picasa2.com/
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
The 2 gig limit sucks and it has for years, it is simply not enough for Photoshop and a majority of my apps. I'm still using PS7. I didn't bother upgrading to CS in hopes that Adobe would release a 64-bit version soon. I won't bother with CS2 either if it doesn't suppor it.
Microsoft Research is working on technologies that can recognize parts of a photograph and find others that contain that same element in a 'fuzzy' way. In other words, I want to find, out of my 10,000+ raw images, all sunsets, or all photos with a boat in them. I want to be able to circle the face of a person in a photo and have the software find all other pictures that contain that same face. With digital photography exploding, the reasoning is that the typical photographer will have thousands of pictures stored, and more serious photographers may have 100,000+ photos stored. Sorting and categorizing them is now growing beyond human ability. The Photoshop CS keyword capability is OK, but just doesn't scale for lazy (me) professional photographers. The next upgrade should/must start applying serious AI capabilities to allow me to maintain and use the thousands and thousands of photographs that I will stored. I agree with others here, the editing capabilities for digital photographs in CS are already well beyond the weekend photographer. I work with CS 4+ hours a day with digital photographs and I find that I use a pretty specific set of functions and 3rd party filters. The rest is noise, or of use on extremely limited situations. What I want is for the computer/software to step up and perform more of the mundane work in the workflow. They have to start with organizing my work. This is a space where Photoshop/Adobe may be vulnerable to Microsoft.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
I see plenty of bitching about Photoshop and it's "monkey" users, but what I DON'T see is what parent thinks is better. Please provide that information/opinion and un-troll if you will.
There are two must-have upgrade reasons to get PS CS 2:
1. 64-bit for performance and file size
2. To add your camera if you have a new one.
The first, 64-bit, is noticably missing from PS CS 2. Adobe is saying that CS2 will "prepare for 64-bit" -- whatever that means -- but that it is still a 32-bit app.
The second, is to add support for new cameras that have come out that were not included in the last RAW plug-in. The new Nikon D2X is notably in the list.
One day, "The" Gimp may be passable as a user friendly professional grade tool (and I think it WILL reach that point), but it's not their yet. For all-around usability and functionality, there are still man tools out there that are cheaper (MUCH) than Photoshop with a MUCH lower learning curve than "The" Gimp.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
...I love how people who advocate civil disobedience can't be bothered to learn about the policies behind extra-territorial jurisdiction. If an American company is harmed by activity outside the borders of the USA, the person responsible for the harm is most likely liable for a violation of US law (and/or an actionable civil claim) within the USA, regardless of where the original act causing the harm took place. In criminal cases, the ability of the USA to have the defendant extradited will depend on America's legal and political relationship with the country where the harming took place (or the country where the defendant is located, if different). Similarly, if the defendant sets foot in the USA while the crime is still punishable (or the civil claims are still actionable), there will certainly be adequate jurisdiction for holding that person accountable. I don't see what's so difficult about this, unless you are categorically opposed to protecting corporate interests under the law. If you are opposed to all corporate interests, then you are an f-ing moron.
The name was "Publish-It!" with hyphen and exclamation point.
-- Boycott Shell
Well, isn't this a telltale sign that Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) will be released any day now?
I cannot ever remember a major Mac OS upgrade without an accompanying PhotoShop upgrade.
I call B.S. on most of the "Photoshop is the King! GIMP sucks." posts. Adobe has created and sustains a monopoly market for image-editing software. GIMP is different and not as feature-filled as Photoshop, but it has very many features that would more than satisfy many Photoshop users. Here's how Adobe sustains their monopoly.
1. Low-Price
Adobe relies on their software getting cracked so mom-and-pop consumers will purchase the upgrade version to make themselves feel better. The cracked versions prevent any competitor from using a low-price strategy.
Score- Adobe 1 Non-Adobe 0
2. Groupthink
_Many_ Photoshop consumers would find the GIMP to be more image-editor than they need. The subset of users that actually need some of the features that only Photoshop has is vocal. They're experts in PhotoshopSpeak after all and that makes them sound even more like experts too.
Score- Adobe 2 Non-Adobe 0
Usability
The Adobe groupthinkers had to learn Photoshop's UI. Photoshop is not an "easy" UI but neither is GIMP. Adobe has patents protecting their UI features too. So their UI will be promoted and protected vigorously.
Score- Adobe 2 Non-Adobe 0
3. Purchase or Destroy
Adobe propels the Photoshop myth with their capacity to buy or adjudicate their viable competitors into oblivion. Macromedia was the closest thing Adobe had to a competitor. When Macromedia market captialization started to be on par with Adobe's, that's when Adobe took them to court under the guise of patent enforcement and cut Macromedia down to size. (bonus point for this)
Score- Adobe 4 Non-Adobe 0
Adobe Wins! Now I'll go back to my Adobe groupthinking ways. GIMP Sucks! I feel better now...
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Those of us who know how to use a camera, lights, and studio set up know this. I was asking about the product. If you don't have a darkroom to do your dodge/burn then guess what you get to use after you've scanned your negs - Photoshop. Answer the question at hand.
Or still the 2GB limit?
This hints at a debate I've had with several people about whether there exists any distinction between "traditional" art, and today's digital counterpart. One aspect of traditional art that makes it what it is, is the very real and tangible "co-mingling" of the medium, and the artist's own hands. This might be less true for a photographic image than it is for say, a painting or sculpture, but in many cases it does require a fair degree of "coaxing" the hardware to get the results you're after.
While some might argue that this is still true with digital imaging, I'd say that the whole process has a new layer of abstraction that removes the artist one step away from the medium itself. With digital, you're dealing with bits, with painting, and photography, and sculpture, you're dealing with a very real level of phyical interaction that just isn't there with digital media.
Of course, you are correct. I suck. All film photographers that have ever used a darkroom for anything other than processing suck. Weston sucked. Adams sucked. Anyone that that makes slight adjustments to their digital view camera shots sucks. Everyone in the world that is a professional photographer and does any post-production sucks. You are correct. We are wrong suck. Sure would be nice to as talented as you and *never* touch any photo, digital or analog, that comes straight from the camera. Sucks to be the crappy rest-of-the-world-but-you that we are. Now, go on and take your perfect shots, guy.
Some people have had good luck with Illustrator and Photoshop on Mac OS X, but let me tell you about my experience:
Illustrator 8 and Photoshop 6 ran great on Mac OS 9. In fact, they were some of the most stable applications I used on the "classic" Mac OS.
Now I'm running Mac OS X, along with Illustrator CS and Photoshop CS. But get this... all of my other applications have been rock solid, but the new Adobe apps have been crashing at least once a week.
Hmm...
Adobe sued Sklyarov. Adobe are supposed to 'evil'. Now let's see if they sue the people who leaked the information. Like this another company that we know.
- Disney studios
This hints at a debate I've had with several people about whether there exists any distinction between "traditional" art, and today's digital counterpart. One aspect of traditional art that makes it what it is, is the very real and tangible "co-mingling" of the medium, and the artist's own hands. This might be less true for a photographic image than it is for say, a painting or sculpture, but in many cases it does require a fair degree of "coaxing" the hardware to get the results you're after.
While some might argue that this is still true with digital imaging, I'd say that the whole process has a new layer of abstraction that removes the artist one step away from the medium itself. With digital, you're dealing with bits, with painting, and photography, and sculpture, you're dealing with a very real level of phyical interaction that just isn't there with digital media.
This whole argument seems artbitrary and ultimately pointless. If it looks good hainging on my wall, I don't care much how it was created. Unless there are lingering odors.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
I have PS CS Mac and PS 5.5 installed on the same machine. (dual g5 w/ 2g ram)
.* Especially for saving biggish files. Oh, and running 5.5 in Classic gives me windowshading and borders around windows- neither of which are in CS. I can NOT work with minimizing to the dock- it shoots my workflow in the face. The transform tool pisses me off as well- I can see how it might be an "improvement", but gawd is it annoying (being used to the old one). The draw speed of the crap CS does with the pen tool is pathetically slow- I take a huge speed hit doing path traces in CS, when I can do 'em lickety split in 5.5. Realtime fill isn't really a useful feature for me, thanks.
I use PS 5.5 in Classic for hours every single day. It's so much faster than CS for so many things it's not even funny. I need the way it handles type, I totally HATE the interface changes in CS, Finder takes care of everything I'd need the file browser for... and man, CS is SLOW
And is it just me, or does Photoshop get more and more and more of Illustrator's features with every version? Is Adobe merging the apps or what? o_O
Problem is, 5.5 fits my workflow so damned well that the "changes" introduced with 6 and up aren't improvements, they're extremely compelling arguments NOT to upgrade. I can't see Adove rolling back features any time soon, so it looks like I'll be using Classic until Apple drops support for it.
About the only thing I've needed it for was the one time I screwed up and ran over the 99-layer limit of 5.5. Had to open the file in CS and optimize it before passing it back.
I've had similar problems with "improvements" to Illustrator and Microsoft office. The end result? I'm using modern hardware to run Photoshop 5.5, Illustrator 8, and Office 98.... and they're all a hell of a lot faster than their OS X equivalents (especially office), and they do everything I need. Nice to be running them on an OS that doesn't go down a few times a day that has a command line and a modern browser.
* Slow but it does a better job of talking to the OS. I spend a good amount of time in Photoshop 5.5 waiting for it to finish crapping its pants on a swap operation- I gladly put up with my time losses on swap in exchange for the ability to run 5.5 at very near the Speed Of Thought - something that CS just will NOT allow me to do.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I put text in my project, then select the text object and click the "font selector" box. Up and down arrows thus can scroll through all my fonts, allowing me to see the different looks with all my settings, effects, and layers, etc.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Thanks.
-FL
Good lord, the spelling and grammar mistakes! Sorry.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You must say "The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop®"
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ikpkIo53mrMJ:ww w.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200 404/040405Photoshop.html+photoshop+cs2+mac&hl=en&c lient=safari
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
Sure, you can get a good image out of the camera. But you can do a TON more in post processing.
g es .shtml
For B&W photography, you use burning, dodging, bleaching, and a whole host of darkroom tricks. For digital (or slides!) you use Photoshop. Most of the pro art photographers I talk to shoot medium format and scan it in on a $100K scanner, then take to it in Photoshop.
I read an article on the Luminous Landscape just today that explained someone's workflow (as fine art), he took WEEKS to get the image perfect:
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-ima
Photoshop can't make a bad photo good, but it can make an adequate or good photo GREAT.
As for other packages, I don't know. It's not worth my time to try something else, and tools like the RAW converter make so many new things possible... no way I'm gonna wait for some Linux coder to get around to a RAW plug-in that's professional quality, sorry.
Photoshop is big and bloated and pretty slow in my use, but it's certainly CAPABLE.
Makes a huge difference for interaction with digital cameras. Digital has come VERY far in the 2 years since CS was released. The RAW plug-in is pretty good (note the plug-in was $$$ with PS 7, and is bundled with CS, so that's a big deal), but the file browser in CS is still pretty clunky (I export the cache, and it comes to a crawl -- why should I need to manually export any time I do anything anyway?).
I'll check it out but very likely upgrade. There are certainly some worthwhile features, and it's not like it's some bullcrap forced upgrade program like Intuits. "New videos! $69.95!!!"
I've not used any version of Photoshop for quite a while. I'm hearing that it has many high end features that the Gimp doesn't have that might be useful to professionals. Other than that I think the difference is one of which interface you're accustomed to. I suspect that most people wouldn't have enough use for Photoshop's extra functionality to want to pay the difference in price. Unless you're really in need of those features, (you're a professional) you should probably just take time to get used to the Gimp. It may have more capabilities than you realize with all of the plugins that are available.
It is constantly improving.
SRR
The website penismightier... I think it's supposed to be PenIsMightier, but I always read it the other way for some reason...
Clever signature text goes here.
I don't see why Adobe is making a new name for something that isn't even that much of an upgrade. I understand the price of the upgrade, after all what they have included is very beneficial, but I don't understand why they couldn't just have a patch that people could either download or order to have on a CD. They could still charge the same amount and wouldn't have to worry about changing names from CS to CS2. I think it'd be a lot easier than just making an entire new box set and having a brand new piece of software out on the market. This is just my opinion though.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
1) Better 16-bit color support. Currently only a small set of filters can be applied to a 16-bit image, the rest require 8-bit conversion.
2) Better integration of the Camera Raw plugin into the existing product. Why can't we just import raw images as 16-bit from the File menu and then enhance them using filters? No-one uses the brightness, contrast and sharpness settings in Camera Raw anyway.
3) Move Camera Raw filters such as color noise reduction, luminance noise reduction and vignetting correction into the filter menu (see above).
4) Improve the noise reduction filters. The luminance noise reduction filter is too weak and the color noise reduction filter is too strong.
5) Increase the feathering limit past 250px.
6) Fix those annoying "pure virtual function call" exceptions. I've seen this a number of times when using actions.
Adobe is run by Marians.
:)
Marians
Hey now, leave the Catholics out of this, it's the day after Easter you know
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
I was just looking at some of theese posts. Iknow most of ya'all are Pee See folks. How many of ya falks have seriously considered using a mac. If ya'al hate MS as much as you do why not? MOLE is "good enough" 60% of the time. Yellow dog while not as seeped in political turmoil as Debian is respictable in that it installs, and many things work. Plus photoshop mac is restable fast. OS 9 is a champ for speed. and it works period.
does QFX have a "better than bicubic" interpolation algorithm?
Ron Scott had one in his qpr program
who's sounding like a idiot.
I haven't said ONE think that could lead you to conclude that I argue that working knowledge is bad.
What I've been arguing from the start, is IF YOU NEED ONE APPLICATION TO BE CREATIVE AND CANT WORK IN ANYTHING ELSE. YOUR NOT MUCH OF AN ARTIST.
And we seem to agree, but please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Or please inform me, exactly where I said that knowing to use any given application is a bad thing..
Jeees..
Pixar looks for individuals who are adept at working with natural media, not some kid who took a class or two in Photoshop in high school.
That is exactly what I've been arguing, that artist are defined by their skills. I even repied this to you earlier: "The primary skills that defines a artist, are not what tools he's certified in. Its his artistic vision and style that defines him as an artist." (from one of the previous replies I've made)
If you believe for an instance they don't want their character riggers, animators, and lighting designers to know industry standard software you're an idiot
Yes.. very true, but why this turn in the discussion? You might as well have argued I was a idiot if i still belived in stanta or thought the moon is made of cheese, I completely fail to see where you got the impression that i was trying to argue such BS.
Please quote me, what did i write that lead you to this reply?
Pixar is also in a unique position where they have developers write most of the software they use in-house. You can't learn how to use Pixar Animation Studio 1.0 (or whatever they cll it) simply because no one outside Pixar has access to it.
I will still argue that most graphics houses, doing inhouse development or not, will prefer a artist that doesn't need certain apps to function. Ofcourse, it preferable to get a good artist with experince in the tools being used. Thats common sence, but if the tools are the artist then I doubt that artist will get any good job in the business.
Graphic Designers are similar. Many jobs require you to know a handful of applications so you can get up to speed quickly but what they really look for in a designer is the ability to understand graphic communication, composition, and color theory.
That's bacially what I've been saying, the most important thing is artist skills. Not what tools that are used to express them with, ofcourse it will give you an edge if you know the tools that are used in the business. I just think they are less important, than the actual artistic skills.
Yeah, Im sure Kleenex and Xerox would agree. Sorry sucka, thats how the ball bounces. I would love to see Adobe try to sue someone on this. Then watch as the courts slam them (in all its irony) stating that Photoshop is so popular, its name has become part of the lexicon of people world wide. Basically, DEAL WITH IT!
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?