Slashdot Mirror


20 Years of Photoshop

benwiggy writes "Photoshop turned 20 on 10th February 2010. Here's an excellent history, including how the Knoll family created one of the biggest apps of all time. The article also has screenshots of the workspace through the versions."

289 comments

  1. So good it's a verb by pwnies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.
    That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things. Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).

    1. Re:So good it's a verb by lambent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's unlikely to ever happen, as that would require a complete rewrite of the entire codebase. there's so much cruft in photoshop, i don't know anyone who would even be willing to say it's even possible.

      that being said, i think it probably needs a good overhaul (organic growth over 20 years can't be pretty to maintain), and i'd pay a lot for a solid *NIX port.

    2. Re:So good it's a verb by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Careful what you ask for, you might get it. CS 4 is enormously bloated, slow, powerful. Two of those adjectives are not complements. Besides, if Adobe did it, you would have some measure of the annoying and bug strewn activation code that infests their products.

      I'm not sure I would go there....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.
      That said, spread some lovin' over to the linux side of things. Right now that's the only thing that's keeping me from using linux as my main OS (using win7 right now).


      IIRC, several years ago, Disney paid a decent amount to the CodeWeavers folks to ensure that Photoshop ran correctly under CrossOver Office. No idea what the current status is, but I'd think a PS version or two back should work fine for nearly anything you'd need to do.

    4. Re:So good it's a verb by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      A verb? It’s worse. What I’ve seen:

      Photoshop -> to photoshop / photoshopped -> to ’shop / shopped -> to shoop -> and then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yjhHdDjYo

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:So good it's a verb by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      *NIX port?

      I think it's funny how much attention is paid to the Windows version!

      Does anyone know why there are so many Windows screencaps in the cited article?

      It's not like Windows 98 was the dominant platform in art departments and pre-press operations.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    6. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Photoshop runs under win32, OS X (Carbon) and OS X (Cocoa). In the past it's run under Irix. Recent versions look like ass because they use an abstraction layer (and flash) for the UI. If they wanted a linux version, it would not require a total rewrite. It would, however, look like ass.

    7. Re:So good it's a verb by pwnies · · Score: 1

      Not really. I've ran CS and CS2 under wine before, and it simply doesn't have the performance that the native ones have. In my case, I'm doing editing on images that are often times 12000x12000px, often times with over 100 layers. For simple edits, it's fine. But for larger projects it just cant handle it.

    8. Re:So good it's a verb by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

      that being said, i think it probably needs a good overhaul (organic growth over 20 years can't be pretty to maintain)

      you think 20 years is bad? You've got a few billion years of very organic growth in your own codebase, and it practically maintains itself, no overhauls required.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    9. Re:So good it's a verb by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why I've held on to my copy of PS6. Works great on lower end systems, and still has all of the useful tools.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    10. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Come on, I really don't get why Adobe does not finance Wine support for its products. Shouldn't be too expensive. The advantage of Linux is that it runs on super-computers.

    11. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I wish the free software alternative wasn't such a GIMP.

      [no offense intended, meant in the Pulp Fiction sense]

    12. Re:So good it's a verb by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Too many people think of wine as an emulator even though it's right in the name that it is not. Compiled to winelib is no different than compiling to gtk or qt.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:So good it's a verb by Lostlander · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the original code was well optimized we've only been messing with the codebase for the last few hundred years.

    14. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:So good it's a verb by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Because it's not like art departments and pre-press operations were the dominant market for Photoshop.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    16. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      The fact that there's any need for Adobe to support Wine says more about Wine than Adobe.

    17. Re:So good it's a verb by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      There was a Solaris version, so an X11 based Unix version (as opposed to a Quartz based Unix version) is not so far fetched.

    18. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      What I mean is: Here are the current Adobe results for Wine AppDb and here the Wine wiki. Wine developers do not specialise on Adobe products and have no access to the source code. It is just a matter of investment to kill the Adobe bugs and get platinum rating for the applications. And then you can really use Linux powered clusters and workstations for rendering. I mean, Windows machines have more limitations for professionals. In the high end production environment you need really fast machines with huge storage capacity. Costs do not really matter. It is difficult to buy a 30 000$ PC but having a high end video processing machine with Adobe tools would be very useful. Whether it is 400 000$ per work station hardware does not really matter when your graphics specialists get more productive. Linux virtually runs on each and every machine out there.

    19. Re:So good it's a verb by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      that being said, i think it probably needs a good overhaul (organic growth over 20 years can't be pretty to maintain)

      you think 20 years is bad? You've got a few billion years of very organic growth in your own codebase, and it practically maintains itself, no overhauls required.

      If I could afford to randomly modify my software and kill any iterations which crash/displease me a few billion times my code would be "self sustaining" too.

    20. Re:So good it's a verb by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What other software has become a verb? Most archive formats have been verbed, zip, rar, etc. Grep, of course, is a verb. If networked software counts, Google would be one. Blast (from NCBI) is often used as a verb too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:So good it's a verb by johny42 · · Score: 1

      i'd pay a lot for a solid *NIX port.

      Mac OS X is a UNIX, it shouldn't be that hard to port Photoshop to Linux and other variants. The market must be really small if they haven't done it yet.

    22. Re:So good it's a verb by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X can run UNIX applications, however it can also run a lot of other stuff that is totally incompatible with UNIX. There's nothing about it running on Mac OS X that makes it any easier to port it to UNIX.

    23. Re:So good it's a verb by annex1 · · Score: 1

      Recently Adobe and Apple have been an odds. I doubt that factors in to this article though. Interestingly enough, the "about" screens in the article seem to suggest that the various versions, up to 5.0 were being run on a PowerPC. Perhaps the author has blended provided Apple about screens and windows UI screens? I wouldn't say the article focused on the Windows version anyway. That would be an assumption if you had only looked at the pretty pictures. To read the article, they is very little mention of platform, except where necessary to build the history of the product.

    24. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Development is paid by those who see a business opportunity or are otherwise capable. Adobe applications are extremely complex, so it would be expensive to start support from scratch but now it looks like Wine development grows into something reasonable. Developer time is limited, so need to hire comeone to get it done. Peanuts for Abobe and you get the Linux platform for your products which makes a whole lot of sense.

    25. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it require a total rewrite? Photoshop was available for IRIX for many years.

    26. Re:So good it's a verb by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know why there are so many Windows screencaps in the cited article?

      I don't know about the cited article, but I do know that Photoshop CS2 is more stable on Windows XP than on MacOS X 10.4 (the last version upon which I ran it.) Adobe's probably got more experiencing at beachballing OSX than anyone else. Having to SSH in is not a fix when the machine is thrashing and it's faster to just cold boot...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:So good it's a verb by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Adobe is not interested in this because they want you to have a reason to buy their existing or upcoming server products.

    28. Re:So good it's a verb by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why I've held on to my copy of PS6. Works great on lower end systems, and still has all of the useful tools.

      It's surprising how subjective that statement is. I couldn't even imagine trying to use the brush engine from photoshop 6. I actually tried on a friend's old computer and gave up ten minutes later. PS7 has full vector fonts, which allow lossless resize and transform effects. There's more to be sure, but this is just off the top of my head.

      A more accurate statement is that it still has all the tools that *you* find useful.

    29. Re:So good it's a verb by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, Photoshop 7 is somewhat of a standard, due to it being the last version that was dead easy to pirate. I was always surprised that compared to so much software of the day, much of it far less expensive than Photoshop, if you had a Photoshop (or Acrobat, Illustrator, or Premiere) disk and its CD key, you could install it on any machine without any crack, plus worked just as well from a copy of the disk without any burning/imaging tricks. Or so I've heard... ;-)

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    30. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      You missed my point. Wine isn't what it's supposed to be if you can't run all Win32 apps under it without special code.

    31. Re:So good it's a verb by bmorton · · Score: 1

      It will be what it's supposed to be quicker if developers can afford to concentrate their efforts on it.

    32. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't surprising that it was so easy to pirate Photoshop back then. Sure, individuals pirated the program, but due to the high price tag, very few of them would have purchased it if they couldn't get it for free. But it's same situation that Microsoft was in...it's better for people to be using your software illegally than it is for them to be using something else. The legions of people trained on pirated versions of Photoshop created sales of the software on their behalf.

      I personally cut my teeth on Photoshop 5.5 when I worked in the computer lab at my college (we had to learn to help students.) At the time, there was no way that I could have afforded to purchase it. However, in the subsequent years that I've been employed, I've had 4 employers purchase versions of Photoshop on my behalf because that's the software I know best.

      I'm not surprised that it was so easy to pirate before. I'm only surprised that they're trying to make it more difficult now. I could be wrong, but it seems like a decision that will backfire on them.

    33. Re:So good it's a verb by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, bloated and slow _are_ often complementary.

      (Yes, this is essentially a spelling nitpick, but it ended up meaning the opposite of what you meant it to mean.)

    34. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Ceteris paribus more Wine professionals paid to work on it mean faster progress of the Wine project. So the question is, what are the costs of reasonable support of all Adobe products by Wine? Whether the problem "does not run" can be solved with money or expertise by Adobe, I don't know. And here Adobe support, given the importance of the products, is already great. How much money would it take to close the feature gaps to make all Adobe apps Platinum?

      Say, I take 30 Million$. Can the problem be solved with this investment? If so the Wine feature gap is worth 30 million dollar. Probably it is less. In a simple business calculation you can ask yourself what profits or business opportunities perfect Adobe support generates for a company with a revenue of 3 billion per anno. Now, others may be interested as well. I am sure Linux adoption would rise when mission-critical Adobe software is supported. And then there is the special opportunity to run Adobe software on high end workstations with Linux, an entirely new special market for creative and movie studios.

    35. Re:So good it's a verb by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      *temples hands*...

      "This is a most tasty bug indeed. we will be using it on all future versions of fembot..."

    36. Re:So good it's a verb by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      There's nothing about it running on Mac OS X that makes it any easier to port it to UNIX.

      Indeed. If PS had been written to run on X11, then it should have been comparatively simple, but I can't see that happening now. Interestingly, although I have a copy of CS3 on my MacBook, I usually prefer to fire up Gimp. The latter does just about everything PhotoShop does, and the interface is more familiar to me, since I learned how to use it on my Linux boxes first.

      Needless to say, this will probably upset the fanboys, so flame on, but on your own time if you don't mind...

    37. Re:So good it's a verb by mmarlett · · Score: 1

      I first used it in a Mac-based photo portrait studio in 1990/91, my last couple years in high school. They figured it was easy to pay the minimum-wage kid to figure out this new fangled stuff than the $50 an hour air-brush artist. I didn't have to remove a whole lot of bikinis from the boss's costal postcards before they realized there was a revolution afoot.

    38. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From dictionary.com...

      photoshop (v.)

      "to edit an image using a computer program," 1992, originally in ref. to Photoshop, a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe, released in 1990.

    39. Re:So good it's a verb by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Adobe's probably got more experiencing at beachballing OSX than anyone else.

      "Beachballing?" O_O Is that an OS X thing? I've never heard that term before (in terms of computers, at least <_<)

    40. Re:So good it's a verb by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      "Beachballing?" O_O Is that an OS X thing? I've never heard that term before (in terms of computers, at least <_<)

      OS X has a "mode" in which it just displays a rotating multicoloured sphere (looking like a beach ball) in place of the mouse cursor. The machine is then unresponsive. It can stay in that state for some time with some applications despite the system being theoretically robust. I don't know if it's gotten fixed since 10.4 (last version of Mac OS I used) but it was regularly quite annoying.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    41. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to my oncologist you insensitive clod!

    42. Re:So good it's a verb by catd77 · · Score: 1

      My mom started using Photoshop on an old Mainframe in the 90's, she taught me it and I've been designing ever since!

    43. Re:So good it's a verb by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not correct. The beachballing is not caused by a bug in Mac OS X (usually). The beachball indicates that the foreground application is not responding to events. About 99.999% of beachballs are caused by an application bug---specifically, the application doing too much work or blocking for too long on its main application thread and not pulling events off the event queue in a timely manner.

      If the machine is unresponsive, it indicates that some critical daemon like coreservicesd is wedged, crashed, etc. and is thus causing all applications' main program loops to hang and not respond to events. Usually, however, this is not the case, and clicking to other applications results in normal behavior. Oh, and the other thing that can cause beachballs and general system unresponsiveness is an application being a pig and eating all the available RAM, causing other apps to get paged out to disk to make room. You can tell if that's what's happening because your hard drive sounds like raindrops being fired out at 1000 MPH at a sheet of aluminum foil....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    44. Re:So good it's a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only upgraded from 7 to CS3 because Apple pulled out a bunch of hacks in the OS to work around Photoshop bugs that Adobe never fixed, hence it stopped working in Leopard.

    45. Re:So good it's a verb by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Apple and Adobe are at odds because Adobe seems completely unwilling to do the slightest bit of work to keep their software working reliably in Mac OS X. As I understand it, the entire Carbon environment was basically an effort to placate Adobe because they balked at porting to Cocoa. And Flash? I don't know the statistics, but nearly every Safari crash I've ever seen can be pinned on Flash. For a while there, I was seeing better than one a week. Every single one of those crashes is a likely security hole. Personally, I would much rather have Silverlight on my iPhone than Flash....

      The Creative Suite is particularly appalling. They've made it an official policy not to allow installation on case-sensitive HFS+. Case-sensitive HFS+ was introduced in Panther (10.3) back in in 2003. So here we are almost seven years later, and apparently that still isn't enough time for Adobe to spend eight or ten engineer hours to fix these bugs. Let me state that again. It takes less than an engineer day to run a handful of scripts, determine what filenames in your project are wrong, and fix them, even for a huge project like Photoshop. There's absolutely no plausible excuse for Adobe to still have this problem in CS4 except for complete and total apathy towards their Mac OS X customers.

      Adobe isn't lazy. Adobe is flat out incompetent. As such, I've stopped buying their software. I'll consider buying an update when I can install it without wasting three days of my time doing horrible hacks just to get it to install and launch. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend a pissant company like Adobe dictate my volume format, and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on another upgrade only to be told by their tech support that I can't install unless I reformat my hard drive and reinstall everything. Fuck you, Adobe. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You aren't as important as you seem to think you are.

      As far as I'm concerned, the best thing Apple could do is to buy Adobe, fire the entire development team, and hire three engineers to rewrite the Mac port of Photoshop over the next year and kill Flash entirely.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    46. Re:So good it's a verb by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      err... let a pissant company...

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    47. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I think the cost of getting photoshop to run under wine might be higher than the cost of porting it to Linux directly.

      The Linux "API" (if that's the appropriate name) is well documented and understood. On the other hand, you can think of Wine as being an incomplete implementation of Win32 with a higher percentage of unknown bugs than the real thing.

    48. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      We don't know. The Wine support of Adobe products is already not bad given the difficulty of the task. Since you can always install the latest deb packages of Wine, wine support is getting better and better. It was the same with dosbox, now there is almost no game left which does not run in dosbox. Some Adobe applications as Photoshop Elements already fun great under Wine.

      Linux versions currently do not make much sense as Linux is a moving target.

    49. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Linux versions currently do not make much sense as Linux is a moving target."

      If that's true, why use it?

    50. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Binary compatibility is no design goal. Linux is just great when you use open source, you just miss the Adobe Tools. Wine will solve the problem and provide perfect Adobe support sooner or later.

    51. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Wine will solve the problem and provide perfect Adobe support sooner or later."

      I greatly doubt it. Wine can't properly handle all applications from any version of Windows. Every release of Windows puts Wine further behind.

    52. Re:So good it's a verb by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Adobe's stuff works fine on Windows. Maybe it's not Adobe's fault?

    53. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      At current steam Wine releases biweekly a new release which kills around 45 bugs. 2500 open bugs, so in theory it takes another 2 years.

      Microsoft implemented several times the Win32 api. If you get more developer capacity attached it becomes feasible for an open source project to achieve compatibility.

      If you focus just on a single application and put some money in the ring, then it is absolutely feasible to achieve full Adobe support because it would happen anyway.

    54. Re:So good it's a verb by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Too bad Slashdot doesn't have any kind of betting mechanism. I predict that 2 years from now the latest version of Photoshop will not run perfectly under Wine.

    55. Re:So good it's a verb by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      With Windows, their major OS transition happened only about a year after the first version of Photoshop for Windows came out. It was still in its infancy, so there wasn't a lot of cruft code to port to the new NT core. They've basically been able to get away without lots of huge changes since then because the OS is so fundamentally similar....

      Adobe released the first Mac OS X version of Photoshop when the code base was about twelve years old. When they transitioned the code, they hacked and kludged things. For example, judging from a quick "NM" on CS3, huge chunks of their code depends on the crufty FSSpec family of APIs. Those were not officially deprecated back in 2005 (because there were a handful of edge cases that could only be accomplished with FSSpec), but the API that replaced them, FSRef, has been available since System 7 and has been strongly recommended over FSSpec since... well, since 1991 or so.

      Most Mac developers had fully converted their code to FSRef APIs in the mid-to-late 1990s because they tend to give a *much* better experience for the user. And now, nearly two decades after the FSRef came out, more than a decade after most other apps on the platform transitioned to the new APIs, Adobe is still clinging to the ancient past.

      I suspect Photoshop will need a fairly major rewrite to bring it up to modern standards; Adobe has rested on their laurels for *decades*, not modernizing or fixing any aspect of their software until something breaks severely. So as for fault, I'd say it's almost completely Adobe's fault for being one of only a handful of developers who still use crappy, ancient, pre-1991 APIs.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    56. Re:So good it's a verb by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      There is a simple method to make that happen. Abobe which makes billions attaches three developers to Wine Adobe support.

  2. Gimp? by cytoman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Will there be an article about the Gimp when it turns 20, too?

    1. Re:Gimp? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Most likely, but given that Linux itself doesn't turn 20 'til next year, I'd say there's still a long way until then.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    2. Re:Gimp? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is an article about the GIMP every time it farts.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Gimp? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      When the gimp turns 18, we'll celebrate with a gang-bang.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Gimp? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Eh 6 years isn't that long

    5. Re:Gimp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? Maybe it is because I haven't used photoshop recently but I remember gimp being basically a clone with all the functionality.

      And more importantly GIMP is legally free.

    6. Re:Gimp? by selven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gimp is not nearly as important in the world of free software as Photoshop is in the proprietary one. 25 years of vi, that's a milestone.

    7. Re:Gimp? by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      Gimp is not nearly as important in the world of free software as Photoshop is in the proprietary one. 25 years of vi, that's a milestone.

      So both unimportant then...

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  3. Photoshop anniversary contest suggestion by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Photoshopping photos over 20 years old to show people using Photoshop. Then claim they are legit. "Photoshop is over 20 years old, you can clearly see here they were using it during the Civil War!"

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  4. So Good It's a Tradition by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    Kudos photoshop. You know that you've done well with a piece of software when it turns into a verb.

    It's more than a verb, for some people it's a tradition and art form*. Had there been no Photoshop, something would have probably filled the void but it's definitely one of the (expensive) standards around.

    *Yeah, I know you see a link to Something Awful and are thinking "not gonna click that!" but it's just the Photoshop Phriday main page, a site like the Onion that briefly brightens my week.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So Good It's a Tradition by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Meh. If you're going to refer to a site that heightens photoshop to an art form, you should link to worth1000.

      Most of Something Awful's Photoshop Phriday is a kindergartner scribbling in the margins compared to what is regularly posted by top competitors on worth1000.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:So Good It's a Tradition by mattack2 · · Score: 1
  5. Nostalgia by toastar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes I really miss photoshop 5.5.

    7.0 was also pretty good. Things started to go down hill when they switched to the cs moniker

    1. Re:Nostalgia by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, Adobe has some smart people in Marketing. I'm sure they have a pile of new features hidden in a source code repository that lies underneath an unassuming bungalow in a suburb near Burbank. Every 18 months, senior marketing staff, cleverly disguised as Roto-Rooter workers, go to this stash and pull a few likely features.

      These get grafted on to Photoshop with the idea that they are just flashy and / or important enough to get people to upgrade. Thus, Photoshop CS(x) + 1 is born.

      Then, the evil bit folks trot out the latest activation code tweaks to the dismay of right thinking folk everywhere.

      And somewhere in a damp basement cell, the Bridge team codes on, hoping that if they ever get it right, they might be let out into the sunshine some day.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Nostalgia by toastar · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Adobe has some smart people in Marketing. .

      My theory is they all came from macromedia, Adobe kept the engineers and replaced all the Marketeers.

    3. Re:Nostalgia by kainewynd2 · · Score: 1

      Thus, Photoshop CS(x + 1) is born.

      Fixed that for you...

      --
      I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
    4. Re:Nostalgia by al0ha · · Score: 1

      I used all versions of Photoshop up through 7.0,, now I use the Gimp exclusively. Not that there is anything wrong with Photoshop, I just became tired of paying a premium to use it. If you are old school and don't need a bunch of fancy plug-ins to accomplish an objective; for the serious photographer Gimp is the perfect fit.

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    5. Re:Nostalgia by notseamus · · Score: 1

      I've met someone that used Bridge By choice too!

      --
      I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
    6. Re:Nostalgia by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, not exactly. I usually use PhotoMechanic as my browser. But Bridge has some nice integration features so I pop over there occasionally. IMHO, Bridge has been the bastard stepchild of the Creative Suite, given to programmers who did bad things or who just drew the short straw for whatever reason. It would blow up, freeze or just run slower than a one legged sloth.

      Bridge 4 is actually moderately stable, reasonably fast (on a MacPro anyway) and they've fixed the unsharpness bug which made every photograph look like it was misfocused. Only took them what, seven years?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Nostalgia by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I thought I read somewhere that Adobe outsourced much of their engineering to India several years ago.... Maybe it was just tech support. *shrugs*

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Nostalgia by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It is getting a bit silly now with all these new features. A raytracing engine in an image editor?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Nostalgia by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If you are old school and don't need a bunch of fancy plug-ins to accomplish an objective; for the serious photographer Gimp is the perfect fit.

      Unless you need to work in CMYK.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  6. First one I used by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Photoshop 3.0, I got it off the USENET in the spring of '96. 68k version for my Performa 575 w/ 12MB ram.

  7. This must be fake. by Cowclops · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article looks totally photoshopped, its probably fake.

    1. Re:This must be fake. by HNS-I · · Score: 1

      I'll just give the number okey? It's 331, geez!

    2. Re:This must be fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    3. Re:This must be fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time...

    4. Re:This must be fake. by catd77 · · Score: 1

      Your username looks photoshopped, there's no way it could have all those numbers and stuff.

  8. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photoshop 7 was the last version I really wanted to use. After the CS-series it's just been horrible bloatware. But what can I do? It's not like there's an alternative. GIMP still sucks, and Paint Shop Pro is a joke.

    1. Re:Sigh by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're just saying that to obscure your interest in counterfeiting.

    2. Re:Sigh by M3.14 · · Score: 1

      Sadly I must agree. However it's only my opinion. Photoshop from v7 up kinda lost it for me. All subsequent versions of PS just added more functions I don't use and probably never will. Maybe I should wait for PS elements to reach CS7 to be usable for everything PS7 could do. ... and yes. I've tried GIMP too.

  9. Photoshopped ... by Gopal.V · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looking through those images, I couldn't help noticing that the screenshots look photoshopped ...

  10. 4chan by cosm · · Score: 4, Funny

    pics or it didnt happen

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Photoshop, it's more like "pics or it didn't...well it probably didn't happen anyway"

  11. Well, actually, by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Photoshop is only 10 years old. They photoshopped all the pictures to make it look like 20.

    And also to give themselves more functional weapons of mass destruction.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Well, actually, by NevDull · · Score: 1

      So they did the reverse of all of the people trying to legally appeal to pervs?

    2. Re:Well, actually, by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The title was "you suck at photoshop" but I gotta say that I think they did a terrific job there hiding the truck with the dud missile. No trace of the original truck was visible, and they faded the trail and whatnot so that unless you were looking at the shape of the billowy dust cloud, you could easily have taken it to be a picture of four successful launches instead of the 75% (or less. we wouldn't be able to tell if it was cropped) of four launches.

      They're certainly much better photoshop artists than whoever reuters got workin' for them.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  12. But how many bought a copy? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thought not.

    Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:But how many bought a copy? by pwnies · · Score: 1

      I own photoshop CS. Surprising, I know.

    2. Re:But how many bought a copy? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got that for free too with something I bought.

    3. Re:But how many bought a copy? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Thought not.

      Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.

      No doubt you're right but not only do I own a copy (not the latest version, but it's legal), I also have a floppy disk with Macintosh version 1.0 on it around here somewhere. Hard to believe, I know, but at one time Photoshop fit on a single 1.44 MB floppy.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    4. Re:But how many bought a copy? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Thought not.

      Apart from MS Office, it has to be the most pirated bit of software in the world.

      As I noted in a post upthread, I believe that one major reason for that is that up until Photoshop 7, it was probably one of the easiest programs to pirate, especially considering its price tag. If you had a copy of a disk (not requiring any specific burning technique a la CloneCD) and its key, you could install it on as many machine as you wished, no cracks needed.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    5. Re:But how many bought a copy? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Nitpick alert: According to the article, Photoshop 1.0 came out in Feb 1990. I suspect it was actually on an 800K floppy. (Yes, by definition it would still then fit on a 1.44 MB floppy too, but that's not what you meant.)

    6. Re:But how many bought a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own photoshop CS. Surprising, I know.

      You mean you licensed it?

    7. Re:But how many bought a copy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are the master torrent seeder ?

  13. No multiple windows by Xamusk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Yep, no multiple windows throughout its history. Just the usual MDI with panels interface.

    That says something from the industry's standard to the would-be competitors.

    1. Re:No multiple windows by Xamusk · · Score: 1

      FTA: "support for CMYK colour which led to widespread Photoshop adoption by the printing industry, and the Pen."

      Yes, that was on 1991!

  14. I'm happy for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YO, knoll family, i'm really happy for ya and all, but Microsoft had one of the biggest apps of all time.

    1. Re:I'm happy for ya by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      What does Microsoft have to do with anything. Seriously - Microsoft doesn't need anyone cheerleading for them (even now, I'm sure they could buy and sell photoshop in their sleep), and it's not like Photoshop directly competes with them on anything (except maybe the wareze scene?). So, where the fuck did that comparison even come from?

    2. Re:I'm happy for ya by norminator · · Score: 1

      I thought it was funny, although you did forget the "Ima let you finish", and you probably should have repeated "OF ALL TIME!" just like that at the end.

  15. Going downhill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photoshop 3.0 was a speed demon on my Pentium-90 with 16mb of ram. Each successive version has gotten slower and slower. CS3 brings my Core2-Duo two it's knees.

    1. Re:Going downhill by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Probably because the rate of features being added hasn't slowed down but the rate of processor performance increases has slowed significantly.

  16. May be a good time to discuss alternatives by rduke15 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.

    While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:

    - Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)
    - Resize
    - Crop
    - Print
    - Convert to another format (Save as)
    - Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance

    Then maybe
    - Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)
    - rarely convert a color scan to black and white.
    - and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.

    Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.

    For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)

    But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?

    1. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by icebrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just want to see an updated run of Jasc Paintshop 6. Basic photoediting capabilities without getting rid of the "traditional" paint functions. Gimp and Photoshop are too complicated.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    2. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Dumnezeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For this, I use Paint.NET on Windows.

      --
      Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
    3. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1

      Picasa ? Runs fine under wine too.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    4. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by kaizendojo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IrfanView does all that you list (and few other useful things) and is free.

    5. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by director_mr · · Score: 1

      Not sure what is a good alternative that does all that you mention on linux or apple computers, but irfanview does everything you mention and more and it is free. Check out www.irfanview.com

    6. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      XnView is being ported. Beta versions:

      http://www.xnview.com/en/downloadunix.html

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      That's the wrong website, but they were kind enough to point me in the right direction.

    8. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use Paint.NET, which does everything you mention.

    9. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by uassholes · · Score: 1

      Between jpegtran, exiftool, and ImageMagick you could probably do all of those things. The nice thing is that you can use them from the command line; no GUI bloat necessary, although ImageMagick has a GUI.

    10. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Between jpegtran, exiftool, and ImageMagick you could probably do all of those things. The nice thing is that you can use them from the command line; no GUI bloat necessary, although ImageMagick has a GUI.

      Yeah, I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want a GUI when manipulating images...

    11. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've had a lot of luck with Krita.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    12. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Personally, I use IrfanView for most of that stuff. It can even use Photoshop plugins, I believe.

    13. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RawTherapee!
      I use it on Linux and Windows. And the Author recently released the code under GPL.

    14. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by domatic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps mtpaint:

      http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/

      mtpaint can also be set to do external actions on an image so if you find an exif utility you like.......

      When it comes up, you may be fooled into thinking it is a 256 color program. It isn't. It defaults to 256 color palletted pix for new images but will edit and allow higher depth color choices fine. gwenview is nice to view a directory of images and has a nice enough gui for editing exif and can be set to use mtpaint as an editor.

    15. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by city · · Score: 1

      Picasa was Ok until I started working with RAW files. Adobe Lightroom 3 is still in a free Beta and has been for awhile. I'm not sure what they'll ask me to pony up for it, but at this point it might be worth it. Just checked, looks like it expires April 30th 2010. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    16. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by reub2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my experience, Krita has never been responsive enough. Supposedly the KOffice team is working on speeding up the application.

    17. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      F-spot does all those things and more in a non-destructive fashion (meaning you can always undo) and comes with every Ubuntu install. Try it out.

    18. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by domatic · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not many things you might want to do to an image don't need a GUI or just a minimal one. Resizing every image in a directory to 640x480 or converting all to png would be examples.

    19. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use digiKam for organizing, rotate, crop, red eye and other basics. When I want to do detail work or add someone to the family photo, I use GIMP. My parents are happy with digiKam and find it is perfect for the basics they want to do.

    20. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by vurian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, we are: interim results at http://wiki.koffice.org/index.php?title=Krita/Benchmarking and weekly updates at http://www.krita.org/ Boudewijn Rempt -- Krita Maintainer.

    21. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paint.NET

    22. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by noewun · · Score: 1

      Very true. For those of us who make our money in print production, Photoshop is (unfortunately) absolutely necessary and an amazing tool. The program's abilities really are infinitely deep.

      However, for 95% of the people out there, Photoshop is like driving a Ferrari a mile to get milk: lots of snorting, engine noise and wheelspin but, in the end, a lot of wasted effort.

      This leads to another problem: because I spend all my image editing time in Photoshop, I have no idea what to recommend to people who need to do much simple editing. If you're on OS X I know iPhoto does some basic brightness/contrast/color balance stuff, but that's about it.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    23. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Me too, the only thing I miss is the airbrush tool.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Tikkun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want a GUI when manipulating images...

      I have RSI you insensitive clod! ;)

    25. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried F-Spot?

    26. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      For Mac users, there are Pixelmator and Acorn. For web users in general, there is Aviary.

    27. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by flabordec · · Score: 1

      Picasa is amazingly simple to use and has all the features you are looking for with the click of a button, in Windows or Linux.

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    28. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.

      While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:

      - Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg) - Resize - Crop - Print - Convert to another format (Save as) - Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance

      Then maybe - Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags) - rarely convert a color scan to black and white. - and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.

      Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.

      For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)

      But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?

      Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you, with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties. Used copies abound, and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months (guessing based on expiration of public beta)

    29. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by AncientPC · · Score: 1

      Photoshop is more for graphic designers rather than photographers. If you work in RAW look into Adobe Lightroom.

      It's the primary reason preventing me from switching to Linux 100% of the time (other reason is games).

    30. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by jonwil · · Score: 1

      paint.net is GREAT, it handles all the stuff I need natively including transparent PNGs and DirectX DDS texture files.

    31. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piknik online.

    32. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Using Paint Shop Pro 7 here :) Does the job fine...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    33. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Early Versions of Paint Shop Pro were great for people who know that they aren't Graphic Designers (And for people who think they are graphics Designers but really aren't.) I used to use it back when i was in college (late 90's). I'm pretty sure it was one of those pieces of software that would say "You are on day 74387 of your 90 day trial period. Please Register!" I would probably have registered but then I would not have been able to purchase beer.

    34. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thumbs plus was always great for me....

      does raw images, etc... lots of little edits,. etc.. but not a drawing program, per se.

      http://www.cerious.com/

    35. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gwenview or digiKam

    36. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by idji · · Score: 1

      From your list of needs it is clear that you are simply not an artist (IANAA2!) - and hence not part of the target audience of Photoshop - you are part of the target audience for IrfanView - geeks who need to adjust images without really touching pixels. And yes, IrfanView can add circles and text in version 4.25, (Press F12). That's my main tool and Paint.NET if I need to do "pixelwork" or layering.

    37. Re:May be a good time to discuss alternatives by zanderredux · · Score: 1

      have a try with Lightroom. It provides all the ease of use of, say, Picasa, with all the quality of Photoshop.

  17. mandatory xkcd reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://xkcd.com/331/

    (posted as AC because I am lazy)

    1. Re:mandatory xkcd reference by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      You are so lazy you don't want an easy +5 funny?

    2. Re:mandatory xkcd reference by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      You are so lazy you don't want an easy +5 funny?

      It doesn't give Karma, so why bother logging in?

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
  18. Readable version of page on Google cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Readable text version of article for older browsers or just for quick loading.

  19. Obligatory XKCD Refence by Temujin_12 · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm starting to think Slashdot is just an index for xkcd.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters are each individual indices for XKCD. (Well, given the actual XKCD index most of us can find a relevant one for any topic.)

    3. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's the problem? it's a good comic to the tastes of the /. crowd, thus it's referenced a lot here. Other things are referenced here all the time (quotes from star trek, dr who, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, a space odyssey, etc).

    4. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Don't have a cow, man. I'll get my friend Steve to throw a chair at you! An if that doesn't work, I, for one, welcome our Anonymous Overlords! Kirk out!!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to think xkcd is just an index for Slashdot.

    6. Re:Obligatory XKCD Refence by Agripa · · Score: 1

      With apologies to James Burke:

      If it's not on XKCD, it doesn't exist.

  20. Photoshop and open source by lyml · · Score: 1

    It's a sad state of affairs that open source should be so behind in image manipulation programs that people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs with draconian inspection clauses rather than use a truly free program. Sadly GIMP seems to be going nowhere and Paint.NET is targeting another audience.

    1. Re:Photoshop and open source by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I think that says more about the quality of the open source programs that it does about freedom ideals.

    2. Re:Photoshop and open source by arose · · Score: 1, Informative

      GIMP is going nowhere? They are switching the graphics engine to support bigger color spaces and finally shutting up the massive amounts of people complaining about the multi-window interface (unfortunately since most of them had no intention to use GIMP in the first place they'll just jump on some other minor "problem").

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:Photoshop and open source by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      There really is a lot of perceived value in pirating a multi-thousand dollar program as appose to downloading a free app.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Photoshop and open source by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming consumers are well-informed and always make rational choices.

      The truth is that most people don't know what FOSS is and have difficulty comprehending how it can replace a thousands-per-license app. They think there's something magical about obscenely expensive "professional-grade" software and every wanna-be designer thinks it's the only app to use.

      Instead of encouraging diversity in software people think it has to be Photoshop or Cubase or whatever people say is "professional".
      GIMP seems to be progressing perfectly. I feel more sorry for the other (non-free) reasonably-priced alternatives. Instead of considering them most users will just use expensive, bloated, ugly, hard-tp-use and comparatively bare applications, and praise them like crazy.

    5. Re:Photoshop and open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people would rather spend thousands of dollars on license costs

      LOL! Do you actually know people who pay for Photoshop? That's fucking hilarious.

    6. Re:Photoshop and open source by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      A day late and a dollar short. In all seriousness, Photoshop has had adjustment layers for 14 years, while the gimp is just laying the foundation for non-destructive editing. The gimp has failed to keep up, and now no one is even willing to take it seriously.

    7. Re:Photoshop and open source by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Aw jeez. I like the gimp. I like the multi-window interface because I use a windowmanager which does not suck. And I agree that the whiners will just keep on whining. There is really no point in trying to placate them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Photoshop and open source by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Is it people preferring to pay thousands, or companies deciding to pay thousands?

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    9. Re:Photoshop and open source by jonwil · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons Photoshop is so good for output to print media is that Adobe works with manufacturers of output devices and inks (from cheap inkjets through to million dollar printing presses) to make sure that Photoshop has accurate color mapping tables. That way when you print your magazine or whatever, it will look correct on the output device you are using.

      GIMP doesn't have that (or if it does, it most likely doesn't have the vast array of device support Photoshop has)

    10. Re:Photoshop and open source by arose · · Score: 1

      The gimp has failed to keep up, and now no one is even willing to take it seriously.

      People are using it, developing it and writing books about it. Is there a reason to take you seriously about this?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    11. Re:Photoshop and open source by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Well I've used both programs pretty extensively, and in fact have probably used the gimp more. I'm a photo major, and the digital courses at my school are completely structured around Photoshop. Limitations in the gimp like a lack of 16-bit color and no adjustment layers means that I can't even think of using it for class work.

    12. Re:Photoshop and open source by arose · · Score: 1

      I wasn't commenting on your experience (and I'll refrain on voicing my opinion on teaching tools vs. concepts mainly because I don't know where your classes stand), just on the broad "no one cares about Gimp" comment.

      I too am looking forward to high color depths a more non-destructive workflow (hopefully a full blown node interface instead of overloading layers), that doesn't make GIMP as it stands any less valuable. Particularly since for digital photography needs they can be mitigated by getting the raw conversion settings right (a good idea no matter what) and careful layer management.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    13. Re:Photoshop and open source by arose · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like the multiwindow interface is going away anytime soon. If they can make both work without too much maintenance overhead later on I won't mind to have the option, just don't think it will actually do much about the bulk of the complainers.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    14. Re:Photoshop and open source by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      By not being taken seriously, I meant that it's being seen as a cheaper alternative to photoshop for those with simpler photo editing needs. Of course, many people have found it useful. However, it is going to need a lot more than simply changing around the gui for it to be taken seriously.

  21. developers, developers by fermion · · Score: 0, Troll
    Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications. The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications. Think Visicalc. Think Photoshop. Think MacWrite. Think Excel. The iPhone is the same thing.

    This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:developers, developers by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications. Think Visicalc. [...]

      You're right about Photoshop and Excel but VisiCalc was originally written for the Apple II. Afterwards, versions were developed for the Atari, Commodore PET, TRS-80 and IBM PC but there never was a version for the Mac.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    2. Re:developers, developers by tumnasgt · · Score: 1

      Quality of applications? You used CS4 on a Mac? It's appallingly slow, I use VirtualBox with XP and run CS4 on that which is much, much faster. When I need more power than provided by the VM, I walk across the room to my gaming PC with Win7.

    3. Re:developers, developers by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm in CADCAM. That means Windows.

    4. Re:developers, developers by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      I think the key was in his use of the words "mac and Apple".

    5. Re:developers, developers by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or UNIX. For some reason, the CAD people run about 15 years behind the rest of the world. Some of them still support HP-UX (seriously, WTF?) and Solaris. When was the last time you saw an old-skool UNIX workatation? They have barely caught on to the idea that Linux has moved beyong kernel 0.99 and is quite popular with engineers.

      To be honest, I'm kind suprised not to see brand new versions being released for NT 3.5.1.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:developers, developers by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Marathon and Myst. :P

    7. Re:developers, developers by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good point. I guess I need to learn to read before commenting.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    8. Re:developers, developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the late nineties, and early 2000s, most places were still using MS-DOS tools that required RS232 DRM bundles. and a DOS age version of MS-DOS. Windows 9x DOS wouldn't run them.

  22. 20 years of bloatware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adobe - still the king of bloatware

    1. Re:20 years of bloatware by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      My job used to require me to know everything about some Adobe programs. They paid me to become an Adobe Certified Expert in several. For versions CS, CS2 and CS3 of Adobe Illustrator I could tell you with complete accuracy and certainty what EVERY FEATURE did. You could pick a random item from a random menu and I could tell you what it did and why.

      Now, please, tell me exactly which of those items is bloatware? Just because *YOU* don't know what something is for, does not mean it has no reason for being there.

    2. Re:20 years of bloatware by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      My job used to require me to know everything about some Adobe programs. They paid me to become an Adobe Certified Expert in several. For versions CS, CS2 and CS3 of Adobe Illustrator I could tell you with complete accuracy and certainty what EVERY FEATURE did. You could pick a random item from a random menu and I could tell you what it did and why.

      Now, please, tell me exactly which of those items is bloatware? Just because *YOU* don't know what something is for, does not mean it has no reason for being there.

      I do get a kick out of the *bloat* complainers. If Adobe stripped some functionality and moved it to a different application, the same people would be up in arms over Adobe trying to get more money for the same thing, and then complaining about having to close photoshop and open another application just to do a couple things. Some people complain, simply to complain.

      Then again, here I am complaining about the complainers...

    3. Re:20 years of bloatware by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      M
      Now, please, tell me exactly which of those items is bloatware? Just because *YOU* don't know what something is for, does not mean it has no reason for being there.

      Insert rant about hanging a web-forms wannabe bag on the side of a document format meant for portable printing consistency...

    4. Re:20 years of bloatware by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      ...document format meant for portable printing consistency...

      Except the AI format is NOT meant for printing consistency alone. It turns out that vector based graphics work very well in SEVERAL markets. Specifically AI documents are used in three main markets, printing, web development and special effects (CGI).

      Adobe could have made three different products, each with a few less features, one each to target a specific market. Or it could just make one product that meets the needs of all three markets. So you wont use XYZ feature if you are doing only one of them. Big deal, the interface is not cluttered, you can close panels. The program is not any slower, the code behind each feature DOES NOT RUN if you don't use that feature.

      The only down side to more features is that the executable code takes up more room on your hard drive. If you took out all features not related to printing then you would say a grand 20MB tops. Even if it halved the size of the program on disk it still would not be worth it to me to not have abilities to save as a SVG or export to After Effects or any of the other features.

      You are basically asking for Adobe to charge you the same price for less features. That does not make sense to me.

    5. Re:20 years of bloatware by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      ...document format meant for portable printing consistency...

      Except the AI format is NOT meant for printing consistency alone. It turns out that vector based graphics work very well in SEVERAL markets. Specifically AI documents are used in three main markets, printing, web development and special effects (CGI).

      Snipped the rest, as it's focused on an incorrect assumption.

      Illustrator is not the only software Adobe sells.

      I was talking about PDF and their "extensions" to it, with all the charlie-foxtrots they bring.

    6. Re:20 years of bloatware by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Even I think PDF's have a bit much in the way of features. But I can guarantee that if you singled out one of them and said, "lets take this out," you would have a whole bunch of people objecting, stating that their job depends on that feature. *shrugs*

    7. Re:20 years of bloatware by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Even I think PDF's have a bit much in the way of features. But I can guarantee that if you singled out one of them and said, "lets take this out," you would have a whole bunch of people objecting, stating that their job depends on that feature. *shrugs*

      Exactly. And that's part of the problem. It's like using PS to do web site mockups: you start adding features for these ridiculous use cases and end up with horrible messes.

      Kitchen sinks, hammers, and nails.

  23. Knoll family not just programming geniuses by cronb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the sons may be known as the creators of photoshop their father is a giant in the field of nuclear engineering. His book "Raditation Detection and Measurement" is considered the bible on the topic for all nuclear engineers.

  24. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or has the interface not really changed in all these years. It's added a lot of things and some of the layout stuff has changed but to me it looks like the same old thing.

    1. Re:Is it just me? by stokessd · · Score: 1

      For my pea sized brain, that is a good thing (TM). the fact that I'm comfortable in photoshop is driven home every time I try to use the GIMP. I rally want the GIMP to be successful, but my brain has been bent into the adobe way of doing things, and I'm a lost cause.

      All you need to do is see someone with good photoshop skills (think professional, rather than a dabbler like me), and you'll see why adobe has kept the UI largely unchanged. The keyboard shortcuts and pallet and tool placement becomes second nature to someone with a lot of seat time. Seeing what can be done in seconds or minutes by a skilled photoshop pilot is awe inspiring. Having the core interface change would be like moving your dog's food bowl; just not a good thing.

      Sheldon
      (cs4 user - yeah I bought it)

    2. Re:Is it just me? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. People said that about Microsoft Office (it really hadn't changed its UI much in over a decade), then they released Office 2007 and everyone screamed bloody murder because the interface was overhauled.

      Photoshop isn't the simplest program in existence to pick up and use, but I'm of the persuasion that if the interface was *that* terrible that Adobe would have, at some point, done an Office 2007 ribbon-esque revamp, but my graphic designer friends give me the vibe that the UI was pretty solidly designed the first time around and really only needed to be tweaked and extended to accommodate new features as time progressed.

  25. Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Photoshop instructor here. It's a great app, but really is overkill for most needs. I actually used GIMP to design my Photoshop class websites, since I like some of the GTK conveniences better than Photoshop's relatively primitive widget set (can't hover over a spinner and use the scroll wheel alone to change the value, being one example).

    Of course, I don't really advertise GIMP in my classes, but I do give extra credit to students who are willing to give it a try and write a review (they can also choose to try other software, like Aviary).

    Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.

    1. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I started using the GIMP once I switched to Photoshop I found that it was much easier to do a lot of simple things... Where if I were to do it with the GIMP it would be a massive struggle.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes...

      Could you elaborate on this a bit? I work with Photoshop daily along with a large number of other people who do as well and stability is not one complaint I've heard. In fact, some of my illustrator friends have a bad habit of not saving often. Why Murphy's Law hasn't taught them a lesson about that I"ll never know.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That's interesting — I actually find Gimp's user interface pretty hard to use, and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it. I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!

    4. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      and stability is not one complaint I've heard

      Really? No beachballs of death at least? Anyway, for all I know you're just cropping images all day. My students are typically doing work that acquaints them with more advanced features -- even if they're not totally necessary -- so perhaps that's where the difference comes in.

      In fact, some of my illustrator friends have a bad habit of not saving often. Why Murphy's Law hasn't taught them a lesson about that I"ll never know.

      So it's just your illustrator friends who have stability problems? :-) Anyway, those following this thread might be interested in reading Adobe UI Gripes. The comments after this blog post are also pretty instructional, I think. :-)

    5. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Really? No beachballs of death at least? Anyway, for all I know you're just cropping images all day. My students are typically doing work that acquaints them with more advanced features -- even if they're not totally necessary -- so perhaps that's where the difference comes in.

      Nah, no beachballs. And no, not image cropping. Matte painting, concept illustration, texture creation, etc. I'd say we all manage to frequent most of Photoshop's crannies. ;) I don't think the stylize functions are used often, maybe there's a difference there? I dunno. That's the problem with Photoshop, too mainstream, too many different uses. It must be painful for them to figure out what sort of functionality to focus on.

      So it's just your illustrator friends who have stability problems?

      Erm did I phrase that badly? No, they don't have stability issues, hence they save like every couple of hours. Again, I'm not sure why software Darwinism hasn't taught them to save more frequently.

      Thanks for the link. This is the first time I've actually heard of people complain about actual lose-your-work crashes. The only major gripe I've seen with Photoshop is CS4's reliance on OpenGL which causes a major latency when using the brush. The fix for it is lame, you have to disable it in the registry. Not cool.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!

      I'm not sure I would go that far. Features-wise, Photoshop has a lot to offer. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be teaching it.

      But in a way, you're right. Once you're really competent in Photoshop, you should have realized what bounds you are working with and should at least have some computer graphics concepts down pat.

      This makes it easier to become concerned with issues like proprietary software vs. freedom software, which is one thing that happened in my case. I tried to think about how much Adobe really cared about creativity and freedom of expression, but I just couldn't get there.

      I've noticed that consultants I work with who prefer freedom software for its open aesthetic are almost universally better grounded in the fundamentals, and are more productive and more sought after because of it.

      There are a lot of web designers who started out in Flash who made the same journey too, and now they're pushing out standards-compliant code and talking about open toolchains.

    7. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      To respond to your first point, you are right on. I've never had a positive review of GIMP by a Photoshop student who hadn't already tried it prior to taking the course. Most of the crits come from interface-related issues. In my case, I had other motivations for using GIMP, and had already worked with free software, so I knew that I needed to adapt myself to "GIMP's way of doing things"; after I learned the TAB key shortcut and other little helps, it got a lot easier. But it is really nice to see that GIMP have got Peter doing some great interface work that will be rolled into future versions.

      Also, someone used to Photoshop will be more likely to move to an open toolchain rather than a single app like GIMP, if they're considering migrating to free software-land. That means also learning software like Inkscape, possibly Blender, possibly ImageMagick, and so on. But that quickly becomes one powerful toolchain, for all its quirks.

    8. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many Photoshop users feel this way; I don't think you're alone in that. There are many features that Photoshop has that are very powerful, like its Type tool, which bears a sharp contrast to GIMP's rudimentary text tool. Even if you compare Photoshop of, say, four versions ago, to GIMP of today, you come away with many features where GIMP falls short.

      This shows why feature set alone isn't the main motivator for GIMP users. Some of them are just cheap; some of them want a portable graphics package; some are sick of dealing with licensing and activation pains; some have had bad experiences with Adobe customer support.

      On the other end of the spectrum, I think, are full-out artistic types who view the issue of freedom as a vast battlefield upon which commercial interests can become the worst kind of double agents, often actively working to subvert the interests of the wider community in favor of extra profits.

      I tend to lean this way myself, having worked on many marketing teams and now owning my own business. I'm more interested in my own mental and spiritual development and its application in the digital domain (tough as the going may be), and less interested in putting Deanna from Marketing in a new Lexus.

      That can sound pretty fundamentalist, but many artistic-types really do need the extra room to breathe.

    9. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a thought-provoking post. I think you just summarized the basic relationship between the open source and closed source communities!

    10. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      This is the first time I've actually heard of people complain about actual lose-your-work crashes.

      Actually I think most of the lost work in our case comes from factors external to Photoshop. In our labs, we usually see hardware problems crop up and cause loss of work long before a Photoshop stability problem occurs.

      However, if Adobe kept a big Trac or Bugzilla site somewhere, and even if it just showed bugs from labs where I teach, I think the reliability point would get across. There are just some awful bugs in the software, and as you mentioned, Photoshop is complex enough that workarounds aren't hard to find once the issue has been isolated. But man, you should see some of my students when they lose work. I think this is why Adobe provide versioning software now. Support can say, "so do your backups not work then?" [long pause, phone line goes dead] ;-)

    11. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyway, it's nice of Adobe to keep improving Photoshop, but it's amazing how many millions of dollars have gone into this software, and it is still getting a bad rep for tons of crashes, expensive third-party plugins, weird bugs, etc.

      It's also surprising how little the UI has changed over 20 years. If you look at the screenshots going all the way back, you don't see a whole lot of change. I guess you could argue either way: either the UI is stagnant, or it was so well designed in the first place that it didn't need to change.

      As far as "tons of crashes", I'm not with you on that one. I haven't really upgraded to CS4 and I don't use any 3rd party plugins, but Photoshop is pretty solid to me. I don't see lots of weird bugs either. Expensive third-party plugins? I don't see how that's really Adobe's fault unless they're somehow setting the price through deals that I'm not aware of.

      What I find a little more annoying is the feeling of being on the upgrade treadmill. Here's my petty little rant (don't read it if you don't want to read a petty little rant): I had a copy of CS2 for OSX, but felt a little railroaded into CS3 because I had to upgrade to get Intel support. Meh, that's understandable, but kind of annoying. Now Snow Leopard comes out, and they say they won't really support CS3 on Snow Leopard. Ok, that's annoying, but not a big deal-- CS3 still works. But I go to reinstall CS3 recently, and it's kind of annoying-- they dropped CS3 trialware completely off their website. You can upgrade directly from the trial to the full version using a credit card, I hadn't kept an electronic copy around. I finally get it installed, and Adobe's Updater won't work. The Updater needs to be updated first, and it won't work well enough to update itself. You can download the Updater from their website, but they try to push you to use the CS4 Updater. The CS4 Updater won't update CS3 software. So it basically takes me a day and a half of hunting around online before I find an update to the old CS3 Updater online. I install it, and it updates Adobe Acrobat from 8.1 and stops. I run the Updater again, and it upgrades to Acrobat 8.1.2 and stops. Run it again, 8.1.3. Then 8.1.4. It keeps going like this until I hit... I don't know... 8.2.1 or whatever the most recent version is. I'm sitting there thinking, "I paid something like $1,500 for this, and they can't make this all easier?" Then I realize, "No, they don't want to make it easier. They want me to get frustrated and just buy the upgrade to CS4."

    12. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shows why feature set alone isn't the main motivator for GIMP users. Some of them are just cheap; some of them want a portable graphics package; some are sick of dealing with licensing and activation pains; some have had bad experiences with Adobe customer support.

      Some of us run Linux. I also have few photo-editing needs. KoulorPaint handles some of my needs too. What is also nice is having a product to recommend. People dumb enough to ask me, "hey can you 'get' photoshop on my PC?" get redirected to gimp. "Just google gimp." Most people that want Photoshop but can't get it, should be satisfied with Gimp.

    13. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Photoshop is an overpriced pile, but even I wouldn't recommend Gimp to my worst enemies.
      Do me a favor and kick your own teeth out.

    14. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's also surprising how little the UI has changed over 20 years.

      25 years. It debuted in 1985 on Deluxe Paint for the Amiga.

      The only GUI system I'd used prior to that was a Xerox Star - which I'm pretty certain didn't have anything as fun or useful - so maybe I'm missing an earlier example.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't know, that toolbar looks a bit different. I'm saying if you look at the scheenshots they have for Photoshop 1 and then for Photoshop 11, the main toolbar hasn't really changed that much. By Photoshop 3, it looks like they've gotten most of the UI elements together and they don't change very drastically after that.

      I'd say most 20 year old applications have probably changed their UI more than that since their first release.

    16. Re:Sort of a weird feeling about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey photoshop instructor here too and you as a photoshop instructor should know what Photoshop is for and who it is for as well. Photoshop is not a product or software to do simple image correction. Possibly in the past in versions 2 and 3 but since the evolution of layers and masking on photoshop we as consumers have seen the effectiveness of using photoshop for more "professional" work. I am really tired of everyone here bashing photoshop for being a resource hog, too expensive and slow. Yes photoshop uses a lot of resources but its built for people that do advertising and professional photo editing. It is not Picassa or iPhoto or whatever cheap little photo editing program you all like to compare it to. I give major props to the people at Gimp for all the add-ons they do for their program its not bad but still not photoshop. What can you say though its free. Anyway, if you want a program that's going to allow you to do sophisticated editing then stick with Adobe but if not then look around, there's plenty of 3rd party software out there in the world.

      As for me, I started PS at version 5 or 6 and was using Paint Shop Pro at that time regularly. However, over the years PS have blossomed a lot and really surpassed the Jasc software. Anyway that's my two cents about it.

  26. Guy by teeloo · · Score: 1

    Funny how in that video of the John Knoll interview, you realize that one of the people filming is actually Guy Kawasaki. Well, at least that's funny to me anyway.

  27. Stupid editor mistakes by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In February of 1990, Adobe 1.0 was released.

    You'd think that in an article on Photoshop, they wouldn't make the irritating novice mistake of conflating "Adobe" (the company) with "Photoshop" (the product). I expect this from the idiots where I work, where complaints of "my Adobe isn't working!" are common, but from them?

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    1. Re:Stupid editor mistakes by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I personally enjoyed the caption: "The image below is of the Mac version" Followed immediately by a screenshot of the Windows 3.11 version.

      The article was pretty poorly-edited.

  28. Or should we say... by zoom-ping · · Score: 4, Funny

    Twenty years of lens flare.

    1. Re:Or should we say... by initialE · · Score: 1
      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    2. Re:Or should we say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually lens flare was a new feature in Photoshop 4.0, along with layers. So, what, 12 years? :)

  29. But the File Format Sucks. :) by weston · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "At this point, I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format. PSD is not a good format. PSD is not even a bad format. Calling it such would be an insult to other bad formats, such as PCX or JPEG..."

    And while we're at it, I have to say: Can we please be done with the idea that web mockups should be done in Photoshop? It never was a good tool for designing web layouts. The idea that it ever was is an artifact of its market position and the popularity of certain raster effects at the time the web rose. Illustrator has been a better tool for web layouts for a while, and Fireworks (with a fantastic blend of vector and raster capabilities) is even better, and there are probably half a dozen other vector capable layout tools I'm not aware of that are better...

    (Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP. They're bad choices for web layouts for the same reasons Photoshop is.) /soapbox

    1. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Inkscape?

      I'm not necessarily suggesting it, I'm looking for an answer.

    2. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.

      Perhaps inkscape is the GPL'd vector image editor you seek.

      On topic: Everyone, please cease mentioning that Photoshop went to pot with the CS namechange, lest Adobe pulls a Comcast-esque rebranding.

    3. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Illustrator sucks ass unless you've gone to Illustrator School for 2 years. It's so counter-intuitive and overly complex for most people's needs.

      I'm a pretty bright guy. I've taught myself how to be an expert Photoshop user for photography purposes. I've been using graphics and image software since Aldus was producing Pagemaker. However, I'm not a design professional. And I do NOT want to be.
      Try, in illustrator, to just throw down a rectangle and start laying out text and images. It's so far from intuitive that it's a joke. It's the reverse polish notation of the design world. Only worse. Well what about InDesign? Sigh. Adobe quit trying to be "smart" and force me to do shit. How about just letting me put stuff where I want it?

      So when I need to communicate ideas with my web designer he has a choice, I can use Photoshop or MS Word! ha.

    4. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by Jason+O'Neil · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I was a long time Illustrator user when I had to create some simple vector graphics on a work computer without Illustrator installed, and so downloaded and installed Inkscape.

      I was impressed, so much so that it's my main Vector Graphics editor now. I have a few moments where I miss Illustrator, but far more moments where I'm impressed with Inkscape. I don't use it because I'm too cheap to afford Illustrator, or for ideological open source reasons. I use it because for me, it's the better tool for the job.

      Well worth checking out for anyone who needs to do some vector graphics...

    5. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      Quote from the link above:

      Having worked on this code for several weeks now, my hate for PSD has grown to a raging fire that burns with the fierce passion of a million suns.

      OMG! I didn't know Carl Sagan was a programmer!

    6. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Or scribus

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

      A tool made for GUI mockups like Firefox Pencil is even easier than Inkscape or Scribus.

      Yes, it's a plugin/add-on. Give it a try, you might be surprised.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    8. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I think the reason the author is mad is that he/sbe jumps to the incorrect assumption that Adobe designed the PSD file format. Rather more likely, it is a half-assed dump of a bunch of internal data structures in native Mac byte order and structure packing, with shittons of hacks wrapped around it to make it load on x86 and other little endian architectures, shittons of additional hacks to force the packing to remain the same in Mac OS X, etc. It's not a "designed" file format so much as an example of what happens when a bunch of code monkeys fling data feces at a wall at maximum velocity and let it stick where it wants to. With that perspective, all of the inconsistencies noted in that comment suddenly make perfect sense.

      My favorite quote is the checkin message, which pretty much says everything:

      Photoshop loader is DONE for now, fuck you Adobe

      My thoughts exactly. Bear in mind that if the file format (the most exposed, most critical piece of code in any application) sucks that badly, the rest of the application code is probably worse. Terrifying, really, particularly when you realize that this HFSX-incompatible piece of buggy-DRM-encumbered dingo turd costs $1,000.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:But the File Format Sucks. :) by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      err... he/she

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  30. you screwed the Earl by arielCo · · Score: 1

    It's www.paint.net. Annoying.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  31. What version started requiring a mortgage? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A full version of Photoshop CS4 costs more than a cheap second hand car. Elements is cheaper but crippled in ways that make it much less useful even for a casual amateur. You use to be able to get around those restrictions up to Elements 2.0. Now Elements is a very different piece of software (ironically with some unique features of its own). Photoshop is wonderful, but it's a pity it's either inaccessible or pirated for a great many people. It's probably more pirated than Windows.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:What version started requiring a mortgage? by indiechild · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, Photoshop is for professionals, and is priced as such. A lot of home users pirate it for the prestige (the same way they think using Dreamweaver makes them a "pro"), not because they actually need all the powerful features of the software.

      Obviously Adobe make the vast majority of their profits from corporate customers, much like Microsoft does.

    2. Re:What version started requiring a mortgage? by syousef · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, Photoshop is for professionals, and is priced as such.

      They do dual licensing but limit it to students. Good old "your first hit is free, kid" technique.

      A lot of home users pirate it for the prestige (the same way they think using Dreamweaver makes them a "pro"), not because they actually need all the powerful features of the software.

      There are a few good reasons to want to use Photoshop.

      1) It's the industry standard. If you progress from amateur, you need to know it to get any work. If you do it formally, student pricing is available. If you do it of your own accord, you either buy it at stupid prices, pirate, or do without.

      2) You need even one of those advanced features. Pro or amateur work, if you're looking to use a particular filter or technique that's not available in a cheaper (or free) editor, you're left with the same dilema. A lot of those features do not require advanced knowledge. Adjustment layers is a good example. There's no free product that does them. GIMP certainly doesn't. Paint Shop Pro is cheaper than Photoshop and does, but it's layer implementation is inferior. There are literally dozens of such features, and if you need them going without means a lot more work.

      Obviously Adobe make the vast majority of their profits from corporate customers, much like Microsoft does.

      Microsoft is cracking down on home users too.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  32. So are the Knoll's fantastically wealthy? by fprintf · · Score: 1

    With all the "brilliance" that the article refers to in Photoshop that was contributed by the Knoll family, are they fantastically wealthy? They basically created an industry segment all by themselves, one that is very robust to this day. I would hope they were suitably rewarded, though all of them are working in essentially the same places/jobs that they were 20 years ago! Do they work for fun or do they need to work for money?

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    1. Re:So are the Knoll's fantastically wealthy? by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      wealth != success & happiness

      Sometimes quite the opposite. Although if you're an MBA (as your sig indicates) you may have trouble with that concept.

  33. On Fireworks by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I generally agree that Fireworks is superior for web mockups. However, I hope they get around to fixing text handling, which is still awful after all these years, which forces me back to Photoshop or Illustrator just to add text parts. In other respects, Fireworks CS4 is pretty amazing; able to spit CSS layouts from slices and all that.

  34. Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheels by Piata · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, why would you use the scroll wheel to change a value? Most values like transparency or opacity can be quickly changed by hitting numbers on the keyboard. I'd much rather hit 5 to set the opacity of my brush to 50% rather than scroll half way through the spinner. To each their own but if you're using Photoshop all day, using a scroll wheel to change values seems terribly inefficient.

  35. you ALSO screwed the Earl by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    Your correction needs a correction.

    It's www.getpaint.net.

    If you're going to be annoyed by someone's mistake, try not to annoy others with your mistake.

    - not annoyed.

    1. Re:you ALSO screwed the Earl by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Heh, thanks. By "annoying" I meant that the missing "www" sometimes takes you to a different site, but I can see clearly now that I need more quality sleep :)

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  36. adobe corporate abuses? by Speare · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does the history show the abuses of the Adobe corporation, like the Dmitri Sklyarov incident?

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:adobe corporate abuses? by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      Yes. An article reflecting on the history of a piece of image-editing software, and how it grew out of the efforts of a single family, also includes extensive details on criminal copyright lawsuits initiated by the distribution company.

  37. Photoshop is amazing by lakeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had similar views to yours. Then I happened to get a summer job working for a desktop publisher and so had to use photoshop. I won't claim to be an expert - and I'm awfully rusty now - but you can do very awesome things in Photoshop extremely easily if you happen to have spent a large number of hours learning how. Yes, Photoshop is hard to _learn_ but it is very easy to use.

    You say that ordinary users just need to , adjust brightness etc.but I don't think this is true. Ordinary users want to tune up their photos - e.g. sharpen, remove the shadow from someone's face, take the reflection off someone's glasses, remove a lamp-post or cyclist that unfortunately interfere with the shot, replace the blinking eyes from one photo with the open eyes from the next (especially group photos where someone is invariably looking away), etc, slightly fancier resize (e.g. fix camera not quite straight).

    Also, my bet is that my list of basic features and the guy next to me's list will not be identical - if you want to make all basic users happy then I suspect you'll be in for a big list of features. For instance a grandmother with a thousand old photos in a shoe box will have a very different basic list to the one I gave above involving scratch removal and the like.

    Now, I've completely avoided answering your question. Instead I've told you to invest the time in learning gimp, it will pay off over the years. In terms of actually answering your question I haven't found a good answer - Apple's Aperture is an attempt, and Adobe makes Photoshop Elements but they all suck

  38. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by arose · · Score: 1

    Can you do that just by hovering over a spinner box? Aside from that it just seems to be a personal preference, and I see no reason to try to paint as something that inefficient use X all day long without any objective evidence. I take advantage of the ability to click next to a slider to change the value in discrete steps, it may seem like inefficient use of screen space to some, but it's arguable whether reducing all UI elements to their bare minimum to save some pixels makes up for the reduced amount of information.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  39. Gimp vs. PS by Max_W · · Score: 1

    What PS has what GIMP does not have?

    1. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What PS has what GIMP does not have?

      A grammar check?

    2. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is correct lolcat grammar.

    3. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Yes, maybe. And a marketing department of 5000 creative people. One needs it to sell soft for 999.-

      But the rest is about the same, if not worse than in GIMP.

      Sorry for grammar errors, by the way; English is a foreign language for me.

      But I keep learning it. As the saying goes: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me."

    4. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Max_W · · Score: 1

      When an error made by a non-native speaker seems to be funny it is the first sign that this person does not speak any foreign language.

      Because one, who can speak a foreign language or at least tried to learn it, knows what a difficult task it is. Like in a joke: "Who served in an army does not laugh in a circus."

    5. Re:Gimp vs. PS by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      About a thousand things, but to me, that would be :

      - integration with a powerful and easy to use RAW processor (Camera Raw or Lightroom)
      - non-destructive processing with layers styles and adjustment layers
      - developed, used and tested by many pro photographers and designers for the last 20 years

      GIMP doesn't even come close to PS for my workflow.

    6. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Max_W · · Score: 1

      I have an older version of "PhotoShop". And I was not impressed.

      For what I am doing (product photography, thousands of published images per year) GIMP seems to be better. I tried to work with RAWs images but I do not see the point. GIMP 2.6.8 for Windows allows me to do the same things with JPGs at least not worse.

      Such things as a mass image re-sizing, thumbs creation, EXIF info removal, etc. I do with "ImageMagic" www.imagemagick.org scripts. In the past I was doing it with the GD2-PHP library and PHP scripts. But now I prefer "ImageMagic" for Windows and BAT scripts.

      Mass EXIFs writing I do with the program, which is called "Exifer" (the best things in life are free).

      I am also a programmer that is why these tools are better for me. I do not argue "PhotoShop" does work for some people. But I have a feeling that it is an over-priced tool for, sort of, wedding photographers (like a profession badge) and mom's doing photos of their kids.

    7. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, maybe. And a marketing department of 5000 creative people. One needs it to sell soft for 999.-

      But the rest is about the same, if not worse than in GIMP.

      Sorry for grammar errors, by the way; English is a foreign language for me.

      But I keep learning it. As the saying goes: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me."

      Fair enough on the foreign language. Where I work, everyone makes fun of eachother's grammar, and we're all primarily english speakers. Kudos to you for putting up with us.

      As for Gimp, I've used it, actually on both windows and mac. The gimp brush engine makes me want to vomit. They have minor adjustments compared to what photoshop offers. Also, even with extra plugins, Gimp doesn't even come close to photoshop's simple, effective "High Pass" filter. Go ahead and use Gimp, but don't try to pass it off as a superior product. It's simply a cheaper (as in FREE), and for some, it's a better fit.

    8. Re:Gimp vs. PS by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Free makes a difference sometimes too. We can add a new colleague to a task with no cost. Or exclude him away if he/she is not up to the task.

      I would not be able to do so, absolutely, if it involved buying PhotoShop for this colleague for 999. Nikon D5000 or Lumix G-1 costs less.

      We try to get out of GIMP, and also ImageMagic and GD2-PHP library whatever we can. Besides I am sort of accustomed to GIMP already. I think it is a soft of the same league as MySQL or Notepad++.

      Thanks for the language remark though. Nice of you.

  40. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    Actually it's a very nice feeling. I know what you mean about adjusting opacity values, but what about minor things that don't have such convenient shortcuts? What about auditioning fonts? I'd rather do that with the scroll wheel than any other method I've tried, keyboard-based or not.

  41. Whoops by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an article on Photoshop has such low-quality screenshots? Most, if not all of them, are JPEG's, and almost all of them have been badly rescaled down (and a few of them down then up again).

          --- Mr. DOS

  42. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I'd much rather hit 5 to set the opacity of my brush to 50% rather than scroll half way through the spinner.

    That's reasonable, and I'd usually do the same. Hey, I'm a geek - sometimes I'm just not happy with the results until they're mathematically precise. However, artists (and sometimes I) don't always work that way, and will adjust values until "it looks right". If working with paints, they don't often mix 2.3mL of some shade of red with 1.45mL of a certain blue. Instead, they'll add a little more of one or the other until they're happy with the results. Well, same with computer graphics: they'll use a widget to slide back and forth across a range of values until they likes the look of it.

    Hitting "5" to get "50%" is very precise. Precision isn't always what an artist wants.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  43. Inkscape is great by weston · · Score: 1

    Perhaps inkscape is the GPL'd vector image editor you seek.

    Inkscape is great. I'm still happier to pay to use Fireworks for a variety of other reasons, but if Inkscape suddenly became the weapon of choice for web mockups instead of Photoshop, I'd be delighted.

  44. Still have Photoshop on floppy disks by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I still have Photoshop (version 2 I recall) which I tried using sometime ago to buy an upgraded version of PS CS or CS2 but the oldest they went back to at the time was 4 or 5.

    For me though I think Photoshop 6 was the first time I really got into it and to be quite honest it's still one of my favourite versions. PS 7 was awful, imo.

  45. Every Web Designer? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Photoshop has been a part of every web designer's life since they picked up their first mouse.

    Say what? Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor? Unless, of course, he's running an art web site. Or he's one of those really inept designers who doesn't understand the difference between print design and web design.

    1. Re:Every Web Designer? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

      As mentioned in earlier comments, a lot of people use Photoshop to mock up UI's quickly. I've been creating graphics for the web using photoshop since the mid-90s. Yes, there are now other tools in addition, but PS is a very powerful way to create a 'look' and revise it for a client quickly. Once the overall look has been established, you can make a template in DW and still make minor tweaks there, but by the time I've gotten to the template level, I'm close to the finished look.

      Unless you're strictly doing coding for minimalistic, business oriented sites relying primarily on colors and shapes created through CSS, etc., PS is an extraordinarily useful tool for visualizing UI's.

      Although I find it odd that they mention that application first and not its applications for professional photographers, which I also make heavy use of. Though lately I've been doing most of my editing in Lightroom, and only when an image needs serious compositing or cleaning do I take it over to PS.

    2. Re:Every Web Designer? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, good point. I am bothered by how much web web sites designed that way tend to be over designed, and cluttered with all kinds of clever crap. But that's not a Photoshop issue, in and of itself.

    3. Re:Every Web Designer? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In the late 90s a lot of web designers created the pages first in photoshop, and then cut up the images, and aligned them on the web page with tables (unless you were one of those web designers who eschewed images). It was common enough that in 99 Photoshop came with a feature to automate the image cutting.

      For an example, look at Dell when it first launched. You might have been able to do the original layout in Pagemaker, but it would have been pointless because you would have had to do it nearly all over again because users can't look at a Pagemaker file in their browser. Each of the categories, like "Dimension Desktops", has to be an image because you can't have the image of a computer overlay the header of a table like that (even now it would be a pain). So you just worked it up in Photoshop, cut out the images you needed, and then did the rest in html. It sucked, but it's not like page layout for the web is all that great even today.

      --
      Qxe4
  46. Re: I think... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications. The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications. Think Visicalc. Think Photoshop. Think MacWrite. Think Excel. The iPhone is the same thing.

    This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.

    I think for the same money, I could buy a just about as fast PC, with an extra monitor and a photoshop license. Oh wait, I think I did.

  47. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, why would you use the scroll wheel to change a value? Most values like transparency or opacity can be quickly changed by hitting numbers on the keyboard. I'd much rather hit 5 to set the opacity of my brush to 50% rather than scroll half way through the spinner. To each their own but if you're using Photoshop all day, using a scroll wheel to change values seems terribly inefficient.

    I use an Intuos you insensitive clod!

  48. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For experimentation purposes. If you want to try a range of values quickly its much faster to just roll up or down to try every value between 1 and a 100 in a second or two. I find it a useful feature in other , similar graphics apps (especially with respect to color correction)
        (and yes I use the numeric keypad as you suggest when I already have a pretty good idea what I want).

  49. Artgem anyone? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Has anyone ever used ArtGem here?

    It feels like an updated version of Amiga Deluxe Paint to use. Although it's not as powerful as Photoshop, it's faster, cheaper and much nicer to use. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued apparently due to piracy.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Artgem anyone? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever used ArtGem here?

      It feels like an updated version of Amiga Deluxe Paint to use. Although it's not as powerful as Photoshop, it's faster, cheaper and much nicer to use. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued apparently due to piracy.

      You are complaining about losses due to piracy on Slashdot? You must be an RIAA/MPAA/**AA shill! Go away shill!

      *wink*

  50. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

    If you don't know exactly what transparency looks the best, I can imagine using a scroll wheel to dial it up or down. Much easier and precise than sliders (especially when making changes to a huge raw file on an underpowered machine) Think of it as a dimmer switch for your lens flares.

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  51. xv by Fzz · · Score: 1

    xv! xv is ancient, but it did pretty much all this back in 1994. "xv 3.10a, Last release 12/29/94" it says on the splash window. And it still works well after all these years. Can't say that about many pieces of software. For simple editing, I still use it, even on my Mac (though you do need a two-button mouse).

  52. 20 years old and it's STILL HARD TO USE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When, oh when are they going to give it an intuitive UI? Please??

  53. Oh for a mod point by toby · · Score: 1

    Nicely played, sir.

    --
    you had me at #!
  54. Maybe for SVG... by rHBa · · Score: 1
    (X)HTML doesn't handle vector graphics so surely you only need your web graphics in a vector format if you plan to use SVG?

    I'm very happy doing front end development from a PSD if it's been made by a GOOD web designer, i.e:
    • Designed in a way that can be easily scaled
    • Well organised layers
    • Easily tiled bg images
    • Single pixel lines where they want a single pixel line (no aliased borders)
    • Consistent use of repeated elements etc...

    (BTW there are MANY other things that make a good web designer but these are a few that I thought were relevant)

    I'm not a web designer my self but the ones I work with find photoshop more intuitive which means they think less about the software and more about design.

  55. keep going... by toby · · Score: 0

    First on Mac: Adobe Illustrator, Quark XPress, Aldus PageMaker, Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects, Altsys/Aldus Freehand, etc, etc.

    --
    you had me at #!
  56. ignores prior work by pydev · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article leaves out quite a bit of the history of digital paint programs. This article contains a good summary (although it also leaves out yet other work).

    1. Re:ignores prior work by pydev · · Score: 1

      Here's another interesting discussion of prior art:

      SIGGRAPH

  57. Kinda cute by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    The splashscreens are from MAC, but the screenshots from Windows :)

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  58. 20 years of by aldld · · Score: 1

    20 years of photoshopping photos of ourselves to make ourselves look more attractive!

    I'm not the only one who has done that, right?

  59. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Hmm. What do you hit to set the opacity to 5%?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  60. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually scrollwheel is more accurate in many case when you use shortcuts with it like Ctrl, alt, shift and their combinations. You can easily adjust almost all what you want without reaching 5-0 buttons. The mouse is your most important tool in photoshop. Learn to use its features and you can be even more productive

  61. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you might want to see what 50% looks like and then quickly adjust it to 49%, then 48% ... and so on, until you find the value you want.

  62. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by imakemusic · · Score: 1

    What about auditioning fonts? I'd rather do that with the scroll wheel than any other method I've tried, keyboard-based or not.

    You can do this with the scroll wheel. You need to click the text of the font name rather than just hovering over it, but you can scroll-wheel through fonts.

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  63. Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    That's what I do when I use Photoshop. :-) Still not the same though.

  64. Tutorials? by alexo · · Score: 1

    Are there good Photoshop tutorials on the web that walk you from a beginner level to advanced photo manipulation?

    1. Re:Tutorials? by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      More structure = paid = lynda.com

      More free = various collections = here

  65. Thanks for the wikipedia link by Gaffod · · Score: 1

    Wow, I had no idea what this "Photos Shop" thing was all about. Thanks, man! One complaint though- I had quite a bit of trouble figuring out what a "february" is, should've linked to that as well.