>>The 7.0 File Browser color manages the previews and thumbnails and can
certainly be used to do a "quick looksee" as you call it.>>
First of all, welcome to the group, and good luck in your efforts to defend
some of these indefensible features.
As for the File Browser, this is my favorite feature in PS7. It's a great way
to organize and identify images. However, the purpose of examining a series
of images is ordinarily to determine not what they are pictures of but
whether they are professionally usable. When the File Browser's thumbnails
indicate whether highlight is blown out, or whether the image is slightly out
of focus, or whether fine detail is salvageable, then we can use it as you
suggest. Until then, we have to open the files and check them out.
>>Suggestions have also been made to accomplish exactly what you want to do
with a miniscule amount of effort by creating a one step action to ignore the
The suggestions have indeed been made, but not by anybody with serious
production experience. Anybody with such experience is going to answer, the
hot key that forces images to close regardless of any warning is going right
next to the hot key that formats my hard drive without warning. Most of us
would rather have to respond to 100 false warnings rather than inadvertently
close a file with important changes unsaved. Forget this hot key. Nobody is
going to put that kind of time bomb on their system.
>>...you find so onerous to dismiss with a single click or keypress.>>
I don't find a single click onerous, but when there are 50 images open at
once, it starts to get annoying. The real problem, though, is the pause that
takes place every time when one sees the warning and tries to evaluate
whether there has really been a change to the file, or it's just one of these
bogus Photoshop 7 warnings.
>>I'm sorry you feel ineffective in affecting the decisions of digital camera
manufacturers to correct what you believe is their grievous wrong. >>
If I were seriously aggrieved at everyone whose files contain incorrect
profiles there would be little joy in my life. While I wish both Jeff and
Adobe luck in persuading the camera companies to embed the right tag, the
problem is not the camera vendors but rather that the very fact that a file
carries an sRGB tag is a strong indication that the tag is wrong, and that
Photoshop 7 gives us no way to address this reality. And, of course, the
reason that the large majority of sRGB tags are wrong is not the fault of the
camera vendors, but rather of some of your friends who designed an interface
in such a manner that this would be the inevitable result. We, the users,
have to live with embedded sRGB being usually wrong, and could do so nicely
with PS5 and PS6.
Besides, I have a proven history of being an ineffective persuader in such
matters. Heaven knows I did try to explain that things like instituting sRGB
as a Photoshop default or to have files convert on open without warning were
counterproductive, but I didn't get anywhere, and those changes were far more
damaging than anything Nikon or Canon are currently doing. And, as you've
seen, I haven't been effective in preventing this new brainstorm.
If any change of substance is made to a file, PS6 and PS7 behave identically,
so we are talking solely about the case where the user opens a file and then
immediately closes it. There are two possibilities: either he planned the
move so as to alter or discard the profile, or he didn't--he just wanted to
see what was in the file, or was thinking about making a change and decided
not to. One would have to assume that the chances that the actual intent was
to change the profile are around 10 billion to one against.
Catering to the one in 10 billion, Adobe's response is to present a dialog to
which the default answer is yes, change or discard the profile. Having thus
guaranteed that a whole lot of files will get their profiles either trashed
or replaced inadvertently, Adobe now proposes to persuade camera
manufacturers that it's in the industry's best interest that they embed
correct profiles in their output.
If the objective is really to get more accurate profiles into the
marketplace, the effort would be far better spent in rushing 7.0.1 out the
door than in bothering Canon and Nikon.
Just a brief response to your answer to my question:
What you were doing was going to pref's while P.S was still open(unchecking the Maximum Campatibility) and if you resave it(changes will not take effect) those changes will not take effect until you restart P.S.
After checking the file sizes with Explorer before and after saving with the above box checked, I can see about 30% file size reduction (really good). However, when you bring the reduced file into Photoshop 6.0 its size at the bottom of the photoshop interface is still the larger file size that I started with. I assume it is a glitch in PS or an error in the way I have PS setup. This is where my confusion came from.
Thanx for pointing out the issue with file sizes. This alone makes me pause over the upgrade...
On the subject of file sizes, I notice BIG differences when I open the same file in PS 5.5 & PS 6. A file that displays at 35Mb on the status line of 5.5 weighs in at 96.4Mb in PS 6....This is a HUGE amount & I suspect it is the addition of Styles, custom shapes etc. Does anyone know how to set up PS6 so they do not load by default yet I can load them when required?
I shudder to think how big my files would be in version 7 & I guess my P3 600mHz with 448mb RAM would shudder with me!
I have a PIII500mhz with 2 20 gig hard drives and 512mb of ram.
PS7 runs so much faster and smoother on my machine, it is worth the upgrade for that reason alone for me. I am so impressed with the improvement in performance on my machine.
I only received my copy today so haven't had time to truly assess the features, but so far I am very pleased.
Hello Ms. Brunson,
You can loan it to me(since we live close by each other) and I'll test those features.
Hello Mr. H
To me. I feel file size is not that big of a deal today. With machines running "stock" 215mb of ram(some are running as high as 1-gb of ram(custom), better video cards......64mb, and a fast hard drive...72000rpm's or better. Compared to machines that at one time(not too long ago) ran, 64mb of ram. But theirs other issues on file sizes as well. Ex: for print and printers with rip's.
Mr. Opitz (you can call me Sharon)
You are welcome to come see for yourself. It's amazing how much cleaner PS7 runs on my machine.
I LOVE IT.
PS 7 does run MUCH faster.
Vikki, there is a way to clone from one point and that point only in PS 5-7 I don't recall what it is, but there is a way.
So far I am very impressed with PS 7, my machine (PIII 750, 20G hd ans 512 ram) runs much faster. Can't wait to try it on my other machine. (Dual PIII's 800mhz, 1G ram, 40Ghd)
Havn't tried everything yet, but the NEW brush engine and paint engine are pretty cool!
The Photoshop native format or .PSD contains an unkown lossless compression scheme.
A saved PSD file on disk will be smaller than when opened into Photoshop (decompressed), sometimes significantly so. This is true for other formats which use compression, such as JFIF/JPEG.
There is a preference in Photoshop that lets you save a merged flattened copy of the layers into the file, which can also add to the file size considerably - but may provide some safety in other apps or in ver7 or later if earlier/later versions of Photoshop have problems with the layers (like all insurance, decide on the risk vs. cost).
There are many other things which add to a files size...
With the compression and layer and other advances to the Adobe owned TIFF and PDF file formats, some users are not using PSD for archival of layers and other extra data from Photoshop (but not me) - as the size saving may be worth it for some users and workflows (many people prefer a 'plain vanilla' TIFF format which does not use any options apart from Mac/PC encoding).
I am not sure this will answer your question but when the aligned is selected the relative positions of the samples and clones always remain the same. If you select a sample 2 inches to the top right of where your going to clone any time you clone it will use a sample located 2 inches to the top right of the clone stamp.
If aligned is not selected then when you clone it always starts at the same sample point you selected.
I checked this out in PS 7 and it works the same way.
After PS4, I started to use the clone stamp with aligned unselected since I am normally making small changes and not trying to reproduce a complete part of the image from one location to another.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Tutorial 05: Converting a Color Image to Black and White grayscale BW||DannyRaphael||Photo-Art 101||17||05-22-2011 04:55 PM|
|OVERALL which is better? Canon i9100 or Epson Stylus Pro 2200.||NeX||Hardware||2||12-10-2003 01:39 PM|
|Flash? Pros & Cons||KevinBE||Your Website||5||08-27-2003 11:19 AM|