Pros and Cons of P.S. 7

[john_opitz]

The following is from Dan Margulis about Photoshop 7. He is a beta tester for Adobe and author of Professional Photoshop 6.
Posted with his permission.

Folks,

As Photoshop 7 shipped yesterday (15 April) I will now amplify my earlier
comments about workflow issues with the release.

Photoshop 7 has pros and cons. Depending on how each one of them affects
you, you will have to decide whether the upgrade makes sense. For myself,
the minuses far outweigh the pluses, so I will be sticking with Photoshop
6. However, depending on your workflow, it may be logical for you to make a
different decision.

Naturally, the pluses have gotten all the coverage and nobody is aware yet
of the dark side. Therefore, I'll concentrate on that. But I'll lay out
what I consider to be the five top items on each side.

Dan Margulis

PROS:

1) It runs natively in OSX and Win XP.

2) Adds a huge array of brushmaking and painting features, to the point
that it becomes a rival to Painter. This is a really big deal if you happen
to do this kind of work. If anything, the power of this has been
underrated, but it's not for everybody, either.

3) Liquify tool much better; a Pattern Maker added that can easily create
an entire file based on a single selected object. A nice special effect.

4) A File Browser that lets us point at a given folder and it gives us what
amounts to a contact sheet of what's in it. The thumbnails it shows are not
large enough to evaluate image quality but they're plenty large enough to
find a specific image if you don't know what its name is.

5) A Healing Brush, and a companion Patch tool, that try to do intelligent
correction of damaged areas of an image. The Healing Brush operates
similarly to the clone tool: you click an unaffected area first and then
paint over the damage. With the Patch tool you drag a selection on top of
the damaged area. Either way, Photoshop analyzes the situation and tries to
figure out how to repair the damage based on the patterns it sees in the
undamaged area, rather than blindly cloning. It ain't perfect but it's a
nice improvement.


CONS:

1) Unlike previous versions, if we open a file that contains an embedded
profile in any way other than by honoring that profile, Photoshop 7
considers that it is a change to the file *even if we immediately close the
file without any other change.* Thus, it will generate a Save Changes?
dialog that we must respond to.

The ramifications of this are quite serious if you happen to accept many
files from strangers who embed a profile you don't wish to use (like,
anybody who hasn't changed the Photoshop defaults). You can't open a large
number of these files simultaneously just for a looksee without having to
respond to a warning upon closing each one. For an operation as large as a
service bureau, it's unworkable. Salesmen and CSRs are always opening
client files to see what they contain, and they'll be prompted to save
nonexistent changes, default answer being Yes. Similarly, any large CMYK
operation that accepts profiled files from clients is in trouble.

It sounds like this wouldn't affect a studio photographer who only is
working on his own files, but wait, it gets better.

2) Unlike previous versions, Photoshop 7 reads EXIF data. The English
translation of this is that some digital captures have no embedded profile
for the purposes of Photoshop 6, but they do for Photoshop 7. This was
pointed out late in the beta process so nobody really has a good handle on
it yet, but all the cameras that are known at this point to do this state
that the profile is sRGB. Unfortunately, none of them actually behave as
sRGB devices. At least two Nikon and two Canon models have been identified
as behaving this way, including the Nikon 950 that I own. They say sRGB for
Photoshop 7; in fact they are more like Apple RGB or ColorMatch RGB.

This means that, in order to even open the files without getting an alert
every time, you have to turn profile mismatch off in color settings, which
one would prefer not to do. But at least it's workable. The problem is,
however, how this operates in conjunction with problem #1 above.

If you have such a camera, you are in the same position as the service
bureau--although you have generated the file yourself, it has an incorrect
embedded profile. Therefore, you either have to open in sRGB and deal with
a photograph that's darker and flatter than it should be, or open it in a
correct way and have Photoshop 7 treat the very act of opening it as a
change.

In other words, if you are used to opening a whole batch of images from a
given shoot at the same time just to examine them quickly without changes,
you can't do this in Photoshop 7. Every image will give you a Save Changes?
prompt. You can't even quit the program to close the files.

3) As most of us know, layered files saved in PSD format are much more
economical if the "Maximize Compatibility" option in preferences is turned
off. Otherwise, every layered file saves, in addition to the layers, a
composite flattened version of the file. This unnecessarily bloats the file
size, often doubling it. The original need for this was when Photoshop 3
introduced layers in 1994, a Photoshop 2 user wouldn't be able to open a
layered file at all without the composite, but at least could see something
if the composite was there.

Since there are few Photoshop 2 users left, there's really no excuse for
this option to be checked, and it can be a big deal if it is. If you use,
say, three adjustment layers on one base layer, checking that option
doubles file size.

Unfortunately, Adobe has now decided that this is a needed option, because
InDesign and Illustrator don't read layered files without the composite,
although why anyone would want them to is unclear. Therefore, when first we
uncheck the preference, we get a new warning message saying that we
shouldn't do so. Assuming that we still persist and check this new warning
saying yes, we understand, but we still want to save without a composite,
the suffering is not over. In spite of our having declared twice that we
wish to do the sensible thing that 99% of all users should do, Photoshop 7
won't let us do it in peace. Instead, each and every time we save a new
layered file, it will warn us that we shouldn't be doing it, and require
that we respond. There is no way of turning this bogus warning off.

4) The TIFF format has been seriously degraded. Adobe owns it, so they can
do whatever they like with it, which is unfortunate because so many of us
depend on its stability to make a living.

Some years ago, the spec was amended to permit, among other things, layered
TIFFs or those saved with JPEG or ZIP compression. A layered TIFF, unlike a
layered PSD, *must* carry a composite version. Most but not all
applications can *place* a layered TIFF, but whether they can image it is
unknown. Layered TIFFs can be large. At the very least, they'll clog
networks and strain RIPs. As for JPEGged or ZIPped TIFFs, AFAIK only Adobe
products can even place them.

In Photoshop 6, users were given the opportunity to access these dubious
features but had to check off a preference to do so. By default only a
standard TIFF could be saved. A few people did decide they needed the
features but by and large the world said no, quite logically in my view.

Notwithstanding the clear lack of interest in the market, Adobe has decided
to make these changes *mandatory* in Photoshop 7, even if you are one of
the 99% of users who *never* want to save a TIFF with layers or with one of
these exotic compressions. They'll be in your face every time you save.
And, naturally, thousands of less sophisticated users, who don't know the
difference between JPEG and JPEGged TIFF, will be saving them by mistake,
let alone saving enormous files because they don't understand why smaller
TIFFs are a good idea or don't notice the tiny box in the save dialog box
that "alerts" them that they're saving layers.

5) In certain versions of Photoshop 7, notably OSX, the Custom CMYK dialog
now defaults to 400% total ink, unusable for any printing conditions. As I
haven't been using OSX and the issue is not present in 9.2, I can't give
further details.

[thomasgeorge]

Thanks for Heads up, John! It sounds like , for the most part, the cons outweigh the pros, especially when it comes to the saving and profile "Improvements". Almost sounds like Adobe rushed V. 7 to market a bit before all the implications of the changes were evaluated....While the new repair tools sound interesting, I wonder if the results couldnt be duplicated by utilizing the existing tools. Interesting post, and thank you very much ,again, for the "heads Up"!! Tom

[DJ Dubovsky]

Thanks John. Lately all I've been hearing are the wonderful things in Photoshop 7 and none of the bad points. Although I really like the new features and think they are worth the upgrade, the points you brought up are very important to know in dealing with Photoshop 7 and assessing whether it's something that will slow you down by upgrading as you pointed out in a few of the cons in mass production. An understanding of how to deal with saving Tiffs in 7 is good to know as is the issue of saving files with embedded profiles. I read through your entire post and I will definately refer back to it when I get 7 to better understand how to work with these cons. Thanks again.
DJ

[john_opitz]

Exactly. Listing,..... it's not to buy(Adobe bashing) the upgrade. But to know how to handle the cons.

[CJ Swartz]

John, as with the others, this is the first critique (rather than promotion) of Version 7 that I've seen. I respect Mr. Margulis' knowledge in this area, and now have to reconsider whether to upgrade to V7. The main area that I will have to consider is my work with my digital camera files.

[jeaniesa]

Thank you John. It's very good to know the problems I might run into. When I think about my use of PS, I don't think the downsides will affect me as much as some others since I don't work with batches of photos and I don't own a digital camera. ( I know - I'm still in the dark ages.) But, the info on TIFF files is definitely of interest to me! Thanks for forwarding this info. Jeanie

[DJ Dubovsky]

Just a note here. Photoshop 7 is due for release tomorrow, April 18th. Guess we'll really start getting some feed back then as people start using it.
DJ

[Vikki]

I just received version 7 in the mail (preordered).
I can't wait to try it out, but I have a previous engagement this evening, so I can't get to it until tomorrow.

I know one thing for sure, I am making quite a steep jump from version 4 to 7! I hope it's not too difficult.

[DJ Dubovsky]

Vikki
I think you may be in for some serious culture shock. I hope you don't plan to change over until you feel comfortable with it. Even changing from one version to the next is tough to get up to speed on. I am curious about your experience with this change over so keep us informed on what you feel are the pros and cons.
DJ

[Ed_L]

Thanks John. Dan knows his stuff, for sure. Now at least we'll know what to be aware of. Thanks again.

Ed

[DannyRaphael]

There's a lively debate in the the PS/Windows forum over at www.adobe.com on this exact topic.

Not everyone agrees with the "cons" listed by Mr. Margulis.

If this topic is near/dear to your heart, it may be worth your while to read differing opinions.

Me? I'm gonna hang tight until PS 8.0 comes out!

[john_opitz]

Mr. Raphael,

The web address is lhere

For that debate.......... Let's get ready to rumble. That forum(topic on Pros and Cons with P.S. 7) is better than watching WWF.

P.S. You will have to log in though. Just like RAW(WWF) you have to subscribe to it.

[DannyRaphael]

...and you can call me Danny (but don't call me late for dinner, please).

Forgot adobe.com is a login thing. Appreciate you posting the corrected link - as well as getting the discussion started here and across the way. Yer right: The fur be flyin' over there.

It was interesting to me to see a heavyweight like Jeff Schwee get so passionate.

[john_opitz]

Yes, Danny, it is nice to see a heavyweight get involved. BTW, here is a reply from Mr. Margulis to a another heavyweight. That heavyweight replied to Mr. Margulis about his first(Mr. Margulis') post about P.S.7.

Jeff writes,

>>Regarding this issue, Dan is simply wrong. There is a major industry push
for the usefulness and functionality of metadata (XMP being a major
advancement in Photoshop 7) and particularly EXIF metadata. For metadata
schemas to be at all useful, the applications than read files must be
enabled to use the embedded tags. In this case, Photoshop 7 rightly respects
the tags.>>

Jeff misinterprets my views but it's mostly my fault for writing in a sloppy
way.

I agree that Photoshop should read and honor this tag. Now that I know that
many cameras, including mine, embed incorrect tags, I wish that there were a
way to turn the read off temporarily. However, hindsight is always 20-20 and
one cannot blame Adobe for not having thought of putting a turn-off feature
in.

Although I listed it as Con #2, it really is no con in and of itself. It's a
con only because it's deadly in combination with Con #1, which is Photoshop
7's idiotic assumption that any time one opens a file with any color setting
other than the one found in the incoming file, this constitutes a change to
the file even if the user is only trying to examine, not alter it.

The idea of being able to open, say, 50 files from a given camera, look at
them under what we think are the best monitor settings, and then close them
again, hardly seems like an unreasonable request. Yet Photoshop 7 has managed
to find a way to make it so ridiculously inconvenient that anybody who's a
heavy user of such a camera is basically shafted.

>>Photoshop 7.0's behaviour is correct for industry standards. This was
pointed out to
Dan on several occasions by industry experts. I suggest if Dan wants a
crusade, he should take it to those companies-the camera companies-who are
screwing up. That's where the blame should be directed.>>

First of all, nobody had to point this out to me because I never took any
other position. As for complaining to the camera companies, let's get real.
We call them up, get to talk to somebody who's never heard of color
management, and state our complaint. And they respond: "Let me get this
straight. This camera works perfectly in Photoshop 6, right? And now that
you've gone to Photoshop 7 it's busted?" And they hang up and fall on the
floor helpless with mirth.

Dan Margulis

[Vikki]

This is totally off the above subject, but a huge CON for me.

I installed the upgrage last night, and spent a few minutes checking things out.
I now remember the main reason I've never upgraded. I HATE how the clone tool works (Adobe changed the clone tool in version 5).

Since I use the clone tool 98% of the time, this is a major problem for me. Is there anyone here, who upgraded from 4, that can offer some tips on how to get this tool to work like version 4?
Otherwise, I'll probably revert back to version 4 for cloning, then move over to 7 for other stuff....what a hassle.

I had to vent.

[CJ Swartz]

Ummm, Vicki -- can you remind me how the clone tool works in Version 4? I've been using V5.0 and 5.5 for a couple of years or so, and don't remember back that far.

[jeaniesa]

Vikki, Sorry - but I didn't start using PS until 5.02, so I've never known anything different.

Danny/John - Thanks for the additional link to the discussion in the Adobe forums. I got my PS7 today (yeah!) but don't even have time to open the box until sometime next week. :-( I think I'll do a little more reading in those forums to better understand if I might run into any trouble that I don't anticipate.

Jeanie

[Vikki]

I don't know if I can explain the difference.....
From what I've read, in version 5 and up, it takes a snapshot when you start cloning, and clones from the snapshot--so if you run over areas that you have cloned, the ORIGINAL image reappears. You apply one stroke and it clones what is in the picture at the beginning of that stroke. If you want to make a clone of this clone, you have to apply a second stroke.
So basically, I have to keep starting and stoping.

In version 4, it does not reapply the original, but let's you keep cloning from any reference point you choose.

When 5 originally came out, there was a big discussion about the clone tool. Many people thought it was a bad choice on Adobe's part. I think I'll check out the discussion, maybe someone has as clue about how to make it work like version 4.
Oh, the other thing I forgot about, is the slow down, as the history brush records every stroke!

In the meantime, I'm going to give it a whirl, and see if I can get used to it.
Thanks,
Vikki

[jerry]

Hi John,

Thanks for taking the time to keep us informed. I am getting a free upgrade to ps 7.0 because I bought 6.0 recently. I'll give it a try but I am just a beginner and don't have the time constraints that you Pro's have. I have a question about a statement in your write up.

3) As most of us know, layered files saved in PSD format are much more
economical if the "Maximize Compatibility" option in preferences is turned
off. Otherwise, every layered file saves, in addition to the layers, a
composite flattened version of the file. This unnecessarily bloats the file
size, often doubling it.

I didn't know this (newbie showing). I was playing with the "Willie" challenge and my file ballooned up to 130meg. My machine was groaning. I unchecked the "Maximum Campatibility" box and resaved but the size stayed the same. I then started over and added 5 adjustment layers, and 10 more selection layers and the size was only 100meg on my new version.

Do you or anyone know if you can reopen files that were saved with the "Maximum compatibility" box checked and resave them as a smaller file..

Thanks in advance
Jerry

[john_opitz]

Hello Jerry,

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.

[john_opitz]

Here is some more of the debate of the workarounds in P.S. 7.

Marc writes,

>>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
valid warning...>>

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.

Dan Margulis

[jerry]

Thanks John

Just a brief response to your answer to my question:

Quote:
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.

Thanks
Jerry

[stuart h]

John
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!

[Sharon Brunson]

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.

Sharon

[john_opitz]

Hello Ms. Brunson,

You can loan it to me(since we live close by each other) and I'll test those features.

[john_opitz]

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.

[Sharon Brunson]

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.

Sharon

[Paul Rupp]

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!

Paul R.

[Stephen M]

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).

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

[George]

Vikki
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.