Hi there.... I'm having problems getting my new version of Photoshop CS4 to run with OpenGL enabled. The dialog box has it clicked on, but the video card name is not listed in the OpenGL area, it's just blank.... and when I use it switched on, the marquee tool gives me selection and positioning issues. Anyone else have this issue.... or came up with a solution... please post your comments.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony
Irish MacUser %26amp; MacAddict
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Problem printing in Photoshop CS4
I installed PSCS4 and am having a problem printing. I am printing to a networked printer and CS4 seems like it's printing fine (no errors) but nothing's coming out. So, I opened CS3, tried printing and it works perfectly. I tried other programs (Excel, Word, Entourage, browsers, etc.) and none of them seem to be having a problem so I am thinking it's CS4. Below are the printer specs:
Printer: Xerox WorkCentre 7345
Protocol: LPD
Driver Version: 10.4
PPD file version: 1.0
Any ideas?
Thanks.
Problem printing in Photoshop CS4
Do you have the latest driver for that printer installed? Did you try to trash it and then reinstall it? Is the driver properly selected in both Page Setup... and Print... menues?
Neil
Problem printing in Photoshop CS4
Hi, Neil,
To answer your questions, yes, yes, and yes. That didn't do it.
However, I managed to get it to print by adding a new printer with the generic postscript driver. Still, ONLY PSCS4 refused to print to the printer with Xerox driver which is puzzling.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
Printer: Xerox WorkCentre 7345
Protocol: LPD
Driver Version: 10.4
PPD file version: 1.0
Any ideas?
Thanks.
Problem printing in Photoshop CS4
Do you have the latest driver for that printer installed? Did you try to trash it and then reinstall it? Is the driver properly selected in both Page Setup... and Print... menues?
Neil
Problem printing in Photoshop CS4
Hi, Neil,
To answer your questions, yes, yes, and yes. That didn't do it.
However, I managed to get it to print by adding a new printer with the generic postscript driver. Still, ONLY PSCS4 refused to print to the printer with Xerox driver which is puzzling.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
Extension for tiff files - tif vs tiff
I have encountered some (for me) confusing behavior. I have been working with both aperature and photoshop cs4. When I take a file from aperture to cs4, aperture creates a file with the extension.tiff. when I then save the file after working on it in photoshop it saves with the extension .tif. that is to say, Aperture uses 2 'f's and photoshop uses 1 'f' which results in two files. Is this related to option choice in the Tiff save panel or something anomalous with aperture.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Extension for tiff files - tif vs tiff
A good question for the Apple Aperture forum.
Extension for tiff files - tif vs tiff
.tif (the three letter extension) is the correct extension
(too bad Apple is too stooopid to realize all file extensions should be a dot + 3 letter extension for cross=platform compatibility, ooooh, wait, maybe they do that on purpose).
:~)
Ergo #1. :D I left out the %26lt;sarcasm%26gt; tags.
It is stupid. Shoot-yourself-in-the-foot stupid -- particularly if you can't (even) choose ''.tif'' as an option.
Neil
%26gt;.tif (the three letter extension) is the correct extension
%26gt;(too bad Apple is too stooopid to realize all file extensions should be a dot + 3 letter extension for cross=platform compatibility, ooooh, wait, maybe they do that on purpose).
All systems recognize .TIFF or .TIF (just as they do .HTM or .HTML and .INX or .INDD). There is no 'dot + 3' rule for cross-platform compatibility. Jeff may want to get out a bit. :)
While it is odd that Adobe is not following a standard with their own software, it can be represented either way.
I have played with this a little more and this is what I found. The file created by aperture has the tiff extension. If photoshop is set up to open all tiff files using camera raw, then when editing is complete and the file is saved it will be saved using the save as dialog even if save is selected, and the tiff file saves with a single f by default. The second f can be added in the save dialog box in which case it asks if you want to save the file that already exists. Save over the original tiff file and the edits will be visible in aperture.
On the other hand if camera raw only opens tiff files with adjustments, the the save command saves directly in which case the two f extension is maintained.
Apparently use of camera raw causes the save as dialog box to come up the first time the file is saved. Thus one can either add the second f in the dialog or forgo the use of camera raw for tiff files being brought in from aperture.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Extension for tiff files - tif vs tiff
A good question for the Apple Aperture forum.
Extension for tiff files - tif vs tiff
.tif (the three letter extension) is the correct extension
(too bad Apple is too stooopid to realize all file extensions should be a dot + 3 letter extension for cross=platform compatibility, ooooh, wait, maybe they do that on purpose).
:~)
Ergo #1. :D I left out the %26lt;sarcasm%26gt; tags.
It is stupid. Shoot-yourself-in-the-foot stupid -- particularly if you can't (even) choose ''.tif'' as an option.
Neil
%26gt;.tif (the three letter extension) is the correct extension
%26gt;(too bad Apple is too stooopid to realize all file extensions should be a dot + 3 letter extension for cross=platform compatibility, ooooh, wait, maybe they do that on purpose).
All systems recognize .TIFF or .TIF (just as they do .HTM or .HTML and .INX or .INDD). There is no 'dot + 3' rule for cross-platform compatibility. Jeff may want to get out a bit. :)
While it is odd that Adobe is not following a standard with their own software, it can be represented either way.
I have played with this a little more and this is what I found. The file created by aperture has the tiff extension. If photoshop is set up to open all tiff files using camera raw, then when editing is complete and the file is saved it will be saved using the save as dialog even if save is selected, and the tiff file saves with a single f by default. The second f can be added in the save dialog box in which case it asks if you want to save the file that already exists. Save over the original tiff file and the edits will be visible in aperture.
On the other hand if camera raw only opens tiff files with adjustments, the the save command saves directly in which case the two f extension is maintained.
Apparently use of camera raw causes the save as dialog box to come up the first time the file is saved. Thus one can either add the second f in the dialog or forgo the use of camera raw for tiff files being brought in from aperture.
photoshop error in opening file...
Hello I have a mac pro with photoshop cs4, and I had a bad crash on my mac forcing me to hard restart my mac. Now all the files that I had opened in Photoshop when this happened cannot be opened and comes with errors. One error is ''could not complete the request because the file is empty'' and the other one is like '' Could not complete your request because the file is not compatible with this version of photoshop'' This message varies depending on which file I try to open that was opened when I crashed. I tried moving the psd over to my other computer and I still get the problem.
any ideas? I dont want to have to redo everything.
thanks!
photoshop error in opening file...
The error comes up when I try to open up the file, so I cant open it.
photoshop error in opening file...
%26gt;I dont want to have to redo everything.
you may need to.
do you have Imageready? if they are RGB you can try that. if not better get to work.
You could try illustrator too.
yea I just tried opening it in ImageReady CS first version and it has some error that says unknown format. I also noticed in the preview the thumbnail is black for the all the files that were opened when it crashed. What is causing this? Would re-installing photoshop help?
What is funny is that I have backups of the files from before the crash and I get the same errors when I try to open the backups in photoshop. any ideas? very frustrating
%26gt;Would re-installing photoshop help?
see if everything works in a new user.
makeup school
any ideas? I dont want to have to redo everything.
thanks!
photoshop error in opening file...
The error comes up when I try to open up the file, so I cant open it.
photoshop error in opening file...
%26gt;I dont want to have to redo everything.
you may need to.
do you have Imageready? if they are RGB you can try that. if not better get to work.
You could try illustrator too.
yea I just tried opening it in ImageReady CS first version and it has some error that says unknown format. I also noticed in the preview the thumbnail is black for the all the files that were opened when it crashed. What is causing this? Would re-installing photoshop help?
What is funny is that I have backups of the files from before the crash and I get the same errors when I try to open the backups in photoshop. any ideas? very frustrating
%26gt;Would re-installing photoshop help?
see if everything works in a new user.
3D shape from layer
If I wrap a layer of rasterized text around a 3D sphere from the Shape from Layer command, how can I then delete the sphere, but keep the curved text?
3D shape from layer
You can edit the Transparency (if thats what You mean) of the Object in the 3D-Panel under 3D (Materials).
Hit the button right beside the Opacity Value and select New Texture; this You can then open from the Layers Panel and insert Your text there as white on black which works much like a Layer Mask.
If You only want the flattened Layer You can go to the menu 3D and select Rasterize.
3D shape from layer
You can edit the Transparency (if thats what You mean) of the Object in the 3D-Panel under 3D (Materials).
Hit the button right beside the Opacity Value and select New Texture; this You can then open from the Layers Panel and insert Your text there as white on black which works much like a Layer Mask.
If You only want the flattened Layer You can go to the menu 3D and select Rasterize.
Create selection from slice?
Is this possible? I have an old psd file with slices defined and I want to selectively create individual images from certain slices. Can't find how to do that. Using Photoshop CS3 on Mac.
How can I turn off the grid
Upon zooming in, I get a grid which seems to be a function ''extras'' feature on the view menu. I do not want it. Even though I switch extras off, and it disappears, it immediately reappears as soon as I click to begin a path. So, am I stuck with this grid?
How can I turn off the grid
View %26gt; show %26gt; pixel grid
How can I turn off the grid
Command + '' [straight quotation mark] toggles the grid.
How can I turn off the grid
View %26gt; show %26gt; pixel grid
How can I turn off the grid
Command + '' [straight quotation mark] toggles the grid.
Photoshop Swatches - .aco vs. .ase
Hello together,
for some versions Photoshop can create this ''exchange swatches'' (.ase) for other applications like Illustrator or InDesign. I wonder for what reason it would be an advantage to use the older swatches (.aco) anyymore?
For compatibility reasons towards older Photoshop versions?
Thanks for answers
Philip
Photoshop Swatches - .aco vs. .ase
The Photoshop native swatch files (.ACO) support more color modes.
.ASE files are a common denominator format.
Photoshop Swatches - .aco vs. .ase
Hello Philip,
%26gt;Hello together,
Is that as in
Gruezi miteinand'? :)
for some versions Photoshop can create this ''exchange swatches'' (.ase) for other applications like Illustrator or InDesign. I wonder for what reason it would be an advantage to use the older swatches (.aco) anyymore?
For compatibility reasons towards older Photoshop versions?
Thanks for answers
Philip
Photoshop Swatches - .aco vs. .ase
The Photoshop native swatch files (.ACO) support more color modes.
.ASE files are a common denominator format.
Photoshop Swatches - .aco vs. .ase
Hello Philip,
%26gt;Hello together,
Is that as in
Gruezi miteinand'? :)
Adobe certification and training
I am new to this forum, so if it has been discussed I'm sorry in advance. I am looking to become Adobe certified and was wondering if anyone has gone through the testing and if so what the best study materials you have found. Again if it has already been discussed please point me in the direction of that thread.
Thanks all...
Adobe certification and training
Shane,
Just do a forum search on
Adobe certification. It has come up a few times before. ;)
Thanks all...
Adobe certification and training
Shane,
Just do a forum search on
Adobe certification. It has come up a few times before. ;)
how to make a photograph look like a...
Hi all-
I'm taking a childrens book writing and illustrating class and my illustrating skills are nil. I want the photos to look like a ''Cartoon'' and want to create the pictures for the book but not sure which filters work best for this effect.
Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines. Picture is of a dog and girl.
Any help is greatly appreciated. I know basics of the filters and don't want to just slap any effect on it.
Thanks so much in advance if anyone has any great ideas.
how to make a photograph look like a...
You could trace the photo with Paths and stroke them with the brush of your choice.
(See, illustration is so easy)
how to make a photograph look like a...
in Photoshop or Illustrator? or both?
Thanks so much for the fast reply!
kristin,
My initial thought would be to take advantage the vector outlines and color fills of Illustrator would make that an easier choice. It's also easier to edit cleanly. Use photos as a template underlay and draw on top of them. But, it'll look too slick.
Or in Photoshop, it's gonna depend upon how well the photographs were taken. I looked at the Fresco, Poster Edges, Sprayed Strokes, and Watercolor, etc., etc. The effects are nice, but, again, way too sophisticated for a child's hand.
%26gt;Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines.
Which brings me to what may be the best choice. Pick up a box of Crayolas and some good vellum paper (from an art supply store) and trace the photo. Outline in black, and color in the rest. Get a child to do it, if you want realism.
Seriously.
Neil
kristin,
I like John's idea.
Or in Photoshop, the success of filters is gonna depend upon how the photographs were taken. I looked at the Fresco, Poster Edges, Sprayed Strokes, and Watercolor, etc., etc. with some images. The effects are nice, but, way too sophisticated for a child's hand.
%26gt;Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines.
Which brings me to what may be the best choice. Pick up a box of Crayolas and some good vellum paper (from an art supply store) and trace the photo. Outline in black, and color in the rest. Get a child to do it, if you want realism.
Seriously.
Neil
I agree.
Sometimes low-tech is the best tech for the job.
Double-plus extra: It's fun!
Maybe something here will help as well... have fun
http://mybabyphotos.net/tutorial-photoshop-cartoon-outline-child/
thanks to everyone for all of your suggestions...I think I'm figuring it out. Love your suggestion randalqueen...I think that's what I had in mind.
Cheers everyone!
makeup school
I'm taking a childrens book writing and illustrating class and my illustrating skills are nil. I want the photos to look like a ''Cartoon'' and want to create the pictures for the book but not sure which filters work best for this effect.
Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines. Picture is of a dog and girl.
Any help is greatly appreciated. I know basics of the filters and don't want to just slap any effect on it.
Thanks so much in advance if anyone has any great ideas.
how to make a photograph look like a...
You could trace the photo with Paths and stroke them with the brush of your choice.
(See, illustration is so easy)
how to make a photograph look like a...
in Photoshop or Illustrator? or both?
Thanks so much for the fast reply!
kristin,
My initial thought would be to take advantage the vector outlines and color fills of Illustrator would make that an easier choice. It's also easier to edit cleanly. Use photos as a template underlay and draw on top of them. But, it'll look too slick.
Or in Photoshop, it's gonna depend upon how well the photographs were taken. I looked at the Fresco, Poster Edges, Sprayed Strokes, and Watercolor, etc., etc. The effects are nice, but, again, way too sophisticated for a child's hand.
%26gt;Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines.
Which brings me to what may be the best choice. Pick up a box of Crayolas and some good vellum paper (from an art supply store) and trace the photo. Outline in black, and color in the rest. Get a child to do it, if you want realism.
Seriously.
Neil
kristin,
I like John's idea.
Or in Photoshop, the success of filters is gonna depend upon how the photographs were taken. I looked at the Fresco, Poster Edges, Sprayed Strokes, and Watercolor, etc., etc. with some images. The effects are nice, but, way too sophisticated for a child's hand.
%26gt;Would prefer it to look like a child outlined the picture and then colored in between the lines.
Which brings me to what may be the best choice. Pick up a box of Crayolas and some good vellum paper (from an art supply store) and trace the photo. Outline in black, and color in the rest. Get a child to do it, if you want realism.
Seriously.
Neil
I agree.
Sometimes low-tech is the best tech for the job.
Double-plus extra: It's fun!
Maybe something here will help as well... have fun
http://mybabyphotos.net/tutorial-photoshop-cartoon-outline-child/
thanks to everyone for all of your suggestions...I think I'm figuring it out. Love your suggestion randalqueen...I think that's what I had in mind.
Cheers everyone!
Photoshop CS4 Layers →Matting
I am using the trial version of CS4 and cannot access the Matting filters under the Layers menu.
The Matting selection is grayed out. I have tried different image modes and nothing allows access to Matting.
Fitz
Photoshop CS4 Layers %26#8594;Matting
There's something wrong, trash your preferences.
Photoshop CS4 Layers %26#8594;Matting
Are you dealing with an 8-bit or a 16-bit image? RGB or CMYK? Image type?
Not sure if any of these is a factor, but if you've reset your prefs and it's still a no-go, I'd check image compatibility with the filters.
Neil
More than likely you have a Layer Mask on that layer. If you do Matting is grayed out.
I just found out the answer to this in CS3 -- you have to select the object and layer via copy, then matting will work. Good luck!
The Matting selection is grayed out. I have tried different image modes and nothing allows access to Matting.
Fitz
Photoshop CS4 Layers %26#8594;Matting
There's something wrong, trash your preferences.
Photoshop CS4 Layers %26#8594;Matting
Are you dealing with an 8-bit or a 16-bit image? RGB or CMYK? Image type?
Not sure if any of these is a factor, but if you've reset your prefs and it's still a no-go, I'd check image compatibility with the filters.
Neil
More than likely you have a Layer Mask on that layer. If you do Matting is grayed out.
I just found out the answer to this in CS3 -- you have to select the object and layer via copy, then matting will work. Good luck!
Photoshop CS4 in-application help
I am using the trial Photoshop CS4 and cannot get the in-application Help to work. the CS3 Help works just fine.
When I launch Help from the Menu bar I am directed to the Adobe Site.
When I launch the Adobe Help application from the Applications folder, I get the Help window, and when I click on the 'Help for' menu and Choose 'Adobe Photoshop CS4' I get this
''This topic is in the Help system of another product. To view the topic, install that product. file:///Library/Application%20Support/Adobe/Help/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/help.html '
I need 'Help' with 'Help'.
Fitz
Photoshop CS4 in-application help
%26gt;When I launch Help from the Menu bar I am directed to the Adobe Site.
this is the new way help works now.
Photoshop CS4 in-application help
What Buko says.
Also, when you've opened that page, you'll see a little (
very little) PDF icon at the top there, which gives you the option of downloading the whole Help site as a 40+MB PDF document to your drive. Useful if you're always connected to the Internet, but it has the downside of not benefiting from updates, additions and corrections.
When I launch Help from the Menu bar I am directed to the Adobe Site.
When I launch the Adobe Help application from the Applications folder, I get the Help window, and when I click on the 'Help for' menu and Choose 'Adobe Photoshop CS4' I get this
''This topic is in the Help system of another product. To view the topic, install that product. file:///Library/Application%20Support/Adobe/Help/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/help.html '
I need 'Help' with 'Help'.
Fitz
Photoshop CS4 in-application help
%26gt;When I launch Help from the Menu bar I am directed to the Adobe Site.
this is the new way help works now.
Photoshop CS4 in-application help
What Buko says.
Also, when you've opened that page, you'll see a little (
very little) PDF icon at the top there, which gives you the option of downloading the whole Help site as a 40+MB PDF document to your drive. Useful if you're always connected to the Internet, but it has the downside of not benefiting from updates, additions and corrections.
Need to restart photoshop and reset pref
This happened before and I got dark grey bars behind by tool bars on sides. I had to reset the pref's for Photoshop. I can't remember the 4 key combination. I restarted and as soon as I restarted I had to hold 4 keys down. Does anyone know that key combination? Thanks again.
Need to restart photoshop and reset pref
This happened before and I got dark grey bars behind by tool bars on sides. I had to reset the pref's for Photoshop. I can't remember the 4 key combination. I restarted and as soon as I restarted I had to hold 4 keys down. Does anyone know that key combination? Thanks again.
Need to restart photoshop and reset pref
Ann,
Press and hold Command+Shift+Option as you launch Photoshop until you see the small message box asking if you wish to reset preferences.
Neil
this information is also in the FAQs
Need to restart photoshop and reset pref
This happened before and I got dark grey bars behind by tool bars on sides. I had to reset the pref's for Photoshop. I can't remember the 4 key combination. I restarted and as soon as I restarted I had to hold 4 keys down. Does anyone know that key combination? Thanks again.
Need to restart photoshop and reset pref
Ann,
Press and hold Command+Shift+Option as you launch Photoshop until you see the small message box asking if you wish to reset preferences.
Neil
this information is also in the FAQs
Photoshop's brightness and exposure...
Can anyone explain the difference(s) between Photoshop's brightness control and its exposure control?
Thanks,
Mark
Photoshop's brightness and exposure...
I got the answer elsewhere. Thought you might want me to post it, so here it is verbatim:
Assuming you're using CS3 or later: Brightness pins the upper and lower values (shadows and highlights) and adjusts the range between them. Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them (just as if you had changed your ISO, shutter or aperture.)
Thanks anyway,
Mark
Photoshop's brightness and exposure...
Exposure does not add or subtract - it multiplies (which is the same as changing the ISO, shutter or aperture).
Thank you for confirming that, Chris. Post #1 was suspect from the get go, but I decided against initiating another argument with the OP.
Suspect??????????
Why?
It was a good question. One should be careful about one's evaluations of other's efforts! This is, after all, a help/assistance forum. And such comments make one avoid these forums!
In any case, got the better (i.e., more precise, more exact, more knowledgeable, better expressed and more helpful) reply elsewhere. Here it is:
Assuming you're using CS3 or later: Brightness pins the upper and lower values (shadows and highlights) and adjusts the range between them. Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them (just as if you had changed your ISO, shutter or aperture.)
Ever best!
Mark
Your question mark key is stuck, Mark.
You're confusing the Original Post with post #1. Post #1 was indeed suspect, and now it's proven wrong.
In #1 you said:
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file
and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
That's what was suspect, and now, confirmed by Chris Cox,
WRONG
.
You now repeat that in #4.
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and
adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
That, once again, is
wrong
.
As Chris told you in #2, Exposure does
not
''add or subtracts'' anything. It
multiplies.
%26gt;Exposure does not add or subtract - it multiplies
Now do you see why I didn't want to start yet another argument with you? B)
Mark,
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
Your answer is NOT quite right. Please see Chris's response.
Neil
Mark,
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
Your answer is NOT right. Please see Chris's response.
Neil
I see Ram贸n types faster than I do! %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
Mark,
When you change your aperture one stop, you either double or halve the exposure. Two stops, and you quadruple or quarter the exposure. You do not simply add or subtract a fixed value to the exposure.
This ''multiplication'' or ''division'' of exposure is even clearer when you change shutter speeds: 1/30 sec --%26gt; 1/60 sec --%26gt; 1/125 sec --%26gt; 1/250 sec.
And ISO 100 is 1/2 the sensitivity of ISO 200. It is twice the sensitivity of ISO 50. And it is 1/4 the sensitivity of ISO 400. Again, it is a multiplication or division factor.
Neil
%26gt; One should be careful about one's evaluations of other's efforts!
Yup, you should be more careful in reading all posts, including your own, and not hurl any invective at those who correct you.
Of course your question was a valid one. It was your alleged ''
better (i.e., more precise, more exact, more knowledgeable, better expressed and more helpful) reply'' spouted in #1 and now astonishingly repeated in #4 that was wrong. Sheesh
First of all, that reply, with which you take issue, is not mine. I said it was not mine in post 1 (which was the second post on this thread) a post I can no longer find.
It is a post from a long time respected member of the Macintosh/Apple community.
Second, however, in the exposure window, a value is chosen which, evidently, is a multiple of the original value(s), as I understand you. But that multiple of the original values, which was evidently arrived at by multiplying those values, is added to the original value when one closes the window. As I understand this.
But what about the distinction that brightness does not affect the brightest and darkest values, but only what is in between?
And, BTW, while my obtuseness, as you seem to think it, may keep you from wanting to discuss with me, even before you knew how I would be discussing, your attitude has a similar effect on me of beiong sorry I even tried using this forum.
Mark
Mark,
%26gt;It is a post from a long time respected member of the Macintosh/Apple community.
The problem here is that you are disseminating incorrect or misleading information, regardless of whether it is first hand or that of a ''respected member'' of the community.
The point was clarified. Let's please move on.
Thanks.
Neil
%26gt;that reply, with which you take issue, is not mine.
I know,
I
can read. I didn't say it was yours, I said it was suspect. It was and remains wrong.
The points were not answered.
No explanation for brightness as different from exposure.
Mark
In reply to the comments about my second post's explanation of Exposure the author I had quoted replies as follows:
quote
That's really hard to say what the poster meant. Raw image files are linear; film is not, so perhaps he's saying that multiplication by a single factor produces a linear result (just as doubling the shutter speed halves the exposure.) The new B%26amp;C however, is more complex than either option, since it pins the darkest and lightest ends of the scale and bell-curves the rest.
The easiest way to see the difference is to watch the histogram as you apply each adjustment. With exposure, the entire histogram will slide left or right, and the highest and lowest values will fall off the chart. With B%26amp;C, the ''bell'' in the center will move, but you'll not completely blow out values at the extremes.
This is easy to see by open a chart of color swatches too.
End of quote
I feel his original explanation was unfairly jumped on. He obviously knows what he is talking about and is very familiar with the application, which he has been using since it first came out, decades ago.
Mark
%26gt;He obviously knows what he is talking about and is very familiar with the application
Obviously Not as he was corrected by a Photoshop engineer.
Your buddy at the Apple forums doesn't know as much as you think he does.
The PS engineer said only part of the story.
The amount of correction/change in the exposure option may be, as he says, or might not be, an exact multiple, a la apertures and exposure timings, as expressed numerically in the exposure slideer's numbers. But the amount brighter or darker that the image becomes when that amount is added to or subtracted from the image is an addition to the image.
But also, neither the members nor your engineer addressed the question, which was the difference between how the birghtness and exposure controls work.
If you notice at www.anstendig.com, I am not exactly an ignoramus about how apertures and exposure work in lenses and cameras. And I knew it back in the 50s, while exercising the then (and still) state of the art in focusing.
My question about the differences was not addressed on this thread. Only some carping about terminology and suspicion of posters, which wording was totally out of place and objectionable.
I don't like the attitude of this forum and, I suppose, you like me even less.
Thanks for whatever real helpfulness for me was in evidence.
Mark
BTW, Since Chris joined Adobe in 1996, it is probably to be surmised that this buddy of mine, who has been a pro photographer as long as I and a respected Apple/Mac expert and programmer since the first Apple computers, has been around using PS for at least as long as Chris and probably a lot longer.
No criticism of Chris. But only offered because you seem to elevate Adobe technicians above other experts.
Mark
For goodness sake, Chris Cox
writes
some (a lot) of the code in Photoshop!
This series of posts by the OP is one of the most absurd I've read anywhere. From the get go I knew starting a discussion with the OP would be an exercise in futility and I said so.
So what?
I, for one, had a premonition that I should not have submitted the answer to my question, which no one here had answered.
I thought some here might have been interested.
Forget any discussion . I am out of here.
Who needs this?
Mark
It's always a good idea
not
to post misinformation. No argument there.
Why? What is the problem?
This is a forum to correct and help. There is no problem to correct something if it is wrong.
The problem is with the manners on this forum.
The question was a very interesting one for many Photoshop users. This could have been a worthwhile thread for many who didn't know the difference between the brightness and the exposure options in PS.
The info I posted essentially explained the question. If the exposure did its thing in multiples or simple additions was a distinction to be made. It does not change the basic way the functions work, as explained in that text, which is that exposure changes all values, while brightness keeps the brightest and the darkest values while changing only the tones in between.
Chris's point was well made. But the distinction did not warrant the unpleasant comments about my post.
Mark
Did it ever occur to you to consult the documentation, Mark. Say, the User Guide and/or the Help files?
Exposure command
Adjusts tonality by performing calculations in a linear color space. Exposure is primarily for use in HDR images. See Adjust Exposure for HDR image.
Adjust Exposure for HDR images
Comments (0)
The Exposure adjustment is designed for making tonal adjustments to HDR images, but it works with 8鈥慴it and 16鈥慴it images. Exposure works by performing calculations in a linear color space (gamma 1.0) rather than the current color space.
1. Do one of the following:
*
Click the Exposure icon or an Exposure preset in the Adjustments panel.
*
Choose Layer %26gt; New Adjustment Layer %26gt; Exposure.
Note: You can also choose Image %26gt; Adjustments %26gt; Exposure. But keep in mind that this method makes direct adjustments to the image layer and discards image information. Adjustment layers for 32-bit images are available in Photoshop Extended only.
2. In the Adjustments panel, set any of the following options:
Exposure
Adjusts the highlight end of the tonal scale with minimal effect in the extreme shadows.
Offset
Darkens the shadows and midtones with minimal effect on the highlights.
Gamma
Adjusts the image gamma, using a simple power function. Negative values are mirrored around zero (that is, they remain negative but still get adjusted as if they are positive).
The eyedroppers adjust the luminance values of images (unlike the Levels eyedroppers that affect all color channels).
*
The Set Black Point eyedropper sets the Offset, shifting the pixel you click to zero.
*
The Set White Point eyedropper sets the Exposure, shifting the point you click to white (1.0 for HDR images).
*
The Midtone eyedropper sets the Exposure, making the value you click middle gray.
=== === ===
Apply the Brightness/Contrast adjustment
Comments (0)
The Brightness/Contrast adjustment lets you make simple adjustments to the tonal range of an image. Moving the brightness slider to the right increases tonal values and expands image highlights, to the left decreases values and expands shadows. The contrast slider expands or shrinks the overall range of tonal values in the image.
In normal mode, Brightness/Contrast applies proportionate (nonlinear) adjustments to image layer, as with Levels and Curves adjustments. When Use Legacy is selected, Brightness/Contrast simply shifts all pixel values higher or lower when adjusting brightness. Since this can cause clipping or loss of image detail in highlight or shadow areas, using Brightness/Contrast in Legacy mode is not recommended for photographic images (but can be useful for editing masks or scientific imagery).
Note: Use Legacy is automatically selected when editing Brightness/Contrast adjustment layers created with previous versions of Photoshop.
1. Do one of the following:
*
Click the Brightness/Contrast icon in the Adjustments panel.
*
Choose Layer %26gt; New Adjustment Layer %26gt; Brightness/Contrast. Click OK in the New Layer dialog box.
Note: You can also choose Image %26gt; Adjustments %26gt; Brightness/Contrast. But keep in mind that this method makes direct adjustments to the image layer and discards image information.
2. In the Adjustments panel, drag the sliders to adjust the brightness and contrast.
Dragging to the left decreases the level, and dragging to the right increases it. The number at the right of each slider reflects the brightness or contrast value. Values can range from 鈥?50 to +150 for Brightness, 鈥?0 to +100 for Contrast.
Not to worry, I know we can count on you to keep stretching this thread ad nauseam in spite of your repeated good-byes, Mark. ;)
Why the irony and nastiness?
What you just supplied is exactly what I had trouble finding.
Why?
Because I have a small macular hole in each eye, which, mercifully, have steadily reduced in size over the 5 or so years I have had them, and still continue to become smaller and less obtrusive (due to disciplines I have mastered and to homeopathic medical help). I do have extreme wide-angle vision, so I can see a whole photograph quite well, with both eyes. But with small text, usually 1 digit is missing in the center. So I easily miss things in Apple's small help menus or using those menus is difficult, demanding magnifiers, which I do have lots of).
The main fault, for me, of the Apple OS is that text in most text boxes is not readily resized without becoming fuzzy and unsharp, and the ridiculously high res of my 30 monitor displays text at half WYSIWYG size. The help pull down menus and text boxes have text displayed at around 7-8 DPI. Therefore, it can happen that I miss something in those menus...or that it is very hard and tiring to search for some things. Both of which made me ask this question.
Fortunately, my doctor, and I, too, expect further improvement.
But, in the meantime, you are helping a partially sight-impaired person, who, again, mercifully, can see whole monitor-size images, but has trouble with finest small text.
So, I sincerely thank you for taking the trouble to point me to the right help pages and even copy/paste them into your message.
If that had occurred at the beginning, this forum would have received my sincerest and most profuse thanks, and nothing more!
No matter what your motives or manner, you have helped me enormously.
In the future, you might first give people the benefit of the doubt and be kinder to those who annoy you.
Thank you. Really, truly.
And ever best,
Mark B Anstendig
Mark, you do full honor to your last name (German
Anst盲ndig). :)
I've always tried.
I lived a decade in W Berlin, with a German Gov't Grant.
There, I had to live up to the name.
www.anstendig.com
Love ya ,
Mark
Just to be clear, the exposure adjustment in Photoshop is a multiplication -- just like changing exposure in a camera. If the document colorspace is not gamma 1.0, then the data has to be converted to gamma 1.0, adjusted, then converted back to the document colorspace. (there are ways to optimize that process, of course)
There is no addition, and no subtraction involved.
And yes, I wrote all the code for the exposure adjustment.
:)
This is becoming a problem of semantics.
The whole Adobe help info on the subject was posted. So why did it need anything just to be clear?
What I understand from this is that Chris is speaking of how the value is arrived at in the exposure control, which is by multiplication.
BUT, to the user, once that value is arrived at, the control seems to add it to or subtract it from the original image when one clicks on the OK button.
But we can go around about this forever. It was clear from Chris' first post that the values in Exposure are arrived at through multiplication.
But to the user, both the Exposure and the brightness controls brighten or darken the image a certain amount (however that amount is calculated). The big difference between those two options is what parts of the image each option changes, whether by multiplication or addition or whatever.
That difference in what parts/tones of the image are changed is what most users have to understand. How much either option lightens or darkens those parts of the image that it affects can readily be seen in most of the tones of the image and can thus be chosen on the screen, no matter whether it is arrived at by multiplication or addition, etc. So can the differences in how each option works be seen on screen. But those differences between which tones exposure or brightness change are less usual, so many users miss them and don't even look for them.
Mark
I wouldn't call the difference between multiplication on the one hand and subtraction/addition on the other a question of
''semantics'', but of substance.
%26gt;BUT, to the user, once that value is arrived at, the control seems to add it to or subtract it from the original image when one clicks on the OK button.
That would depend on whether the user knows the difference and whether he's paying attention or not, whether he knows what a histogram tells him or not, how capable and accurately calibrated his monitor is, and how keen his tonal perception is. Personally, I'd never characterize it the way you do
(''the control seems to add it to or subtract it''), Mark.
Look at the histogram while you move the Brightness and Exposure controls back and forth.
%26gt;no matter whether it is arrived at by multiplication or addition
I disagree with you there too, for the reason stated in the first paragraph of this post.
If you take such a careless attitude about the definitions, I wonder what prompted you to post inquiring about the difference between the two functions in the first place. (Just a rhetorical question that requires no answer.) :)
Touch茅 on your last point.
I asked because, old school that I am, I was doing them by intuition and just looking at them, without knowing the exact definitions.
I certainly have learned here.
Much love to all,
Mark
Unfortunately, Mark - this group is often all about semantics as that provides a greater opportunity for debate. It's assumed that everyone who is not a regular here is an idiot.
Yes, this is a pretty stupid debate. It's a perfectly acceptable statement to say when you increase light intensity by one stop, you have
b added
light to the scene, despite the fact that the light has doubled through a principle of magnification. Never once have I muttered to myself, ''I need to multiply the light.''
Likewise, when you drag the exposure slider in Photoshop, you are adding (increasing), or subtracting (decreasing), the brightness levels, even though multiplication/division is happening under the hood.
Notice the + (plus sign) and - (minus sign), that appear when you drag the sliders off the zero point? If it was so essential that the user knows that multiplication and division was going on, why doesn't it show those signs instead?
I can only surmise that Chris feels the need for ''clarification'' because he writes code and mainly deals in principle and theory, which of course, is often different than the real world.
-phil
Thanks, Phil,
I had pretty much given up, but now realize that mainly one person was making all the noise.
Good to know that there is someone here who reads objectively and not subjective-emotionally.
It was good that Chris pointed out the differences in the calculation of the lighter or darker adjustments. That was an added point to be made, which, in reality, did not contradict anything else.
It was someone else who said that post number 1 was suspect.....a wording out of place here.
If something is wrong, simply nicely point it out and correct it. But saying something is suspicious is a whole different all game. No one here is, in my impression, trying to purposely do anything suspicious.
But the whole thing wrong is that these are not discussion forums. They are help forums that are meant to complement the Adobe Tech support options.
All that is needed is to give the answers if one knows them and possibly explain resulting questions. Not to discuss.
But some here seem to have the need to discuss things, which is better done elsewhere, IMO. But one can get addicted to discussing.
Mark
Mark,
A couple of comments from the sidelines:
%26gt;someone here who reads objectively and not subjective-emotionally
%26gt;But the whole thing wrong is that these are not discussion forums. They are help forums that are meant to complement the Adobe Tech support options.
Although I sense your frustration here, these
are indeed discussions that we generally provide, not as formatted user manual text content, with each participant providing his or her viewpoint.
But that said, the
accuracy of particular words (addition/subtraction vs multiplication/division) would be
required to properly complement Adobe support. And that is an
objective, not
subjective response.
The best solution for you to understand the differences between adjusting exposure and brightness may be to take several different good, wide-range images. Make duplicates of each. And then make side-by-side comparisons using exposure adjustments on one set; and brightness on the other. Scrutinize what happens to the shadow areas, highlight areas and middle tones. The old saw, ''a picture is worth a thousand words'' works well here.
Neil
Thanks,
That has long since been done, right after the first reply from elsewhere.
And that gets to the beginning of what has transpired: namely that I did not get a reply with explanation here before it came from elsewhere. So, to be considerate, so I thought, I posted that reply here.
After that post some posts became nasty, calling that post suspect and being argumentative and annoyed-seeming, rather than just pleasant and helpful.
I felt the attitude was because I mentioned I had not gotten the reply here.
And that remains my impression.
It is only these last posts that some here have really been genuinely only interested in being helpful.
Sorry, but that is my impression.
I appreciate your kind comments and suggestion. Just remember that the person who first explained the issue elsewhere already suggested viewing the differences in PS and how.
Thanks again,
Mark
Neil, I said we could count on Mark to stretch this thread ad infinitum B)
Why not?
Every time it is ended, someone adds to it something that is right, but needs, IMO, a bit of explanation. Or Ramon has to trump it and prove that he is right about something.
And, my dear Adobe forums colleagues, there is a simple reason why you do not have to take Ramon seriously, or bother with this thread if you think it is ended....which it was long ago:
And that reason is that you simply do not have to read it. I haven't read a single other thread on these forums in this time period. I do not have that compulsion.
Much love, as always,
Mark
Mark, I enjoy having you around. Just making sure you keep coming back. :D
My, My,
Reverse psychology.
That might just get me to leave.
Or not.
Does it matter?
Marky Baby
Thanks,
Mark
Photoshop's brightness and exposure...
I got the answer elsewhere. Thought you might want me to post it, so here it is verbatim:
Assuming you're using CS3 or later: Brightness pins the upper and lower values (shadows and highlights) and adjusts the range between them. Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them (just as if you had changed your ISO, shutter or aperture.)
Thanks anyway,
Mark
Photoshop's brightness and exposure...
Exposure does not add or subtract - it multiplies (which is the same as changing the ISO, shutter or aperture).
Thank you for confirming that, Chris. Post #1 was suspect from the get go, but I decided against initiating another argument with the OP.
Suspect??????????
Why?
It was a good question. One should be careful about one's evaluations of other's efforts! This is, after all, a help/assistance forum. And such comments make one avoid these forums!
In any case, got the better (i.e., more precise, more exact, more knowledgeable, better expressed and more helpful) reply elsewhere. Here it is:
Assuming you're using CS3 or later: Brightness pins the upper and lower values (shadows and highlights) and adjusts the range between them. Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them (just as if you had changed your ISO, shutter or aperture.)
Ever best!
Mark
Your question mark key is stuck, Mark.
You're confusing the Original Post with post #1. Post #1 was indeed suspect, and now it's proven wrong.
In #1 you said:
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file
and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
That's what was suspect, and now, confirmed by Chris Cox,
WRONG
.
You now repeat that in #4.
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and
adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
That, once again, is
wrong
.
As Chris told you in #2, Exposure does
not
''add or subtracts'' anything. It
multiplies.
%26gt;Exposure does not add or subtract - it multiplies
Now do you see why I didn't want to start yet another argument with you? B)
Mark,
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
Your answer is NOT quite right. Please see Chris's response.
Neil
Mark,
%26gt;Exposure (designed really for HDR work with raw images) takes the strictly linear values in the file and adds or subtracts an equal amount from all of them
Your answer is NOT right. Please see Chris's response.
Neil
I see Ram贸n types faster than I do! %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
Mark,
When you change your aperture one stop, you either double or halve the exposure. Two stops, and you quadruple or quarter the exposure. You do not simply add or subtract a fixed value to the exposure.
This ''multiplication'' or ''division'' of exposure is even clearer when you change shutter speeds: 1/30 sec --%26gt; 1/60 sec --%26gt; 1/125 sec --%26gt; 1/250 sec.
And ISO 100 is 1/2 the sensitivity of ISO 200. It is twice the sensitivity of ISO 50. And it is 1/4 the sensitivity of ISO 400. Again, it is a multiplication or division factor.
Neil
%26gt; One should be careful about one's evaluations of other's efforts!
Yup, you should be more careful in reading all posts, including your own, and not hurl any invective at those who correct you.
Of course your question was a valid one. It was your alleged ''
better (i.e., more precise, more exact, more knowledgeable, better expressed and more helpful) reply'' spouted in #1 and now astonishingly repeated in #4 that was wrong. Sheesh
First of all, that reply, with which you take issue, is not mine. I said it was not mine in post 1 (which was the second post on this thread) a post I can no longer find.
It is a post from a long time respected member of the Macintosh/Apple community.
Second, however, in the exposure window, a value is chosen which, evidently, is a multiple of the original value(s), as I understand you. But that multiple of the original values, which was evidently arrived at by multiplying those values, is added to the original value when one closes the window. As I understand this.
But what about the distinction that brightness does not affect the brightest and darkest values, but only what is in between?
And, BTW, while my obtuseness, as you seem to think it, may keep you from wanting to discuss with me, even before you knew how I would be discussing, your attitude has a similar effect on me of beiong sorry I even tried using this forum.
Mark
Mark,
%26gt;It is a post from a long time respected member of the Macintosh/Apple community.
The problem here is that you are disseminating incorrect or misleading information, regardless of whether it is first hand or that of a ''respected member'' of the community.
The point was clarified. Let's please move on.
Thanks.
Neil
%26gt;that reply, with which you take issue, is not mine.
I know,
I
can read. I didn't say it was yours, I said it was suspect. It was and remains wrong.
The points were not answered.
No explanation for brightness as different from exposure.
Mark
In reply to the comments about my second post's explanation of Exposure the author I had quoted replies as follows:
quote
That's really hard to say what the poster meant. Raw image files are linear; film is not, so perhaps he's saying that multiplication by a single factor produces a linear result (just as doubling the shutter speed halves the exposure.) The new B%26amp;C however, is more complex than either option, since it pins the darkest and lightest ends of the scale and bell-curves the rest.
The easiest way to see the difference is to watch the histogram as you apply each adjustment. With exposure, the entire histogram will slide left or right, and the highest and lowest values will fall off the chart. With B%26amp;C, the ''bell'' in the center will move, but you'll not completely blow out values at the extremes.
This is easy to see by open a chart of color swatches too.
End of quote
I feel his original explanation was unfairly jumped on. He obviously knows what he is talking about and is very familiar with the application, which he has been using since it first came out, decades ago.
Mark
%26gt;He obviously knows what he is talking about and is very familiar with the application
Obviously Not as he was corrected by a Photoshop engineer.
Your buddy at the Apple forums doesn't know as much as you think he does.
The PS engineer said only part of the story.
The amount of correction/change in the exposure option may be, as he says, or might not be, an exact multiple, a la apertures and exposure timings, as expressed numerically in the exposure slideer's numbers. But the amount brighter or darker that the image becomes when that amount is added to or subtracted from the image is an addition to the image.
But also, neither the members nor your engineer addressed the question, which was the difference between how the birghtness and exposure controls work.
If you notice at www.anstendig.com, I am not exactly an ignoramus about how apertures and exposure work in lenses and cameras. And I knew it back in the 50s, while exercising the then (and still) state of the art in focusing.
My question about the differences was not addressed on this thread. Only some carping about terminology and suspicion of posters, which wording was totally out of place and objectionable.
I don't like the attitude of this forum and, I suppose, you like me even less.
Thanks for whatever real helpfulness for me was in evidence.
Mark
BTW, Since Chris joined Adobe in 1996, it is probably to be surmised that this buddy of mine, who has been a pro photographer as long as I and a respected Apple/Mac expert and programmer since the first Apple computers, has been around using PS for at least as long as Chris and probably a lot longer.
No criticism of Chris. But only offered because you seem to elevate Adobe technicians above other experts.
Mark
For goodness sake, Chris Cox
writes
some (a lot) of the code in Photoshop!
This series of posts by the OP is one of the most absurd I've read anywhere. From the get go I knew starting a discussion with the OP would be an exercise in futility and I said so.
So what?
I, for one, had a premonition that I should not have submitted the answer to my question, which no one here had answered.
I thought some here might have been interested.
Forget any discussion . I am out of here.
Who needs this?
Mark
It's always a good idea
not
to post misinformation. No argument there.
Why? What is the problem?
This is a forum to correct and help. There is no problem to correct something if it is wrong.
The problem is with the manners on this forum.
The question was a very interesting one for many Photoshop users. This could have been a worthwhile thread for many who didn't know the difference between the brightness and the exposure options in PS.
The info I posted essentially explained the question. If the exposure did its thing in multiples or simple additions was a distinction to be made. It does not change the basic way the functions work, as explained in that text, which is that exposure changes all values, while brightness keeps the brightest and the darkest values while changing only the tones in between.
Chris's point was well made. But the distinction did not warrant the unpleasant comments about my post.
Mark
Did it ever occur to you to consult the documentation, Mark. Say, the User Guide and/or the Help files?
Exposure command
Adjusts tonality by performing calculations in a linear color space. Exposure is primarily for use in HDR images. See Adjust Exposure for HDR image.
Adjust Exposure for HDR images
Comments (0)
The Exposure adjustment is designed for making tonal adjustments to HDR images, but it works with 8鈥慴it and 16鈥慴it images. Exposure works by performing calculations in a linear color space (gamma 1.0) rather than the current color space.
1. Do one of the following:
*
Click the Exposure icon or an Exposure preset in the Adjustments panel.
*
Choose Layer %26gt; New Adjustment Layer %26gt; Exposure.
Note: You can also choose Image %26gt; Adjustments %26gt; Exposure. But keep in mind that this method makes direct adjustments to the image layer and discards image information. Adjustment layers for 32-bit images are available in Photoshop Extended only.
2. In the Adjustments panel, set any of the following options:
Exposure
Adjusts the highlight end of the tonal scale with minimal effect in the extreme shadows.
Offset
Darkens the shadows and midtones with minimal effect on the highlights.
Gamma
Adjusts the image gamma, using a simple power function. Negative values are mirrored around zero (that is, they remain negative but still get adjusted as if they are positive).
The eyedroppers adjust the luminance values of images (unlike the Levels eyedroppers that affect all color channels).
*
The Set Black Point eyedropper sets the Offset, shifting the pixel you click to zero.
*
The Set White Point eyedropper sets the Exposure, shifting the point you click to white (1.0 for HDR images).
*
The Midtone eyedropper sets the Exposure, making the value you click middle gray.
=== === ===
Apply the Brightness/Contrast adjustment
Comments (0)
The Brightness/Contrast adjustment lets you make simple adjustments to the tonal range of an image. Moving the brightness slider to the right increases tonal values and expands image highlights, to the left decreases values and expands shadows. The contrast slider expands or shrinks the overall range of tonal values in the image.
In normal mode, Brightness/Contrast applies proportionate (nonlinear) adjustments to image layer, as with Levels and Curves adjustments. When Use Legacy is selected, Brightness/Contrast simply shifts all pixel values higher or lower when adjusting brightness. Since this can cause clipping or loss of image detail in highlight or shadow areas, using Brightness/Contrast in Legacy mode is not recommended for photographic images (but can be useful for editing masks or scientific imagery).
Note: Use Legacy is automatically selected when editing Brightness/Contrast adjustment layers created with previous versions of Photoshop.
1. Do one of the following:
*
Click the Brightness/Contrast icon in the Adjustments panel.
*
Choose Layer %26gt; New Adjustment Layer %26gt; Brightness/Contrast. Click OK in the New Layer dialog box.
Note: You can also choose Image %26gt; Adjustments %26gt; Brightness/Contrast. But keep in mind that this method makes direct adjustments to the image layer and discards image information.
2. In the Adjustments panel, drag the sliders to adjust the brightness and contrast.
Dragging to the left decreases the level, and dragging to the right increases it. The number at the right of each slider reflects the brightness or contrast value. Values can range from 鈥?50 to +150 for Brightness, 鈥?0 to +100 for Contrast.
Not to worry, I know we can count on you to keep stretching this thread ad nauseam in spite of your repeated good-byes, Mark. ;)
Why the irony and nastiness?
What you just supplied is exactly what I had trouble finding.
Why?
Because I have a small macular hole in each eye, which, mercifully, have steadily reduced in size over the 5 or so years I have had them, and still continue to become smaller and less obtrusive (due to disciplines I have mastered and to homeopathic medical help). I do have extreme wide-angle vision, so I can see a whole photograph quite well, with both eyes. But with small text, usually 1 digit is missing in the center. So I easily miss things in Apple's small help menus or using those menus is difficult, demanding magnifiers, which I do have lots of).
The main fault, for me, of the Apple OS is that text in most text boxes is not readily resized without becoming fuzzy and unsharp, and the ridiculously high res of my 30 monitor displays text at half WYSIWYG size. The help pull down menus and text boxes have text displayed at around 7-8 DPI. Therefore, it can happen that I miss something in those menus...or that it is very hard and tiring to search for some things. Both of which made me ask this question.
Fortunately, my doctor, and I, too, expect further improvement.
But, in the meantime, you are helping a partially sight-impaired person, who, again, mercifully, can see whole monitor-size images, but has trouble with finest small text.
So, I sincerely thank you for taking the trouble to point me to the right help pages and even copy/paste them into your message.
If that had occurred at the beginning, this forum would have received my sincerest and most profuse thanks, and nothing more!
No matter what your motives or manner, you have helped me enormously.
In the future, you might first give people the benefit of the doubt and be kinder to those who annoy you.
Thank you. Really, truly.
And ever best,
Mark B Anstendig
Mark, you do full honor to your last name (German
Anst盲ndig). :)
I've always tried.
I lived a decade in W Berlin, with a German Gov't Grant.
There, I had to live up to the name.
www.anstendig.com
Love ya ,
Mark
Just to be clear, the exposure adjustment in Photoshop is a multiplication -- just like changing exposure in a camera. If the document colorspace is not gamma 1.0, then the data has to be converted to gamma 1.0, adjusted, then converted back to the document colorspace. (there are ways to optimize that process, of course)
There is no addition, and no subtraction involved.
And yes, I wrote all the code for the exposure adjustment.
:)
This is becoming a problem of semantics.
The whole Adobe help info on the subject was posted. So why did it need anything just to be clear?
What I understand from this is that Chris is speaking of how the value is arrived at in the exposure control, which is by multiplication.
BUT, to the user, once that value is arrived at, the control seems to add it to or subtract it from the original image when one clicks on the OK button.
But we can go around about this forever. It was clear from Chris' first post that the values in Exposure are arrived at through multiplication.
But to the user, both the Exposure and the brightness controls brighten or darken the image a certain amount (however that amount is calculated). The big difference between those two options is what parts of the image each option changes, whether by multiplication or addition or whatever.
That difference in what parts/tones of the image are changed is what most users have to understand. How much either option lightens or darkens those parts of the image that it affects can readily be seen in most of the tones of the image and can thus be chosen on the screen, no matter whether it is arrived at by multiplication or addition, etc. So can the differences in how each option works be seen on screen. But those differences between which tones exposure or brightness change are less usual, so many users miss them and don't even look for them.
Mark
I wouldn't call the difference between multiplication on the one hand and subtraction/addition on the other a question of
''semantics'', but of substance.
%26gt;BUT, to the user, once that value is arrived at, the control seems to add it to or subtract it from the original image when one clicks on the OK button.
That would depend on whether the user knows the difference and whether he's paying attention or not, whether he knows what a histogram tells him or not, how capable and accurately calibrated his monitor is, and how keen his tonal perception is. Personally, I'd never characterize it the way you do
(''the control seems to add it to or subtract it''), Mark.
Look at the histogram while you move the Brightness and Exposure controls back and forth.
%26gt;no matter whether it is arrived at by multiplication or addition
I disagree with you there too, for the reason stated in the first paragraph of this post.
If you take such a careless attitude about the definitions, I wonder what prompted you to post inquiring about the difference between the two functions in the first place. (Just a rhetorical question that requires no answer.) :)
Touch茅 on your last point.
I asked because, old school that I am, I was doing them by intuition and just looking at them, without knowing the exact definitions.
I certainly have learned here.
Much love to all,
Mark
Unfortunately, Mark - this group is often all about semantics as that provides a greater opportunity for debate. It's assumed that everyone who is not a regular here is an idiot.
Yes, this is a pretty stupid debate. It's a perfectly acceptable statement to say when you increase light intensity by one stop, you have
b added
light to the scene, despite the fact that the light has doubled through a principle of magnification. Never once have I muttered to myself, ''I need to multiply the light.''
Likewise, when you drag the exposure slider in Photoshop, you are adding (increasing), or subtracting (decreasing), the brightness levels, even though multiplication/division is happening under the hood.
Notice the + (plus sign) and - (minus sign), that appear when you drag the sliders off the zero point? If it was so essential that the user knows that multiplication and division was going on, why doesn't it show those signs instead?
I can only surmise that Chris feels the need for ''clarification'' because he writes code and mainly deals in principle and theory, which of course, is often different than the real world.
-phil
Thanks, Phil,
I had pretty much given up, but now realize that mainly one person was making all the noise.
Good to know that there is someone here who reads objectively and not subjective-emotionally.
It was good that Chris pointed out the differences in the calculation of the lighter or darker adjustments. That was an added point to be made, which, in reality, did not contradict anything else.
It was someone else who said that post number 1 was suspect.....a wording out of place here.
If something is wrong, simply nicely point it out and correct it. But saying something is suspicious is a whole different all game. No one here is, in my impression, trying to purposely do anything suspicious.
But the whole thing wrong is that these are not discussion forums. They are help forums that are meant to complement the Adobe Tech support options.
All that is needed is to give the answers if one knows them and possibly explain resulting questions. Not to discuss.
But some here seem to have the need to discuss things, which is better done elsewhere, IMO. But one can get addicted to discussing.
Mark
Mark,
A couple of comments from the sidelines:
%26gt;someone here who reads objectively and not subjective-emotionally
%26gt;But the whole thing wrong is that these are not discussion forums. They are help forums that are meant to complement the Adobe Tech support options.
Although I sense your frustration here, these
are indeed discussions that we generally provide, not as formatted user manual text content, with each participant providing his or her viewpoint.
But that said, the
accuracy of particular words (addition/subtraction vs multiplication/division) would be
required to properly complement Adobe support. And that is an
objective, not
subjective response.
The best solution for you to understand the differences between adjusting exposure and brightness may be to take several different good, wide-range images. Make duplicates of each. And then make side-by-side comparisons using exposure adjustments on one set; and brightness on the other. Scrutinize what happens to the shadow areas, highlight areas and middle tones. The old saw, ''a picture is worth a thousand words'' works well here.
Neil
Thanks,
That has long since been done, right after the first reply from elsewhere.
And that gets to the beginning of what has transpired: namely that I did not get a reply with explanation here before it came from elsewhere. So, to be considerate, so I thought, I posted that reply here.
After that post some posts became nasty, calling that post suspect and being argumentative and annoyed-seeming, rather than just pleasant and helpful.
I felt the attitude was because I mentioned I had not gotten the reply here.
And that remains my impression.
It is only these last posts that some here have really been genuinely only interested in being helpful.
Sorry, but that is my impression.
I appreciate your kind comments and suggestion. Just remember that the person who first explained the issue elsewhere already suggested viewing the differences in PS and how.
Thanks again,
Mark
Neil, I said we could count on Mark to stretch this thread ad infinitum B)
Why not?
Every time it is ended, someone adds to it something that is right, but needs, IMO, a bit of explanation. Or Ramon has to trump it and prove that he is right about something.
And, my dear Adobe forums colleagues, there is a simple reason why you do not have to take Ramon seriously, or bother with this thread if you think it is ended....which it was long ago:
And that reason is that you simply do not have to read it. I haven't read a single other thread on these forums in this time period. I do not have that compulsion.
Much love, as always,
Mark
Mark, I enjoy having you around. Just making sure you keep coming back. :D
My, My,
Reverse psychology.
That might just get me to leave.
Or not.
Does it matter?
Marky Baby
Clipping path disappears when I drag an...
Mac OS 10.5.6. CS 3.
Clipping path disappears when I drag an...
I have a clipping path around my item. But when I drag it over to another Photoshop document to place over the other image (or copy paste) the clipping path disappears. Any ideas? Thanks.
Clipping path disappears when I drag an...
When you say ''clipping path''do you mean you have set up a path as a clipping path in Photoshop's paths panel? This type of old school clipping path is not really directly linked to the pixel content. Dragging and dropping layers will leave this path behind.
Sounds to me like you need to set up your path as a Vector layer mask. When you have done this, a drag and drop operation, will take the layer and the vector path with it. Copy and Paste will not.
Holding down your Shift key as you drag will also centre the path and the pixels in the new document. This may be another workaround.
You can drag a Path from the Paths palette or a document to another document. Aligning may be a problem though.
Mark's idea will probably do the trick.
Thank you. Where can I go to learn how to do a Vector Layer Mask? (Any tutorials?)Thanks.
Layer%26gt;Add Vector Mask%26gt;Current Path. All there is to it.
Thank you.
Or holding down your command key, click on the Add Layer Mask icon in the layers panel. This will create a vector mask in the fastest way. Using the Path selection tool (A), you can copy and paste the path you already created into it.
Clipping path disappears when I drag an...
I have a clipping path around my item. But when I drag it over to another Photoshop document to place over the other image (or copy paste) the clipping path disappears. Any ideas? Thanks.
Clipping path disappears when I drag an...
When you say ''clipping path''do you mean you have set up a path as a clipping path in Photoshop's paths panel? This type of old school clipping path is not really directly linked to the pixel content. Dragging and dropping layers will leave this path behind.
Sounds to me like you need to set up your path as a Vector layer mask. When you have done this, a drag and drop operation, will take the layer and the vector path with it. Copy and Paste will not.
Holding down your Shift key as you drag will also centre the path and the pixels in the new document. This may be another workaround.
You can drag a Path from the Paths palette or a document to another document. Aligning may be a problem though.
Mark's idea will probably do the trick.
Thank you. Where can I go to learn how to do a Vector Layer Mask? (Any tutorials?)Thanks.
Layer%26gt;Add Vector Mask%26gt;Current Path. All there is to it.
Thank you.
Or holding down your command key, click on the Add Layer Mask icon in the layers panel. This will create a vector mask in the fastest way. Using the Path selection tool (A), you can copy and paste the path you already created into it.
Stack Modes...
Are any of the Stack Modes besides Median and Mean (Noise reduction) good for anything? Have any of you found a use for them?
Thanks!
Stack Modes...
All of them are good for something - it just depends on what you are trying to do.
Stack Modes...
I'm sure they're good for something, just wondering if anyone has found out yet. Could you give examples or a link or something?
If you don't recognize the statistical names on them - then they probably won't be of much use to you.
If you are doing statistical work on images, then you should recognize the names and they would be quite useful.
makeup school
Thanks!
Stack Modes...
All of them are good for something - it just depends on what you are trying to do.
Stack Modes...
I'm sure they're good for something, just wondering if anyone has found out yet. Could you give examples or a link or something?
If you don't recognize the statistical names on them - then they probably won't be of much use to you.
If you are doing statistical work on images, then you should recognize the names and they would be quite useful.
Cropping leads to strange image size
Using PS CS4. If I open a TIFF... 3872x2592 pixels, 16.133x10.8 inches, 240 resolution, and crop it to a 13x9 image (or any size), the result is 140x97 pixels, 0.014x0.01 inches, and resolution of 9999. The cropped image looks horrible, and is unusable. Can anyone help?? Thanks.
Cropping leads to strange image size
Sor
Cropping leads to strange image size
Sorry, re cropping problem...I am running CS3, not CS4
Reset the crop tool per the FAQ:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b51428/2
errolphoto:
Look at the ''Edit'' button/link on each of your posts. No need for triple postings during the first 30 minutes.
Cropping leads to strange image size
Sor
Cropping leads to strange image size
Sorry, re cropping problem...I am running CS3, not CS4
Reset the crop tool per the FAQ:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b51428/2
errolphoto:
Look at the ''Edit'' button/link on each of your posts. No need for triple postings during the first 30 minutes.
vector feather setting not saving
I'm finding that the vector mask feather setting isn't saving, and returns to a hard edge when reopening the files.
I haven't had time to explore this, except that the file is being saved as Max-Compatiple.
should the vector feather settting be saved or is this a temporary setting for creating pixel masks only?
is it a bug or not a bug ( and therefore I need to read the manual )
vector feather setting not saving
seems like the message was dropped from the post, here it is.....
I'm finding that the vector mask feather setting isn't saving, and returns to a hard edge when reopening the files.
I haven't had time to explore this, except that the file is being saved as Max-Compatiple.
should the vector feather settting be saved or is this a temporary setting for creating pixel masks only?
is it a bug or not a bug ( and therefore I need to read the manual )
vector feather setting not saving
apparently old news....
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7b28b/0
I haven't had time to explore this, except that the file is being saved as Max-Compatiple.
should the vector feather settting be saved or is this a temporary setting for creating pixel masks only?
is it a bug or not a bug ( and therefore I need to read the manual )
vector feather setting not saving
seems like the message was dropped from the post, here it is.....
I'm finding that the vector mask feather setting isn't saving, and returns to a hard edge when reopening the files.
I haven't had time to explore this, except that the file is being saved as Max-Compatiple.
should the vector feather settting be saved or is this a temporary setting for creating pixel masks only?
is it a bug or not a bug ( and therefore I need to read the manual )
vector feather setting not saving
apparently old news....
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7b28b/0
saved layered .psd files display text...
Hi,
I have layered files that I have saved. When I view my files in column format, in the preview area, text appears, not the image. I can't read the text as it is so tiny. Even when I magnified it I couldn't red it. It just seems to happen to files saved as .psd, not to jpegs.
Has this happened to other people? If you have a solution, other than flattening the file, as I wish to save the layers, please help me. Thank you in advance.
saved layered .psd files display text...
CLICK HERE
for advice on how to ask your question correctly for quicker answers. Thanks!
saved layered .psd files display text...
I can add a bit more information: I'm using CS4 with Mac OS 10. 5.6
%26gt;When I view my files in column format, in the preview area, text appears, not the image. I can't read the text as it is so tiny.
Meaning you are previewing in the Finder?
That is possibly because you have an Alpha channel in the file.
If you learn to use Bridge CS4, instead of using the Finder, you won't have this problem.
I was finally able to read the text. It says: '' This layered file was not saved with a composite image.'' What does that mean?
That you failed to check the box to Maximize Compatibility box when you saved the file. Maybe you set your preferences to not even ask you (Never Ask)?
Thank you for all your responses. Yes, it was a Preference item, under File Handling I changed my choice from Never to Aways and now there is no problem.
I have layered files that I have saved. When I view my files in column format, in the preview area, text appears, not the image. I can't read the text as it is so tiny. Even when I magnified it I couldn't red it. It just seems to happen to files saved as .psd, not to jpegs.
Has this happened to other people? If you have a solution, other than flattening the file, as I wish to save the layers, please help me. Thank you in advance.
saved layered .psd files display text...
CLICK HERE
for advice on how to ask your question correctly for quicker answers. Thanks!
saved layered .psd files display text...
I can add a bit more information: I'm using CS4 with Mac OS 10. 5.6
%26gt;When I view my files in column format, in the preview area, text appears, not the image. I can't read the text as it is so tiny.
Meaning you are previewing in the Finder?
That is possibly because you have an Alpha channel in the file.
If you learn to use Bridge CS4, instead of using the Finder, you won't have this problem.
I was finally able to read the text. It says: '' This layered file was not saved with a composite image.'' What does that mean?
That you failed to check the box to Maximize Compatibility box when you saved the file. Maybe you set your preferences to not even ask you (Never Ask)?
Thank you for all your responses. Yes, it was a Preference item, under File Handling I changed my choice from Never to Aways and now there is no problem.
Save for Web CS4, alpha channel missing.
I can't find, in the CS4 Save for Web dialog box, the quality settings for alpha channel, text layers and vectors protection.
Any suggestion?
Giuseppe
Save for Web CS4, alpha channel missing.
Giuseppe,
Your profile says say you are an Adobe Certified Instructor, so I must be misunderstanding your post.
Save for Web is designed to produce the smallest possible file for uploading to a web page. You are not going to retain layers, vectors or alpha channels in a GIF or JPEG file.
What are you trying to do? Why are you using Save for Web?
Save for Web CS4, alpha channel missing.
In CS3 Save for Web dialog box showed a small icon beside to the 'Quality' slider where you could choose an alpha channel and fine tuning the level of Jpeg compression. In the same dialog box there were options for text layers and vectors. I think the box was called 'Quality Image settings.
What I'm trying to do, Ramon, is teaching my students where Adobe put that options in the CS4 release...even if I'm an ACI I can't know everything...an ACI is not a clairvoyant :-)
Probably my english is getting worse, I do apologize for that.
Giuseppe
Are you sure? I don't have CS3, but as far as I know jpg has never supported alpha channels or text layers, so why would those options appear in Save for Web? Certainly not there in previous versions.
It allows text layers to be compressed less tan the image if desired.
The resulting JPG does not have layers of course.
Help for this option in CS3.
For CS4, it may have been dropped. Ozan was looking for this on January 15
in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
That's it! Thank you guys and sorry again for my bad english request in my first post.
I wasn't able to find it neither so maybe is definitively gone.
Giuseppe
Your English is fine.
It may be worth a continued search. Many things have been moved. While I am not at CS4 now, it was available in CS2 and CS3 so it is unlikely to have been a transient feature.
Any suggestion?
Giuseppe
Save for Web CS4, alpha channel missing.
Giuseppe,
Your profile says say you are an Adobe Certified Instructor, so I must be misunderstanding your post.
Save for Web is designed to produce the smallest possible file for uploading to a web page. You are not going to retain layers, vectors or alpha channels in a GIF or JPEG file.
What are you trying to do? Why are you using Save for Web?
Save for Web CS4, alpha channel missing.
In CS3 Save for Web dialog box showed a small icon beside to the 'Quality' slider where you could choose an alpha channel and fine tuning the level of Jpeg compression. In the same dialog box there were options for text layers and vectors. I think the box was called 'Quality Image settings.
What I'm trying to do, Ramon, is teaching my students where Adobe put that options in the CS4 release...even if I'm an ACI I can't know everything...an ACI is not a clairvoyant :-)
Probably my english is getting worse, I do apologize for that.
Giuseppe
Are you sure? I don't have CS3, but as far as I know jpg has never supported alpha channels or text layers, so why would those options appear in Save for Web? Certainly not there in previous versions.
It allows text layers to be compressed less tan the image if desired.
The resulting JPG does not have layers of course.
Help for this option in CS3.
For CS4, it may have been dropped. Ozan was looking for this on January 15
in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
That's it! Thank you guys and sorry again for my bad english request in my first post.
I wasn't able to find it neither so maybe is definitively gone.
Giuseppe
Your English is fine.
It may be worth a continued search. Many things have been moved. While I am not at CS4 now, it was available in CS2 and CS3 so it is unlikely to have been a transient feature.
Batch append a single keyword
We enter keywords using Photo Mechanic when ingesting, but would like to add one to files processed from raw using the batch utility or a script.
In File Info you can append a keyword, but if you record this step for an action it translates as set keyword to ''x''. Therefore it removes all the other keywords.
Can anyone help or point me to a script that can be ran from within the batch?
many thanks
Batch append a single keyword
Adrian,
It would be useful to know what software you use or want to use, i.e. exact version of Photoshop, Bridge, and the OS.
CLICK HERE
for advice on how to ask your question correctly for quicker answers. Thanks!
Also, have you investigated Bridge metadata templates?
Batch append a single keyword
OK!
CS3 and CS4 both on Mac Pro 2.67Ghz with stock video cards. Plenty of disk space and about 6GB Ram on each Workstation....
I haven't looked too much into bridge as I want to integrate this extra keyword into our already extended list of steps for our workflow.
After we've processed in Capture One we open in PS for a bit of spit and polish. We save the files, and when the folder is done we drop it onto one of several droplets depending on which photographer shot the images, and what they are being used for. The droplet action places a 'digital slide mount' around the image with a bit of 漏 info and saves the finished file out as a jpeg at Q11.
I don't think it can be done, well not in Photoshop CS4 maybe with CS4 as that has access to the metadata. If you need to have it working for both CS3 and CS4 you would need to have Bridge open so that the keyword list could be fetched.
You can add keywords using templates but append only works in CS4 but then it does not work via an action.
Options use a script just for CS4 or have bridge running and use script that should work on both.
Anyway I'm sure someone will come up with a solution.
Here is a script that I've just tested on CS3 that will append a keyword. Change MyNewKey var to suit.
Just thought of another way without using Bridge, that is to use the rawdata and extract the existing keywords and feed them into addKeyWord function, that should work for CS2/3 and 4.
The only problem is extracting the keywords, my codeing with xml is not good. If I get chance I will have a play.
%26gt;stock video cards. Plenty of disk space
which tells us
nothing
. :(
However, since Paul says it can't be done, it's a moot point.
Here we are done and working, tested in Photoshop CS2/3 and 4
It will append a keyword to the active document.
Wow Paul! I'm in Australia, so I just awoke to see this!
Thanks very much indeed, I hope others can benefit too but this will be very useful for me.
I'm not going to have a chance to put it into the batch until tomorrow, but I'll get back to you with my experience.
Ramon. thanks to you too. Your contribution was invaluable.
No problem Adrian, bedtime here in the UK.
Just noticed there could be a problem if no keyword existed. This version should be better....
...and bug fixes before I've even tested it! Thanks again Paul.
Adrian,
Hope you're safe and away from those fires.
In File Info you can append a keyword, but if you record this step for an action it translates as set keyword to ''x''. Therefore it removes all the other keywords.
Can anyone help or point me to a script that can be ran from within the batch?
many thanks
Batch append a single keyword
Adrian,
It would be useful to know what software you use or want to use, i.e. exact version of Photoshop, Bridge, and the OS.
CLICK HERE
for advice on how to ask your question correctly for quicker answers. Thanks!
Also, have you investigated Bridge metadata templates?
Batch append a single keyword
OK!
CS3 and CS4 both on Mac Pro 2.67Ghz with stock video cards. Plenty of disk space and about 6GB Ram on each Workstation....
I haven't looked too much into bridge as I want to integrate this extra keyword into our already extended list of steps for our workflow.
After we've processed in Capture One we open in PS for a bit of spit and polish. We save the files, and when the folder is done we drop it onto one of several droplets depending on which photographer shot the images, and what they are being used for. The droplet action places a 'digital slide mount' around the image with a bit of 漏 info and saves the finished file out as a jpeg at Q11.
I don't think it can be done, well not in Photoshop CS4 maybe with CS4 as that has access to the metadata. If you need to have it working for both CS3 and CS4 you would need to have Bridge open so that the keyword list could be fetched.
You can add keywords using templates but append only works in CS4 but then it does not work via an action.
Options use a script just for CS4 or have bridge running and use script that should work on both.
Anyway I'm sure someone will come up with a solution.
Here is a script that I've just tested on CS3 that will append a keyword. Change MyNewKey var to suit.
#target photoshop
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////
MyNewKey= ''EnterYourNewKeywordHere'';
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////
BridgeTalk.prototype.sendSynch = function(timeout) {
var self = this;
self.onResult = function(res) {
this.result = res.body;
this.complete = true;
}
self.complete = false;
self.send();
if (timeout) {
for (var i = 0; i %26lt; timeout; i++) {
BridgeTalk.pump();
if (!self.complete) {
$.sleep(1000);
} else {
break;
}
}
}
var res = self.result;
self.result = self.complete = self.onResult = undefined;
return res;
};
function getKeys() {
var bridgeApp = ''bridge'';
if (!BridgeTalk.isRunning(bridgeApp)) {
BridgeTalk.launch(bridgeApp);
}
var bt = new BridgeTalk();
bt.target = bridgeApp;
bt.body = ''function z(){var f = new Thumbnail('''+activeDocument.fullName.fsName+'''); var md = f.synchronousMetadata;''+
''md.namespace = 'http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/'; var result = md.Keywords;return result;}z();'';
var res = bt.sendSynch(10);
addKeyWord(res,MyNewKey)
};
function addKeyWord(Keys,newKey) {
var desc19 = new ActionDescriptor();
var ref8 = new ActionReference();
ref8.putProperty( charIDToTypeID('Prpr'), charIDToTypeID('FlIn') );
ref8.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Dcmn'), charIDToTypeID('Ordn'), charIDToTypeID('Trgt') );
desc19.putReference( charIDToTypeID('null'), ref8 );
var desc20 = new ActionDescriptor();
var list3 = new ActionList();
Keys=Keys.split(',');
for(var a=0;a%26lt;Keys.length;a++){
list3.putString( Keys[a].toString() );
}
list3.putString( newKey);
desc20.putList( charIDToTypeID('Kywd'), list3 );
desc19.putObject( charIDToTypeID('T '), charIDToTypeID('FlIn'), desc20 );
executeAction( charIDToTypeID('setd'), desc19, DialogModes.NO );
};
getKeys();
Just thought of another way without using Bridge, that is to use the rawdata and extract the existing keywords and feed them into addKeyWord function, that should work for CS2/3 and 4.
The only problem is extracting the keywords, my codeing with xml is not good. If I get chance I will have a play.
%26gt;stock video cards. Plenty of disk space
which tells us
nothing
. :(
However, since Paul says it can't be done, it's a moot point.
Here we are done and working, tested in Photoshop CS2/3 and 4
It will append a keyword to the active document.
#target photoshop
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//Put your new keyword below.
newKey = ''TestKeyWord'';
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
var xmp = activeDocument.xmpMetadata.rawData;
xmp=xmp.substr(xmp.search(''subject'')+ 8 );
xmp=xmp.substr(0,xmp.search(''subject'')-5);
var keyList =[];
for(var a=0;a%26lt;100;a++){
var key='';
key =parseMetadata(xmp, 'rdf:li');
if(key == '')break;
xmp=xmp.substr(xmp.search(''/rdf'')+7);
if(key != '') keyList.push(key);
}
addKeyWord(keyList.toString(),newKey);
function parseMetadata(xmp, tag) {
var re = new RegExp('%26lt;' + tag + '%26gt;(.+)%26lt;/' + tag + '%26gt;');
var m = xmp.match(re);
if (!m) {
re = new RegExp(''%26lt;[^:]+:'' + tag + ''%26gt;(.+)%26lt;/[^:]+:'' + tag + '%26gt;');
m = this.xmp.match(re);
}
return (m ? m[1] : '');
};
function addKeyWord(Keys,newKey) {
var desc19 = new ActionDescriptor();
var ref8 = new ActionReference();
ref8.putProperty( charIDToTypeID('Prpr'), charIDToTypeID('FlIn') );
ref8.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Dcmn'), charIDToTypeID('Ordn'), charIDToTypeID('Trgt') );
desc19.putReference( charIDToTypeID('null'), ref8 );
var desc20 = new ActionDescriptor();
var list3 = new ActionList();
Keys=Keys.split(',');
for(var a=0;a%26lt;Keys.length;a++){
list3.putString( Keys[a].toString() );
}
list3.putString( newKey);
desc20.putList( charIDToTypeID('Kywd'), list3 );
desc19.putObject( charIDToTypeID('T '), charIDToTypeID('FlIn'), desc20 );
executeAction( charIDToTypeID('setd'), desc19, DialogModes.NO );
};
Wow Paul! I'm in Australia, so I just awoke to see this!
Thanks very much indeed, I hope others can benefit too but this will be very useful for me.
I'm not going to have a chance to put it into the batch until tomorrow, but I'll get back to you with my experience.
Ramon. thanks to you too. Your contribution was invaluable.
No problem Adrian, bedtime here in the UK.
Just noticed there could be a problem if no keyword existed. This version should be better....
#target photoshop
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//Put your new keyword below.
newKey = ''TestKeyWord'';
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
var xmp = activeDocument.xmpMetadata.rawData;
xmp=xmp.substr(xmp.search(''subject'')+ 8 );
xmp=xmp.substr(0,xmp.search(''subject'')- 5 );
var keyList =[];
for(var a=0;a%26lt;100;a++){
var key='';
key =parseMetadata(xmp, 'rdf:li');
if(key == '')break;
xmp=xmp.substr(xmp.search(''/rdf'')+ 7 );
if(key != '') keyList.push(key);
}
addKeyWord(keyList.toString(),newKey);
function parseMetadata(xmp, tag) {
var re = new RegExp('%26lt;' + tag + '%26gt;(.+)%26lt;/' + tag + '%26gt;');
var m = xmp.match(re);
if (!m) {
re = new RegExp(''%26lt;[^:]+:'' + tag + ''%26gt;(.+)%26lt;/[^:]+:'' + tag + '%26gt;');
m = this.xmp.match(re);
}
return (m ? m[1] : '');
};
function addKeyWord(Keys,newKey) {
var desc19 = new ActionDescriptor();
var ref8 = new ActionReference();
ref8.putProperty( charIDToTypeID('Prpr'), charIDToTypeID('FlIn') );
ref8.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Dcmn'), charIDToTypeID('Ordn'), charIDToTypeID('Trgt') );
desc19.putReference( charIDToTypeID('null'), ref8 );
var desc20 = new ActionDescriptor();
var list3 = new ActionList();
if (Keys.length%26gt;0){Keys=Keys.split(',');
for(var a=0;a%26lt;Keys.length;a++){
list3.putString( Keys[a].toString() );
}}
list3.putString( newKey);
desc20.putList( charIDToTypeID('Kywd'), list3 );
desc19.putObject( charIDToTypeID('T '), charIDToTypeID('FlIn'), desc20 );
executeAction( charIDToTypeID('setd'), desc19, DialogModes.NO );
};
...and bug fixes before I've even tested it! Thanks again Paul.
Adrian,
Hope you're safe and away from those fires.
Layer Effect Separation
I duplicated a layer which already had a drop shadow applied to it. When I go to change the values of the drop shadow on the NEW layer it also affects the layer affects of the ORIGINAL layer. Why is this happening and how do I avoid it so that I can have the layers display unique drop shadow effects?
Thanks
Kit
Layer Effect Separation
No, making changes to the styles on one layer will not affect the style on another layer.
You can only do that by putting the layer in a smart object, then duplicating the smart object.
Layer Effect Separation
Chris, how can that be? I duplicated my rastered layer and its doing it.
I don't know what you are seeing, but making changes to styles on one layer won't affect the styles on another layer.
Global light?
Yeah, if he tries to change the light angle and has it set to global - that would change it, of course. (that's expected behavior though)
Ah, I think that's what it is - global light. Thanks guys
makeup school
Thanks
Kit
Layer Effect Separation
No, making changes to the styles on one layer will not affect the style on another layer.
You can only do that by putting the layer in a smart object, then duplicating the smart object.
Layer Effect Separation
Chris, how can that be? I duplicated my rastered layer and its doing it.
I don't know what you are seeing, but making changes to styles on one layer won't affect the styles on another layer.
Global light?
Yeah, if he tries to change the light angle and has it set to global - that would change it, of course. (that's expected behavior though)
Ah, I think that's what it is - global light. Thanks guys
CS4 will not install
I have an almost new imac and cs4 will not install. When checking system profile it hangs at about 85%. This is an upgrade disk with cs3 already installed on the imac. Anybody else run into this?
Jim Burton
CS4 will not install
Jim,
Please give us some specific details about your new iMac and OS and include free hard drive space.
Neil
CS4 will not install
read this
LenHewitt, ''How To Get Help Quickly'' #, 4 Mar 2004 7:27 am
Use Terminal to run the setup program.
To start the install from the terminal in OSX. Control-click on the setup application on the install CD. Choose show package contents from the drop down menu. Open the Contents then the MacOS folder. Open the Terminal application if not open (Application-%26gt;Utilities-%26gt;Terminal). Drag the setup program icon into the terminal window.
You should have something like this in the terminal window:
$ /Volumes/Adobe\ CS4\ Design\ Premium\ Disc\ 1/Adobe\ CS4\ Design\ Premium/Setup.app/Contents/MacOS/Setup
While in the terminal window, press the enter key.
Repair Permissions before and after the installation. (See next post.)
I still advocate Repairing Permissions (with Apple's Disk Utility) before AND after any system update or upgrade, as well as before AND after installing any software that requires an installer that asks for your password.
I have seen software installations go sour because the installer did not find everything as and where it should be.
I have also seen software installations go bad because the installer did not clean up after itself properly and did not leave everything as and where it should be.
This is just my own personal opinion and practice based on my own observations. Others may disagree and that's OK. I can only base my routines and my advice to others on my own experience and conclusion. I don't pretend to know why others believe otherwise.
Repairing Permissions after the fact (i. e. not immediately before and after an install) may NOT help. Try it anyway, though.
====
Additionally, if your machine does not run 24/7 so that it runs the daily, weekly and monthly Cron Scripts in the middle of the night as intended by Apple, run Cocktail (shareware) as well.
Cron Scripts are maintenance routines designed by Apple to run on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in the middle of the night.
If you don't run them, you WILL run into trouble, sooner rather than later.
Here's an excerpt from the Apple tech doc http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107388
Mac OS X performs background maintenance tasks at certain times if the computer is not in sleep mode. If your computer is shut down or in sleep at the designated times, the maintenance does not occur. In that case, you may want or need to run these manually.
Mac OS X periodically runs background tasks that, in part, remove system files that are no longer needed. This includes purging older information from log files or deleting certain temporary items. These tasks do not run if the computer is shut down or in sleep mode. If the tasks do not run, it is possible that certain log files (such as system.log) may become very large.
Also, from: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106978
The disk activity generated by find is a normal part of file system maintenance, used for tasks such as removing invisible temporary files that are used by the system. It is scheduled to occur early in the morning at 03:15 everyday, 04:30 on Saturdays, and 05:30 on the first day of each month.
NOTE:
There have been comments to the effect that Apple ''fixed'' this in 10.4.2 and later versions of the OS, but I have not been able to verify this to my satisfaction. The reference in the 10.4.2 release notes are far from explicit on this subject.
Other, more reliable reports indicate that this seems to have been fixed in the current version of Leopard.
In any event, Repairing Permissions and/or running the Cron Scripts cannot hurt.
If you have DiskWarrior, run it regularly too.
CS4 installed using terminal! Thank you so much Linda, I have been trying to get CS4 installed for over a month.
Jim Burton
Jim Burton
CS4 will not install
Jim,
Please give us some specific details about your new iMac and OS and include free hard drive space.
Neil
CS4 will not install
read this
LenHewitt, ''How To Get Help Quickly'' #, 4 Mar 2004 7:27 am
Use Terminal to run the setup program.
To start the install from the terminal in OSX. Control-click on the setup application on the install CD. Choose show package contents from the drop down menu. Open the Contents then the MacOS folder. Open the Terminal application if not open (Application-%26gt;Utilities-%26gt;Terminal). Drag the setup program icon into the terminal window.
You should have something like this in the terminal window:
$ /Volumes/Adobe\ CS4\ Design\ Premium\ Disc\ 1/Adobe\ CS4\ Design\ Premium/Setup.app/Contents/MacOS/Setup
While in the terminal window, press the enter key.
Repair Permissions before and after the installation. (See next post.)
I still advocate Repairing Permissions (with Apple's Disk Utility) before AND after any system update or upgrade, as well as before AND after installing any software that requires an installer that asks for your password.
I have seen software installations go sour because the installer did not find everything as and where it should be.
I have also seen software installations go bad because the installer did not clean up after itself properly and did not leave everything as and where it should be.
This is just my own personal opinion and practice based on my own observations. Others may disagree and that's OK. I can only base my routines and my advice to others on my own experience and conclusion. I don't pretend to know why others believe otherwise.
Repairing Permissions after the fact (i. e. not immediately before and after an install) may NOT help. Try it anyway, though.
====
Additionally, if your machine does not run 24/7 so that it runs the daily, weekly and monthly Cron Scripts in the middle of the night as intended by Apple, run Cocktail (shareware) as well.
Cron Scripts are maintenance routines designed by Apple to run on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in the middle of the night.
If you don't run them, you WILL run into trouble, sooner rather than later.
Here's an excerpt from the Apple tech doc http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107388
Mac OS X performs background maintenance tasks at certain times if the computer is not in sleep mode. If your computer is shut down or in sleep at the designated times, the maintenance does not occur. In that case, you may want or need to run these manually.
Mac OS X periodically runs background tasks that, in part, remove system files that are no longer needed. This includes purging older information from log files or deleting certain temporary items. These tasks do not run if the computer is shut down or in sleep mode. If the tasks do not run, it is possible that certain log files (such as system.log) may become very large.
Also, from: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106978
The disk activity generated by find is a normal part of file system maintenance, used for tasks such as removing invisible temporary files that are used by the system. It is scheduled to occur early in the morning at 03:15 everyday, 04:30 on Saturdays, and 05:30 on the first day of each month.
NOTE:
There have been comments to the effect that Apple ''fixed'' this in 10.4.2 and later versions of the OS, but I have not been able to verify this to my satisfaction. The reference in the 10.4.2 release notes are far from explicit on this subject.
Other, more reliable reports indicate that this seems to have been fixed in the current version of Leopard.
In any event, Repairing Permissions and/or running the Cron Scripts cannot hurt.
If you have DiskWarrior, run it regularly too.
CS4 installed using terminal! Thank you so much Linda, I have been trying to get CS4 installed for over a month.
Jim Burton
Duplicating a layer/folder adds the...
Hello World,
Every time you duplicate a folder or a layer, it adds the word ''Copy'' at the end. Is there a way to get rid of this?
I've been looking for a solution to this for the past 2 years. I spend 8 hours a day in Photoshop creating Comps. I'm crazy about having my layers clean, therefore I use a lot of folders, etc.
I probably waste an hour a day removing the $%)?#* Copy word at the end of layers/folders. This is driving me CRAZY while losing a lot of precious time.
Any clues?
I'm still hoping Adobe will get rid of this with every new release and it never happens. Am I actualy the only one to think this ''feature'' is insane?
Thank you.
Duplicating a layer/folder adds the...
Seems quite sane to me. Why does it bother you?
To each his own.
Maybe it could be Scripted.
Duplicating a layer/folder adds the...
Yup allready done one here to edit/remove copy etc....
http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28336
@Ed
Let's say you have a similar structure in your Photoshop file for a website :
- 01 Homepage Comp Folder
----- Header Folder
------- Login Box Folder
------- Logo Folder
----- Content Folder
----- Footer Folder
- 02 About Comp Folder
----- Header Folder
------- Login Box Folder
------- Logo Folder
----- Content Folder
etc...
And then, plenty of layers in these folders.
If you duplicate the top folder (Homepage Comp for example) to work on a new page template from an existing one, all folders and all layers in this one will now have a Copy at the end. You must then dig through all those to remove the Copy word in order to keep the file clean.
This becomes a nightmare to work with.
I understand this is a minor annoyance for people who tend to flatten most of their layers and keep it to a small number. But for people like me who need to keep original layers for later revisions, it makes no sense.
I think the previous versions of Photoshop, up to 7.0 or so, didn't have this problem. You duplicated a layer/folder and it kept the same name. They introduced this in the CS suite I believe.
@Paul
Thanks for this script. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working on CS4 for me. Is it working for you?
Yes works fine in Photoshop CS4.
@Paul
My bad, it does work fine. Thank you very much!
Actually, doesn't work that fine ;)
Is there a limitation to the number of folders levels? I ran the script in one of my file with a lot of layers and subfolders. It does the job for a couple of layers but leave a lot of folders untouched.
I wish I understood scripting to take a look at the code, unfortunately I'm totally clueless.
Thanks.
Okay. I don't understand how removing ''Copy'' keeps the file ''clean''. I think it makes it more confusing to have several things with the same name. But you have your Scripting solution.
Along Ed's line of thinking, I recall folks have come here hoping to get back the high-res file that was inadvertently overwritten by a low-res version
with the same name.
That said, I think that a preference option to save with/without ''copy'' should be added.
Neil
@Ed
I'm a UI/UX graphic designer. I need to keep layers/folders clean so that future designers (and clients) working on the same project can find their way easily through the file. Having ''Copy'', ''Copy 2'' etc all over the file is simply unprofessionnal.
Here's a screenshot that should help you understand :
http://g.imagehost.org/0634/Copy-Problem.jpg
This was just a fake structure created for the screenshot, now imagine what is it in a real file with tons of layers/folders.
@Paul
I think the problem with the script is that it only removes the Copy from the first level. If you have layers/folders that are inside more folders, it doesn't work. Can you modify the script to make it multi-levels? *please* :)
@Neil
We're not refering to the filename here, but the layers/folders naming *in* the file.
--
I believe the best solution for everyone would be to add the ''Copy'' word ONLY on the first level folder duplicated. We wouldn't have to dig through all the subfolders and layers to remove it.
All the UI designers I've asked this about in the past years had the same opinion, we are all wasting precious time removing this annoyance. I'm still amazed that Adobe didn't change this over time. I guess it could be added to the huge list of UI gripes at http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/
Wouldn't it be more practical to submit a feature request to Adobe instead of some site off somewhere?
@Buko
Done already. I was simply trying to find a solution to my problem *now*, not in CS5 or CS6.
What about there and back again? Drag to blank doc, drag back.
Whatever. I think having several different Layers named the same is unprofessional and confusing. They put that feature in there for a reason.
But, whatever floats your boat.
And ''copy'' is professional differentiation, Ed?
?
At least you don't end up with multiple Layers all named the same. That's all.
Copy seems like a pretty lame name. How many ''new new'' files you ever worked on Ed? Or ''final final final''. Or my fav: ''final new'' (or ''new final'').
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Really Ed? It's a shame you've never had the pleasure of working on a file called ''Rockin Brochure new new''. You think, ''I'll bet the new new new version will be even better''. I have no idea why copy 1 2 and 3 are any more useful or professional than three layers with the same name, and was hoping for enlightenment.
I think it's all about optimizing the workflow for professionnal designers.
I would prefer the new copy to keep the same name as there is more chance I want it to be named the same way. If I really want to name it differently, then I'll do it myself. Having to go in each subfolders to remove the Copy is a nuissance. It is counter-productive and breaks the workflow.
The best option for everyone would be to add the word ''Copy'' only on the first level, and not the sub-levels of items.
Let's say I have a folder called ''Root'' which includes a subfolder called ''Subfolder'', which contains a couple of layers. Duplicating the ''Root'' folder should make a new one called ''Root Copy'' but it should *NOT* add the ''Copy'' tag to the ''Subfolder'' and whatever layers/folders contained in it.
The screenshot I posted previously explain the whole issue by itself and I don't see why anyone could argue with this.
I can understand it does not make sense to a photographer using Photoshop for retouching. But for a heavy user who makes use of the folders system a lot, it is self-explanatory.
Talking about folders, I'm also still dreaming about Photoshop to handle properly the 5th level of folders. Re-ordering folders on that 5th level does not work. Works fine on the 4th level, but 5th doesn't.
It just strikes me as silly. If I have a Layer named ''face'' and I duplicate it, it's named ''face copy'', which tells the story. Sometimes I'll work on the copy and leave the original alone. This way I know which is which.
Simple and useful.
But, whatever you like.
Still not able to make sense of J's posts. Oh well.
Not arguing with you ...just saying that I don't see it as an insane feature at all. Perfectly reasonable.
''Copy'' tells a story. ''Copy 3''?
I use copy as my backup. So our stories are different, Ed. That's what I'm talking about. For you it means one thing, for me another. Not particularly useful for Ms. Third Party.
J Maloney as E says it is not an insane feature.
True you bring up a circumstance where it might be better to have it work differently.
But keep in mind what you need may not be the norm.
So Ed is quite correct it is not insane but rather rational.
That doesn't help you I understand but what would be a good idea is to make a feature request that would be a very good way to approach this issue you have with the layers Panel.
J, we are talking about Layer names here.
As a side note, V, you do know about smart objects' ability to refresh content across repeated pages? I've read about it only, but you might check it out for any repeating elements.
Link here (Veerle).
And review my most astute post 12 about a workaround to save you time immediately:
%26gt;What about there and back again? Drag to blank doc, drag back.
Thanks for your opinion everyone even though I have yet to figure out the perfect solution.
I'll stick to my own opinion and feature-request (yes, it was submitted) that the word ''Copy'' should only on the first level of the duplicated item, and not the sub-levels.
@J
The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).
As for the Smart Object thing, I'll definitely give it a try. I'm kind of oldschool (Photoshop 2.0 era) so I didn't get used to work with this yet. I find these Smart Objects not precise enough for pixel perfect work. Although, I'm really going to spend some time figuring this out! Thank you very much for pointing this out.
Just discovered this great thread on managing complex PSDs, give it a read. They're looking for feedbacks on similar issues about handling layers.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/02/feedback_please_5.html
%26gt;The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).
If the two docs are the same pixel dimensions (which they would be), hold shift as you drag. Should pop in at the same position.
Smart objects as I'm referring to them are just folder ''groups'' much like you use them. When you update one, all the instance of that smart object update with it. I think it could really save you some time.
Thanks for these precious tips, J. I appreciate it.
Astute. :)
If I want a backup layer, I amend it with ''Backup'' or ''BU''. If I copy a stack of layers, or a folder, I don't want every layer in that to be amended with ''copy'', ''copy 2'', ''copy 57'', etc.
I think it makes a complete mess of the layer/folder structure and, due to my anal retentive nature, that means I spend a lot of time removing the words ''copy'' from all my layers.
The link in that other forum to the script doesn't work and the registration to that forum has been disabled.
%26gt; my anal retentive nature
Yeah, that's gotta be a b隆tch. :/
Every time you duplicate a folder or a layer, it adds the word ''Copy'' at the end. Is there a way to get rid of this?
I've been looking for a solution to this for the past 2 years. I spend 8 hours a day in Photoshop creating Comps. I'm crazy about having my layers clean, therefore I use a lot of folders, etc.
I probably waste an hour a day removing the $%)?#* Copy word at the end of layers/folders. This is driving me CRAZY while losing a lot of precious time.
Any clues?
I'm still hoping Adobe will get rid of this with every new release and it never happens. Am I actualy the only one to think this ''feature'' is insane?
Thank you.
Duplicating a layer/folder adds the...
Seems quite sane to me. Why does it bother you?
To each his own.
Maybe it could be Scripted.
Duplicating a layer/folder adds the...
Yup allready done one here to edit/remove copy etc....
http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28336
@Ed
Let's say you have a similar structure in your Photoshop file for a website :
- 01 Homepage Comp Folder
----- Header Folder
------- Login Box Folder
------- Logo Folder
----- Content Folder
----- Footer Folder
- 02 About Comp Folder
----- Header Folder
------- Login Box Folder
------- Logo Folder
----- Content Folder
etc...
And then, plenty of layers in these folders.
If you duplicate the top folder (Homepage Comp for example) to work on a new page template from an existing one, all folders and all layers in this one will now have a Copy at the end. You must then dig through all those to remove the Copy word in order to keep the file clean.
This becomes a nightmare to work with.
I understand this is a minor annoyance for people who tend to flatten most of their layers and keep it to a small number. But for people like me who need to keep original layers for later revisions, it makes no sense.
I think the previous versions of Photoshop, up to 7.0 or so, didn't have this problem. You duplicated a layer/folder and it kept the same name. They introduced this in the CS suite I believe.
@Paul
Thanks for this script. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working on CS4 for me. Is it working for you?
Yes works fine in Photoshop CS4.
@Paul
My bad, it does work fine. Thank you very much!
Actually, doesn't work that fine ;)
Is there a limitation to the number of folders levels? I ran the script in one of my file with a lot of layers and subfolders. It does the job for a couple of layers but leave a lot of folders untouched.
I wish I understood scripting to take a look at the code, unfortunately I'm totally clueless.
Thanks.
Okay. I don't understand how removing ''Copy'' keeps the file ''clean''. I think it makes it more confusing to have several things with the same name. But you have your Scripting solution.
Along Ed's line of thinking, I recall folks have come here hoping to get back the high-res file that was inadvertently overwritten by a low-res version
with the same name.
That said, I think that a preference option to save with/without ''copy'' should be added.
Neil
@Ed
I'm a UI/UX graphic designer. I need to keep layers/folders clean so that future designers (and clients) working on the same project can find their way easily through the file. Having ''Copy'', ''Copy 2'' etc all over the file is simply unprofessionnal.
Here's a screenshot that should help you understand :
http://g.imagehost.org/0634/Copy-Problem.jpg
This was just a fake structure created for the screenshot, now imagine what is it in a real file with tons of layers/folders.
@Paul
I think the problem with the script is that it only removes the Copy from the first level. If you have layers/folders that are inside more folders, it doesn't work. Can you modify the script to make it multi-levels? *please* :)
@Neil
We're not refering to the filename here, but the layers/folders naming *in* the file.
--
I believe the best solution for everyone would be to add the ''Copy'' word ONLY on the first level folder duplicated. We wouldn't have to dig through all the subfolders and layers to remove it.
All the UI designers I've asked this about in the past years had the same opinion, we are all wasting precious time removing this annoyance. I'm still amazed that Adobe didn't change this over time. I guess it could be added to the huge list of UI gripes at http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/
Wouldn't it be more practical to submit a feature request to Adobe instead of some site off somewhere?
@Buko
Done already. I was simply trying to find a solution to my problem *now*, not in CS5 or CS6.
What about there and back again? Drag to blank doc, drag back.
Whatever. I think having several different Layers named the same is unprofessional and confusing. They put that feature in there for a reason.
But, whatever floats your boat.
And ''copy'' is professional differentiation, Ed?
?
At least you don't end up with multiple Layers all named the same. That's all.
Copy seems like a pretty lame name. How many ''new new'' files you ever worked on Ed? Or ''final final final''. Or my fav: ''final new'' (or ''new final'').
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Really Ed? It's a shame you've never had the pleasure of working on a file called ''Rockin Brochure new new''. You think, ''I'll bet the new new new version will be even better''. I have no idea why copy 1 2 and 3 are any more useful or professional than three layers with the same name, and was hoping for enlightenment.
I think it's all about optimizing the workflow for professionnal designers.
I would prefer the new copy to keep the same name as there is more chance I want it to be named the same way. If I really want to name it differently, then I'll do it myself. Having to go in each subfolders to remove the Copy is a nuissance. It is counter-productive and breaks the workflow.
The best option for everyone would be to add the word ''Copy'' only on the first level, and not the sub-levels of items.
Let's say I have a folder called ''Root'' which includes a subfolder called ''Subfolder'', which contains a couple of layers. Duplicating the ''Root'' folder should make a new one called ''Root Copy'' but it should *NOT* add the ''Copy'' tag to the ''Subfolder'' and whatever layers/folders contained in it.
The screenshot I posted previously explain the whole issue by itself and I don't see why anyone could argue with this.
I can understand it does not make sense to a photographer using Photoshop for retouching. But for a heavy user who makes use of the folders system a lot, it is self-explanatory.
Talking about folders, I'm also still dreaming about Photoshop to handle properly the 5th level of folders. Re-ordering folders on that 5th level does not work. Works fine on the 4th level, but 5th doesn't.
It just strikes me as silly. If I have a Layer named ''face'' and I duplicate it, it's named ''face copy'', which tells the story. Sometimes I'll work on the copy and leave the original alone. This way I know which is which.
Simple and useful.
But, whatever you like.
Still not able to make sense of J's posts. Oh well.
Not arguing with you ...just saying that I don't see it as an insane feature at all. Perfectly reasonable.
''Copy'' tells a story. ''Copy 3''?
I use copy as my backup. So our stories are different, Ed. That's what I'm talking about. For you it means one thing, for me another. Not particularly useful for Ms. Third Party.
J Maloney as E says it is not an insane feature.
True you bring up a circumstance where it might be better to have it work differently.
But keep in mind what you need may not be the norm.
So Ed is quite correct it is not insane but rather rational.
That doesn't help you I understand but what would be a good idea is to make a feature request that would be a very good way to approach this issue you have with the layers Panel.
J, we are talking about Layer names here.
As a side note, V, you do know about smart objects' ability to refresh content across repeated pages? I've read about it only, but you might check it out for any repeating elements.
Link here (Veerle).
And review my most astute post 12 about a workaround to save you time immediately:
%26gt;What about there and back again? Drag to blank doc, drag back.
Thanks for your opinion everyone even though I have yet to figure out the perfect solution.
I'll stick to my own opinion and feature-request (yes, it was submitted) that the word ''Copy'' should only on the first level of the duplicated item, and not the sub-levels.
@J
The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).
As for the Smart Object thing, I'll definitely give it a try. I'm kind of oldschool (Photoshop 2.0 era) so I didn't get used to work with this yet. I find these Smart Objects not precise enough for pixel perfect work. Although, I'm really going to spend some time figuring this out! Thank you very much for pointing this out.
Just discovered this great thread on managing complex PSDs, give it a read. They're looking for feedbacks on similar issues about handling layers.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/02/feedback_please_5.html
%26gt;The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).
If the two docs are the same pixel dimensions (which they would be), hold shift as you drag. Should pop in at the same position.
Smart objects as I'm referring to them are just folder ''groups'' much like you use them. When you update one, all the instance of that smart object update with it. I think it could really save you some time.
Thanks for these precious tips, J. I appreciate it.
Astute. :)
If I want a backup layer, I amend it with ''Backup'' or ''BU''. If I copy a stack of layers, or a folder, I don't want every layer in that to be amended with ''copy'', ''copy 2'', ''copy 57'', etc.
I think it makes a complete mess of the layer/folder structure and, due to my anal retentive nature, that means I spend a lot of time removing the words ''copy'' from all my layers.
The link in that other forum to the script doesn't work and the registration to that forum has been disabled.
%26gt; my anal retentive nature
Yeah, that's gotta be a b隆tch. :/
I agree that ''copy'' and ''copy 4'' offer no useful amount of additional information on what a layer contains. Using an organized layer structure, i.e. groups, should save time on renaming each individual layer, as each layer inherits the information contained in the names of the groups it is stored in. So you might have multiple layers named ''Background'' in a single file, but as you should also take into account groups when figuring out what a layer is about, in reality you might have ''Basic version %26gt; Header %26gt; Search form %26gt; Background'', ''B%26amp;W version %26gt; Header %26gt; Search form %26gt; Button %26gt; Background'' and ''Backup %26gt; Footer %26gt; Navigation %26gt; Subnavigation %26gt; List item %26gt; Background''.
I agree that ''copy'' should both only be used on the top level and also be substituted with some other word. In any case, copying groups should never rename layers.
New Video Card to use CS4!
I have the mac Pro Nvidia Gforce 7300. Reading the forums tells me i need a new video card to upgrade to CS4.
There isn't any use in even installing the trial with my video card, is there? CS3 is working well. I can live with the Bridge bugs, especially since Ram贸n noted that the CS4 cache mangement was still weak (in November - has that changed, Ram贸n?)
Ram贸n, you mentioned ''mutant, 'flashed' for Mac cards originally built for the PC'' Any alternative? In case I ever find it essential to upgrade.
I guess my honeymoon with the Mac is about over. Still love the stability, but not heaven on earth, is it!
New Video Card to use CS4!
Please tell us what Mac, RAM, etc. you are using.
%26gt;Reading the forums tells me i need a new video card to upgrade to CS4.
Not necessarily. CS4 may run ok, just not Open GL functionality.
New Video Card to use CS4!
peggyyy,
%26gt;Reading the forums tells me i need a new video card to upgrade to CS4
You don't
need a new video card. You can run most Photoshop functions without it. But certain features, such as 3-D and rotation require advanced video or graphics cards. There are links in the gray panel on the front page of this forum for more specific information.
Within those limitations, I use Photoshop CS4 every day on my older G5 tower and without any flashed or upgrade card.
Neil
Thanks for the heads up! I don't need those features. Will install the trial. it's worth a shot. :-D
If you really WANTED to get a new video card, I'd suggest the nVidia 8800GT. But, as Neil posted, you don't NEED one necessarily.
Another alternative is the ATI Radeon 3870. It actually performs better than the 8800GT for some pro apps (not necessarily Photoshop), and it's cheaper.
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/ATI%20Technologies/100435928/
-phil
Peggy,
Here's a doc that covers GPU accelerated features in PsCS4:
http://www.adobe.com/go/kb405745
The 7300GT does work for most of the features. Whether you want to upgrade your video card depends more on what you will do in Photoshop. Working with 3D layers, multiple open files, or large document sizes impact the decision more than upgrading from CS3 to CS4.
regards,
steve
Thanks, Steve.
I've just added your link to the front page as a ''Tech Note'' link for this Forum.
Neil
Neil,
This Adobe tech note is directly related to the one in Steve's post #6. It seems to me that users should be referred to both.
GPU and OpenGL Features and Limitations in Photoshop CS4
http://www.adobe.com/go/kb404898
Ram贸n,%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I'm ahead of you. That link was already there. %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
:) Thanks.
There isn't any use in even installing the trial with my video card, is there? CS3 is working well. I can live with the Bridge bugs, especially since Ram贸n noted that the CS4 cache mangement was still weak (in November - has that changed, Ram贸n?)
Ram贸n, you mentioned ''mutant, 'flashed' for Mac cards originally built for the PC'' Any alternative? In case I ever find it essential to upgrade.
I guess my honeymoon with the Mac is about over. Still love the stability, but not heaven on earth, is it!
New Video Card to use CS4!
Please tell us what Mac, RAM, etc. you are using.
%26gt;Reading the forums tells me i need a new video card to upgrade to CS4.
Not necessarily. CS4 may run ok, just not Open GL functionality.
New Video Card to use CS4!
peggyyy,
%26gt;Reading the forums tells me i need a new video card to upgrade to CS4
You don't
need a new video card. You can run most Photoshop functions without it. But certain features, such as 3-D and rotation require advanced video or graphics cards. There are links in the gray panel on the front page of this forum for more specific information.
Within those limitations, I use Photoshop CS4 every day on my older G5 tower and without any flashed or upgrade card.
Neil
Thanks for the heads up! I don't need those features. Will install the trial. it's worth a shot. :-D
If you really WANTED to get a new video card, I'd suggest the nVidia 8800GT. But, as Neil posted, you don't NEED one necessarily.
Another alternative is the ATI Radeon 3870. It actually performs better than the 8800GT for some pro apps (not necessarily Photoshop), and it's cheaper.
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/ATI%20Technologies/100435928/
-phil
Peggy,
Here's a doc that covers GPU accelerated features in PsCS4:
http://www.adobe.com/go/kb405745
The 7300GT does work for most of the features. Whether you want to upgrade your video card depends more on what you will do in Photoshop. Working with 3D layers, multiple open files, or large document sizes impact the decision more than upgrading from CS3 to CS4.
regards,
steve
Thanks, Steve.
I've just added your link to the front page as a ''Tech Note'' link for this Forum.
Neil
Neil,
This Adobe tech note is directly related to the one in Steve's post #6. It seems to me that users should be referred to both.
GPU and OpenGL Features and Limitations in Photoshop CS4
http://www.adobe.com/go/kb404898
Ram贸n,%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I'm ahead of you. That link was already there. %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
:) Thanks.
Selecting Layer within Group? (Similar...
Hi, in the same way one can double-click on an object to select its ungrouped layer in the Layers Palette, is there a way to select the individual layer of an object that is grouped with other layers in the Layers Palette?
Whenever I double-click on an object which is on a layer that is grouped with other layers in the Layers Palette, the entire group is selected. I would like to select an individual layer within the group...
Thanks
Selecting Layer within Group? (Similar...
I'm guessing this is what you are looking for. If i right click on a layer, an option box pops up with that layer name on top. I select that and now that layer is active.
hope this helps
Selecting Layer within Group? (Similar...
no, no, sorry... in a document with no groups if a circle on a layer is double-clicked upon, the layer with the circle is selected....
ok, now suppose there is a document with a group of three layers...one of the grouped layers has a circle on it, another of the grouped layers has a square on it, and another layer in the group has a triangle. If the circle in this document is double clicked the entire group of three layers is selected; if the square in this document is double clicked the entire group of three layers is similarly selected, etc. How can one select just the layer with the circle, not the group of three layers?
How can a person select just a layer in a group, not the group in which the layer exists?
Sorry this question is so convoluted...its been a lonnnnnng day.....
thanks again
Oh...you are almost right...very helpful...sorry it took me a while (very exhausting day)...yes, it is as if a person were to right click on, say, a circle, to then select the layer with the circle...
that is helpful, thank you
but
is there a direct technique rather than right clicking and selecting from a long list of possible layers? For example, is it possible to do something like Option+Double Click to select the individual circle layer within a group, straightforwardly?
Thanks again
Uncheck select groups, check select layers in the Move Tool's Option Bar.
THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU THANK OU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! XOXOXOXOX WHOO HOOO!!
You are welcome! Don't forget to stick around to help others when you can!
Whenever I double-click on an object which is on a layer that is grouped with other layers in the Layers Palette, the entire group is selected. I would like to select an individual layer within the group...
Thanks
Selecting Layer within Group? (Similar...
I'm guessing this is what you are looking for. If i right click on a layer, an option box pops up with that layer name on top. I select that and now that layer is active.
hope this helps
Selecting Layer within Group? (Similar...
no, no, sorry... in a document with no groups if a circle on a layer is double-clicked upon, the layer with the circle is selected....
ok, now suppose there is a document with a group of three layers...one of the grouped layers has a circle on it, another of the grouped layers has a square on it, and another layer in the group has a triangle. If the circle in this document is double clicked the entire group of three layers is selected; if the square in this document is double clicked the entire group of three layers is similarly selected, etc. How can one select just the layer with the circle, not the group of three layers?
How can a person select just a layer in a group, not the group in which the layer exists?
Sorry this question is so convoluted...its been a lonnnnnng day.....
thanks again
Oh...you are almost right...very helpful...sorry it took me a while (very exhausting day)...yes, it is as if a person were to right click on, say, a circle, to then select the layer with the circle...
that is helpful, thank you
but
is there a direct technique rather than right clicking and selecting from a long list of possible layers? For example, is it possible to do something like Option+Double Click to select the individual circle layer within a group, straightforwardly?
Thanks again
Uncheck select groups, check select layers in the Move Tool's Option Bar.
THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU THANK OU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! XOXOXOXOX WHOO HOOO!!
You are welcome! Don't forget to stick around to help others when you can!
Found a bug and why your cursor...
Problem: I sometimes have the selection from my cursor off 10 pixels.
I found out why this is happening and anyone can recreate this in the latest installment of Photoshop CS4 (I'm using extended)(mac)
Step 1: Make a new document. (any size)
Step 2: Turn ruler ON (CMD or CTRL + R)
Step 3: View document in full screen mode with menu bar (F once to fill the screen)
Step 4: Create a new document from that view (CMD or CTRL + N)
Step 5: Using the marquee tool, drag on the stage to see your selection off pixels.
Step 6: Look at the top of the document. You'll notice a white buffer the size of the ruler. It's because of the rulers, in fullscreen, creates a ghost of itself when creating a new document.
Please Adobe... FIX this!! =)
Also Flash CS4 bug. The Action panel on a mac cannot be re-sized from the TOP....... Adobe... seriously. HIRE ME to find these bugs out.
Found a bug and why your cursor...
The ''Inaccurately drawn Selection'' is a known problem with certain Video cards which are not fully compatible with CS4's OpenGL.
Your choices are either to buy a new Video Card which is on Adobe's list of compatible cards; or to disable OpenGL.
Found a bug and why your cursor...
Or you could not be in Full screen mode when you make a new document.
In all the years I've used Photoshop I've never made a new doc in full screen mode, until today.
%26gt; The ''Inaccurately drawn Selection'' is a known problem with certain Video cards which are not fully compatible with CS4's OpenGL.
WRONG! There have been reports of this issue involving pretty much every video card on Adobe's ''supported list'' - on a wide variety of machines - in both 10.5 and 10.4. It's a bug.
Did you try Thomas' steps?
Thomas -
Thanks for sharing that - I've never been able to reproduce this at will and the steps you've outlined surely makes it happen.
In real world usage however, it rears it's head for me completely at random and doesn't require creating a new doc. It can show up at any time while working on a single image but I haven't been able to discern what invokes it. The cure is always the same though - change screen modes. I've never noticed the white space under the ruler however, or even if the ruler is active when it happens, but now I'll watch for it.
-phil
Well I can't say I've ever seen it until I followed Thomas' steps and I know my Video Card is supported.
Following Thomas' steps does indeed produce the white strip
BUT
It does NOT cause my drawn Selections to be offset from where I start them IF I start from a Pixel-edge.
The only time that the marquee does not draw the Selection from the intersection of two Guides is when those Guides are part of the way across a pixel.
Zoom right in and turn on the Pixel-Grid and you can see this.
Changing Screen Modes makes no difference to this behaviour of course.
[Running a 7800GT card on a G5 on Mac OSX 10.4.11.]
So if you are seeing other results it must be due to your hardware or your Mac OSX.
Thank you, thank you. This has been bugging me since I loaded CS4.
Opening a Smart Object while in full screen mode also triggers the problem. Hitting the f-key and thereby changing the screen mode sets the cursor back to normal.
%26gt;Hitting the f-key and thereby changing the screen mode sets the cursor back to normal.
Interesting. Thanks, Matthias.
Incidentally, for those of us experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool, switching
away
from the Standard View also solves the problem.
Just get into the habit of pressing F three times whenever this happens, its pretty quick to rectify. Not a great reflection on the interface testing of CS4 though, there are a few problems here and there with the ease of use of panels and usability overall.
Just to clarify: Mark's post
(''get into the habit of pressing F three times whenever this happens'') refers to the issue in the OP,
not
the one in the last paragraph in my #8 immediately preceding Mark's #9.
Hitting F three times brings you right back to not being able to see the marching ants if you're experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool. For this issue, hit F only once, commit to the selection until you no longer need the marching ants, and then you can go back to standard view.
I actually found that having the rulers 'on' is what causes this error. So you just turn them off and it's fixed.
Also, turn the rulers on and pan around your image in full screen. Now turn them off and see the difference in frame rates. Yeah. Pretty neat huh? Not really...
Listen. I have a solution to all our problems. Why not have Adobe fix all these issues with an update. Since the release of CS4 in October of 2008, there has not been a major update. What is going on?
Frankly, I'm sick in tired of Adobe's ********. Their Q%26amp;A must have a smaller budget then the guys who sit around in a room thinking of better ways to market CS5... They could be adding videocard support, fixing minor ui bugs, or adding in stability because this is supposed to be a professional program. We pay a lot of money.
I've seen more updates done in a $29 videogame. This is a fact.
It's called a monopoly. Adobe has the market and they are sitting comfortably. Sending out 100's of reps talking about their software changing the world of production, when all I see is new **** coming out but never fixing the previous **** to begin with.
Solution to the 10px bug: Get off your *** and fix it Adobe.
b I'm NOT the only one.
http://www.dearadobe.com
http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/
%26gt;Since the release of CS4 in October of 2008, there has not been a major update.
What are you talking about? Did you miss the recently released update to Photoshop 11.0.1?
%26gt;for those of us experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool, switching away from the Standard View also solves the problem.
I have to backpedal on that one. :( It does NOT solve the problem, it just makes the marching ants visible, but they're still off the canvas, one pixel to the left.
Turning rulers off doesn't help.
However turning the rulers off does make the image move in a smoother fashion across the screen, as implied by Thomas Fletcher in his last post.
Another solution for the cursor problem: Hit the TAB-key two times (hide the panels and bring them back). This forces Photoshop to redraw the screen. Takes less than a second no reason to get hysterical.
Ooops, typo:
%26gt;but they're still off the canvas, one pixel to the left.
I meant ''one pixel to the
right
'' (my
other left). :/
I found out why this is happening and anyone can recreate this in the latest installment of Photoshop CS4 (I'm using extended)(mac)
Step 1: Make a new document. (any size)
Step 2: Turn ruler ON (CMD or CTRL + R)
Step 3: View document in full screen mode with menu bar (F once to fill the screen)
Step 4: Create a new document from that view (CMD or CTRL + N)
Step 5: Using the marquee tool, drag on the stage to see your selection off pixels.
Step 6: Look at the top of the document. You'll notice a white buffer the size of the ruler. It's because of the rulers, in fullscreen, creates a ghost of itself when creating a new document.
Please Adobe... FIX this!! =)
Also Flash CS4 bug. The Action panel on a mac cannot be re-sized from the TOP....... Adobe... seriously. HIRE ME to find these bugs out.
Found a bug and why your cursor...
The ''Inaccurately drawn Selection'' is a known problem with certain Video cards which are not fully compatible with CS4's OpenGL.
Your choices are either to buy a new Video Card which is on Adobe's list of compatible cards; or to disable OpenGL.
Found a bug and why your cursor...
Or you could not be in Full screen mode when you make a new document.
In all the years I've used Photoshop I've never made a new doc in full screen mode, until today.
%26gt; The ''Inaccurately drawn Selection'' is a known problem with certain Video cards which are not fully compatible with CS4's OpenGL.
WRONG! There have been reports of this issue involving pretty much every video card on Adobe's ''supported list'' - on a wide variety of machines - in both 10.5 and 10.4. It's a bug.
Did you try Thomas' steps?
Thomas -
Thanks for sharing that - I've never been able to reproduce this at will and the steps you've outlined surely makes it happen.
In real world usage however, it rears it's head for me completely at random and doesn't require creating a new doc. It can show up at any time while working on a single image but I haven't been able to discern what invokes it. The cure is always the same though - change screen modes. I've never noticed the white space under the ruler however, or even if the ruler is active when it happens, but now I'll watch for it.
-phil
Well I can't say I've ever seen it until I followed Thomas' steps and I know my Video Card is supported.
Following Thomas' steps does indeed produce the white strip
BUT
It does NOT cause my drawn Selections to be offset from where I start them IF I start from a Pixel-edge.
The only time that the marquee does not draw the Selection from the intersection of two Guides is when those Guides are part of the way across a pixel.
Zoom right in and turn on the Pixel-Grid and you can see this.
Changing Screen Modes makes no difference to this behaviour of course.
[Running a 7800GT card on a G5 on Mac OSX 10.4.11.]
So if you are seeing other results it must be due to your hardware or your Mac OSX.
Thank you, thank you. This has been bugging me since I loaded CS4.
Opening a Smart Object while in full screen mode also triggers the problem. Hitting the f-key and thereby changing the screen mode sets the cursor back to normal.
%26gt;Hitting the f-key and thereby changing the screen mode sets the cursor back to normal.
Interesting. Thanks, Matthias.
Incidentally, for those of us experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool, switching
away
from the Standard View also solves the problem.
Just get into the habit of pressing F three times whenever this happens, its pretty quick to rectify. Not a great reflection on the interface testing of CS4 though, there are a few problems here and there with the ease of use of panels and usability overall.
Just to clarify: Mark's post
(''get into the habit of pressing F three times whenever this happens'') refers to the issue in the OP,
not
the one in the last paragraph in my #8 immediately preceding Mark's #9.
Hitting F three times brings you right back to not being able to see the marching ants if you're experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool. For this issue, hit F only once, commit to the selection until you no longer need the marching ants, and then you can go back to standard view.
I actually found that having the rulers 'on' is what causes this error. So you just turn them off and it's fixed.
Also, turn the rulers on and pan around your image in full screen. Now turn them off and see the difference in frame rates. Yeah. Pretty neat huh? Not really...
Listen. I have a solution to all our problems. Why not have Adobe fix all these issues with an update. Since the release of CS4 in October of 2008, there has not been a major update. What is going on?
Frankly, I'm sick in tired of Adobe's ********. Their Q%26amp;A must have a smaller budget then the guys who sit around in a room thinking of better ways to market CS5... They could be adding videocard support, fixing minor ui bugs, or adding in stability because this is supposed to be a professional program. We pay a lot of money.
I've seen more updates done in a $29 videogame. This is a fact.
It's called a monopoly. Adobe has the market and they are sitting comfortably. Sending out 100's of reps talking about their software changing the world of production, when all I see is new **** coming out but never fixing the previous **** to begin with.
Solution to the 10px bug: Get off your *** and fix it Adobe.
b I'm NOT the only one.
http://www.dearadobe.com
http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/
%26gt;Since the release of CS4 in October of 2008, there has not been a major update.
What are you talking about? Did you miss the recently released update to Photoshop 11.0.1?
%26gt;for those of us experiencing the 1-pixel displacement of the marching ants when using Command+A or the marquee tool, switching away from the Standard View also solves the problem.
I have to backpedal on that one. :( It does NOT solve the problem, it just makes the marching ants visible, but they're still off the canvas, one pixel to the left.
Turning rulers off doesn't help.
However turning the rulers off does make the image move in a smoother fashion across the screen, as implied by Thomas Fletcher in his last post.
Another solution for the cursor problem: Hit the TAB-key two times (hide the panels and bring them back). This forces Photoshop to redraw the screen. Takes less than a second no reason to get hysterical.
Ooops, typo:
%26gt;but they're still off the canvas, one pixel to the left.
I meant ''one pixel to the
right
'' (my
other left). :/
PS CS3: How to load all (Styles,...
Is there something I'm missing regarding the loading of Styles, Brushes, Gradients, whatever... - en masse?
In CS2 you could load all Styles at once, or brushes, or any other ''Preset''. Now in CS3, when I'm in (for example) the Styles palette and click on ''Load Styles'', a panel flies open to show that you are in fact looking into the directory where the Styles ''live'' - but there is nothing actually there to select.
Do I really have to click on one, load it, append it, repeat, repeat, repeat? I'd love to know that I'm missing something. But I've tried every means I can think of to load Presets in bulk, to no avail.
Thanks for any tips!
PS CS3: How to load all (Styles,...
CS2, CS3, and CS4 all work exactly the same in that regard.
Most likely, you're looking at the wrong directory.
PS CS3: How to load all (Styles,...
Yep, that was it. When you drive it to the proper directory, in the PS folder, then you can select them all and load them in one fell swoop.
Thanks so much for your time!
All the best, Kevin
FYI, actions can be drag-and-dropped en masse on Photoshop's interface.
lips
In CS2 you could load all Styles at once, or brushes, or any other ''Preset''. Now in CS3, when I'm in (for example) the Styles palette and click on ''Load Styles'', a panel flies open to show that you are in fact looking into the directory where the Styles ''live'' - but there is nothing actually there to select.
Do I really have to click on one, load it, append it, repeat, repeat, repeat? I'd love to know that I'm missing something. But I've tried every means I can think of to load Presets in bulk, to no avail.
Thanks for any tips!
PS CS3: How to load all (Styles,...
CS2, CS3, and CS4 all work exactly the same in that regard.
Most likely, you're looking at the wrong directory.
PS CS3: How to load all (Styles,...
Yep, that was it. When you drive it to the proper directory, in the PS folder, then you can select them all and load them in one fell swoop.
Thanks so much for your time!
All the best, Kevin
FYI, actions can be drag-and-dropped en masse on Photoshop's interface.
downsize a logo
Hi
I'm trying to make bumper stickers, business cards, letterhead and envelopes all with the same logo.
I started with the sticker (12 inches wide) and emailed the file to the sign maker
then I made started a new canvas, and dragged the logo elements onto the new canvas to make the business card, but when I downsized the logo to business card size, the resolution became grainy.
I tried removing some of the attributes, like shadows, glows etc but that didn't help much.
how do you downsize the 12 inch logo to fit on a business card, letterhead etc?
Im afraid starting from scratch will not look the same.
downsize a logo
%26gt;I'm afraid starting from scratch will not look the same.
Then you're DOA. That's the nature of your problem. You need to create a vector logo, ''from scratch''.
You could post some screen shots to pixentral.com and we might be able to give you pointers if you insist on resizing a rasterized logo. But as a rule, create your logo in vector and then you won't have this problem.
And if the above quoted sentiment is the client's, well...
downsize a logo
ok wait a second, I grouped everything into a smart object, then dragged the smart object over to the new 3.5 x 2 bus card canvas and it worked ;~) thank goodness.
M/
Sounds like it might have been layer effects not scaling properly. Or maybe you scaled down some, then some more, then back up a little (smart objects do ''nudge'' scaling non-destructively). Glad you're sorted. :)
I'm trying to make bumper stickers, business cards, letterhead and envelopes all with the same logo.
I started with the sticker (12 inches wide) and emailed the file to the sign maker
then I made started a new canvas, and dragged the logo elements onto the new canvas to make the business card, but when I downsized the logo to business card size, the resolution became grainy.
I tried removing some of the attributes, like shadows, glows etc but that didn't help much.
how do you downsize the 12 inch logo to fit on a business card, letterhead etc?
Im afraid starting from scratch will not look the same.
downsize a logo
%26gt;I'm afraid starting from scratch will not look the same.
Then you're DOA. That's the nature of your problem. You need to create a vector logo, ''from scratch''.
You could post some screen shots to pixentral.com and we might be able to give you pointers if you insist on resizing a rasterized logo. But as a rule, create your logo in vector and then you won't have this problem.
And if the above quoted sentiment is the client's, well...
downsize a logo
ok wait a second, I grouped everything into a smart object, then dragged the smart object over to the new 3.5 x 2 bus card canvas and it worked ;~) thank goodness.
M/
Sounds like it might have been layer effects not scaling properly. Or maybe you scaled down some, then some more, then back up a little (smart objects do ''nudge'' scaling non-destructively). Glad you're sorted. :)
New 1.5 Tb startup drive gives ''program...
I installed a much larger startup drive on my Mac G5 (1.5 Tb). I did a fresh install of Photoshop CS but whenever I try to start a new file or open an old one I get the dreaded ''could not create new document because of a program error'' message.
Tried dumping the preferences. Still doesn't work. But using the same copy of Photoshop after starting with a different (smaller) startup drive works. It also works if I start the Mac in safe mode.
So I suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device but don't know how to fix it.
New 1.5 Tb startup drive gives ''program...
What OS are you using?
New 1.5 Tb startup drive gives ''program...
The drive probably isn't the issue.
An OS install with a bad default printer might be at fault.
Chris,
%26gt;could not create new document because of a program error
Is there some way that some of these generic ''program error'' messages can be replaced by meaningful messages?
Neil
If we knew what was going on, we would have provided a more useful message.
''Program Error'' means ''We don't know what went wrong, but we need to tell you that something bad happened''.
Chris,
I understand. Still, it's just a bit exasperating...like the light on the dash that flashes on, saying ''engine''.
Neil
That light means you have a 1997 Oldsmobile.
I knew it meant %26lt;i%26gt;something%26lt;/i%26gt;...%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil %26lt;g%26gt;
Is it a Seagate 1.5 TB drive? If so it might need a firmware update. Did you get the Drive from Newegg?
If so more then likely it might need a update firmware or actually you may have to reset the serial number as they have had issues with internal and external drives which have a specific glitch were the serial numbers are eronious and there is a way to fix it contact Seagate or look for the issue on their site.
If it is not Seagate then it is probably not the drive. If it is Seagate and this is the problem it will probably crash anyway. So the good news is once the problem is fixed it works like a charm.
I have an external one which does not have the problem and have been working with it for almost three months and it works very well and is fortunately not one of the bugged out items.
Good luck I actually hope you have one with the problem as it is easy to fix and easy to determine if you have one that has this problem. The drive is good just the setting of the serial or perhaps it was the firmware number.
Contact Seagate if that is your drive. They have since fix the problem so you really should not have gotten an older one.
%26gt;more then likely it might need a update firmware
There is a firmware update for a
few of the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives to address a drive recognition problem (files are OK though). Unfortunately, Seagate says you need to apply the update via a Windows machine (or send the drive to them).
%26gt; suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device
Another problem is that all Seagate drives
must be reformatted with Disk Utility for Mac compatibility.
But...neither of these are necessarily an issue as the OP has not indicated a specific drive problem, and Chris believes the problem lies elsewhere.
Neil
%26gt;more then likely it might need a update firmware
There is a firmware update for a
few of the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives to address a drive recognition problem (files are OK though). Unfortunately, Seagate says you need to apply the update via a Windows machine (or send the drive to them).
%26gt; suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device
Another problem is that all Seagate drives
must be reformatted with Disk Utility for Mac compatibility. (In general, all drives purchasedunless specifically indicated properly formatted for Macneed to be reformatted upon installation.)
But...neither of these are necessarily an issue as the OP has not indicated a specific drive problem, and Chris believes the problem lies elsewhere.
Neil
LOL @ Lundberg02
Thanks for your advice, everyone. I finally reinstalled OS 10.4, then reinstalled all the updates, then tried again. It finally worked.
Although not the first choice, often a reinstallation is the best choice -- it certainly can be easier and less frustrating than picking through everything on the system.
Neil
Tried dumping the preferences. Still doesn't work. But using the same copy of Photoshop after starting with a different (smaller) startup drive works. It also works if I start the Mac in safe mode.
So I suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device but don't know how to fix it.
New 1.5 Tb startup drive gives ''program...
What OS are you using?
New 1.5 Tb startup drive gives ''program...
The drive probably isn't the issue.
An OS install with a bad default printer might be at fault.
Chris,
%26gt;could not create new document because of a program error
Is there some way that some of these generic ''program error'' messages can be replaced by meaningful messages?
Neil
If we knew what was going on, we would have provided a more useful message.
''Program Error'' means ''We don't know what went wrong, but we need to tell you that something bad happened''.
Chris,
I understand. Still, it's just a bit exasperating...like the light on the dash that flashes on, saying ''engine''.
Neil
That light means you have a 1997 Oldsmobile.
I knew it meant %26lt;i%26gt;something%26lt;/i%26gt;...%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil %26lt;g%26gt;
Is it a Seagate 1.5 TB drive? If so it might need a firmware update. Did you get the Drive from Newegg?
If so more then likely it might need a update firmware or actually you may have to reset the serial number as they have had issues with internal and external drives which have a specific glitch were the serial numbers are eronious and there is a way to fix it contact Seagate or look for the issue on their site.
If it is not Seagate then it is probably not the drive. If it is Seagate and this is the problem it will probably crash anyway. So the good news is once the problem is fixed it works like a charm.
I have an external one which does not have the problem and have been working with it for almost three months and it works very well and is fortunately not one of the bugged out items.
Good luck I actually hope you have one with the problem as it is easy to fix and easy to determine if you have one that has this problem. The drive is good just the setting of the serial or perhaps it was the firmware number.
Contact Seagate if that is your drive. They have since fix the problem so you really should not have gotten an older one.
%26gt;more then likely it might need a update firmware
There is a firmware update for a
few of the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives to address a drive recognition problem (files are OK though). Unfortunately, Seagate says you need to apply the update via a Windows machine (or send the drive to them).
%26gt; suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device
Another problem is that all Seagate drives
must be reformatted with Disk Utility for Mac compatibility.
But...neither of these are necessarily an issue as the OP has not indicated a specific drive problem, and Chris believes the problem lies elsewhere.
Neil
%26gt;more then likely it might need a update firmware
There is a firmware update for a
few of the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives to address a drive recognition problem (files are OK though). Unfortunately, Seagate says you need to apply the update via a Windows machine (or send the drive to them).
%26gt; suspect the 1.5 Tb drive as a startup device
Another problem is that all Seagate drives
must be reformatted with Disk Utility for Mac compatibility. (In general, all drives purchasedunless specifically indicated properly formatted for Macneed to be reformatted upon installation.)
But...neither of these are necessarily an issue as the OP has not indicated a specific drive problem, and Chris believes the problem lies elsewhere.
Neil
LOL @ Lundberg02
Thanks for your advice, everyone. I finally reinstalled OS 10.4, then reinstalled all the updates, then tried again. It finally worked.
Although not the first choice, often a reinstallation is the best choice -- it certainly can be easier and less frustrating than picking through everything on the system.
Neil
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)