Talk:Adobe Photoshop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Expand

You can add filters, functions, tools,html etc. Thedjatclubrock :) 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

Can we update the screen to the final version (CS3 Standard, the one I use)

Why the one you use? I've updated it to Extended, anyways. ALTON .ıl 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

source code

anybody know what programming language photoshop is originally written in? I figured this would be the best place to ask.

Sound Capability

There seem to be no mention of ability to add sound to the graphics, such as designing a greeting card with a background sound. Maybe it could be mentioned in here if weather Photoshop is able or is not able to do add sounds to their graphics.

Rewrite to limit references to competitors

There seems to be too many references to competitors of Photoshop.....recommend rewriting some of the references to where they are not mentioned as much. --Stdjsb25 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Omission/flaw regarding Photoshop's development--

There's a problem, and it's exacerbated by the Photoshop/Adobe Photoshop name issue.

Adobe did not create Photoshop. It bought an existing product called "Barneyscan XP" that had already been commercially distributed, which it renamed, continued to develop, and published as "Photoshop".

This means the release history is faulty. It omits the first commercial distribution of Photoshop, which was bundled with a scanner before Adobe had any involvement.

Refer to this page for further information: http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html

Search for "Barneyscan XP" to see corroboration of that point.

Re: page name change Photoshop to Adobe Photoshop

I changed the page name from Photoshop to include Adobe as our usual practice is to refer to such products by their proper name rather than their colloqiual name (c.f. Powerpoint, Excel etc). I don't think this is a big deal but thought I should leave a talk page note explaining my rationale as the page has had a long history at the old name. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The full name of this product is Adobe Photoshop CS and perhaps that should be the name of this page as well to disambiguate it from Adobe Photoshop Elements.

CS is the current version, but this article discusses versions from before the existence of CS and Elements as well. — Haeleth Talk 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No HTML editing

Adobe did license the Opera technology, but it went into their GoLive product. Photoshop has no HTML editing capability.

Yup. I removed that line. --minghong 15:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GIMP v. Photoshop

It seems that the majority of people favouring GIMP do so beacuse it is open source, not because it is a particularly good product. I don't know much about GIMP myself, given that I'm quite happy with Photoshop, but it would be interesting to read any comments that cared to shed light on the two programs head-to-head.

You might want to refer to Comparison of bitmap graphics editors.--Anakata 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links

According to the official Wikipedia policy of What Wikipedia is not, that it is not a "mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." The reason why is that "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." As of July 13th, the Adobe Photoshop article has way too many external links that I think are distracting to the general purpose informing visitors why the program is notable. Do we need all those Photoshop tutorial links? I don't think so. Most of those websites are just redudant information like using a polygon lasso. --Krystyn Dominik 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Problem is, cleaning out the list and keeping it short is quite a bit of work. Figuring out what is a good link is a non-trivial task. It has been done for HTML, for example, but the list there was much shorter to begin with. Rl 18:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made a first pass through removing things that didn't look appropriate. The items I've removed are below, for easy restoration if anyone is able to make a convincing argument for including them. I've probably been a bit arbitrary where choosing between similar sites, but the primary criteria I've tried to consider are:

1. How many sites we already have listed with similar content

2. The content-to-advertising ratio

3. Whether the link is a duplicate - we only need ONE link to photoshopsupport.com at most, not three or four!

4. And, of course, several of the links were broken or dead anyway.

In practice, this disqualifies most of the links that were there; what's left seems to me to be an appropriately representative sample.

I guess some of my decisions may be controversial - if you disagree with sites I've removed, please restore individual links rather than doing a wholesale revert! Think of this as a first attempt to tidy things up: I'm not trying to present this as a definitive list of what should stay and what should go, just trying to get things moving on keeping the list under control. Disagree, discuss, change things back, whatever. Just remember that our common goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to make a list of all the best Photoshop sites on the web, so please try to think in terms of what's notable, not just what's your favourite! Haeleth 13:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to http://wikivid.com/index.php/Photoshop and you basically have an entire photoshop course made of videos. Seiche 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*[http://www.restoring-photos-made-easy.com/index.html Using Photoshop to restore your treasured photographic memories]
*[http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-blog/index.html Photoshop Blog - News & Tips]
*[http://www.artworld.si/photoshop-tutorials-1.art ArtWorld] - 61 Photoshop Tutorials
*[http://biomech.area09.com/ Biomech: the Website] - B|TW: Photoshop Tutorials
*[http://www.savva.com.au/forums/savva/forum/portal_content.asp Extensive List of Photoshop Tutorials on Special Effects]   
*[http://www.photoshoptutorials.us Adobe Photoshop Tutorials] - PhotoshopTutorials.us   
*[http://www.tutorio.com/free/8-Photoshop-tutorials Tutorio.com Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.designtutorials.info/tutorials/photoshop-tutorials/ DesignTutorials.info Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.newtutorials.com/photoshop-tutorials.htm NewTutorials.com]   
*[http://www.photosector.com/ Photosector]   
*[http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Photoshop-tutorials Photoshop Roadmap]   
*[http://www.solidgx.com/tip_convert_psd.htm Solid Converter GX]
*[http://www.phong.com/tutorials/ Phong]   
*[http://www.planetphotoshop.com/tutorials.html Planet Photoshop]   
*[http://www.dubtastic.com/tutorials/ Dubtastic]   
*[http://www.lunacore.com/photoshop/tutorials/tutorials.htm Lunacore]   
*[http://www.photographycorner.com/ Photo-related Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.Shiver7.com/tutorials/ Shiver7]   
*[http://www.n-sane.net/tutorials.php/ N-Sane.net]   
*[http://biorust.com/index.php?page=tutorial Biorust]   
*[http://www.idigitalemotion.com/tutorials/tutorials.htm/ Eye Digital Emotion]   
*[http://www.lombergar.com/v5/list/tutorials Lombergar.com] - Free Video Tutorials   
*[http://www.eyewire.com/ Eyewire]   
*[http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/tutorials/index.html Graphic-design.com Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.digitalmediatraining.com/products/photoshopcs/index.html Free Photoshop Training Video]   
*[http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials.htm Photoshop Cafe Tutorials]
*[http://www.webmaster-project.com/  Photoshop tutorials for beginers and advanced]   
*[http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials.html PhotoshopSupport.com - Free Photoshop Tutorials]
*[http://www.tutorialpod.com/ TutorialPod Photoshop Tutorials and More]   
*[http://www.tutorialized.com/tutorials/Photoshop/1 Tutorialized Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.good-tutorials.com Good-Tutorials.com]   
*[http://blog.ressourceweb.com Design Blog by Roni Deli]
*[http://www.pixel2life.com Pixel 2 Life Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.zymic.com Zymic]   
*[http://www.greycobra.com Grey Cobra]   
*[http://www.3dbuzz.com 3D Buzz - free video training modules]   
*[http://www.cooljeba.com/tutorials/photoshop Cooljeba Photoshop Tutorials]   
*[http://www.photoshoparea.com Daily updated Adobe Photoshop Tutorials] - PhotoshopArea.com

Getting a little POV here

I've cut the following sentence: Photoshop CS features a revolutionary command : 'Shadow/Highlight' which allow user to 'suppress' highlights and/or 'push out' shadows while maintaining most of the 'image details' (that is, the histogram would remain virtually unchanged). The language sounds like it was lifted straight from an Adobe press release, and at the end of the sentence I still don't have a clue what the feature in question is supposed to do. If this is really a notable feature, maybe someone could describe it in a way that makes sense, and explain how it differs from equivalent features in other programs. Haeleth 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention providing some example pictures showing why it's so good. Shinobu 15:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading of a program / PS filter which did this (was used to enhance macroscopic imagery) and it retailed for... 1000$? It was described with a really long name, which when I googled on it actually turned up science articles. {sj?ar}

Reference to plugins?

Perhaps a section should refer to photoshop plugins, they are a software market on their own, as mentioned in the wikipedia plugin article.

I agree - the plugins are one reason for its success. Any serious competitor has to duplicate the API because of the number and quality of third-party plugins. 82.108.162.163

Paint Shop Pro

I'd insinuate that the cheaper version ("Elements") was created to compete with the low price of PSP, and then the fact that PSP has all features without paying for it (how much of shareware apps works, before it was "register within 30 days or else!" and a nag screen, lately [~2002] apps stop working after the trial period [using novel methods disabling usage even if unistalling/re-installing it], after twice the time, degradation of features [after time], etc) - the PS demo doesn't have a save feature for one, kinda "major". As for the "well you know, everyone warez'd PS" argument - firstly not everyone wants the super program (see: Maya vs Povray vs Renderman vs Quake [aka realtime renderers]), which doesn't just have to do with being a "good citizen", since PSP isn't as advanced and featured filled it also loads faster and works better on older computers. (The exact reason professional 3d-rendering companies have been known to use earlier versions). My main impression of PSP is that it's very robust and responsive, while the interface is clunky, I also don't have good memories of the filters, although it had support for PS filters early. Also a note is that the later PS versions were heavily influenced by Painter - the brush features have gotten very extensive. Oh, and fuck Gimp. {sj?ar}

"Needs rewording"... or not?

Added to the "Features" section by an anonymous user, commented out by Macaddct1984 with the comment "This really needs to be reworded. I'm fine with the information it provides, but it needs to sound a lot less like an advertisement of Photoshop", and finally moved here by me:

Photoshop provides the power to edit and create bitmap graphics. Whether it be fixing colors and small problems with photos, or creating individual artwork by editing and fusing pictures together, a skilled user can do anything that is desired on a bitmap with this program. Through the use of separate layers, the user can edit parts of the project separately from one another. Users can make graphics appear 3D on its 2D canvas. Areas on the picture can be covered up to make it seem nothing was there using the surrounding pixels. Colors can be changed using RGB colors, editing the hue, saturation, and brightness, or changing the levels. Any part of the project can be selected using many different tools, and then moved to another area or project, or edited without affecting the area around it. Pixels of any graphic can be blurred, sharpened, smudged, moved, reduced, added, copied, erased, warped, have changed color, etc. Photoshop has some features that only require a few clicks of the mouse to greatly edit pictures. It can do auto levels, contrast, and color. It can do filters that artistically alter the pictures. There are endless possibilities with this program as far as 2D images go.

I'm not sure this actually says anything beyond "Photoshop is a bitmap graphics editor", since all these comments apply to all reasonably sophisticated editors, so I don't think it belongs in "Features".

It could be argued that the article does need a better introduction that explains what a bitmap editor does, though; the present text wouldn't make it clear to someone who didn't know, and none of the links lead directly to an explanation. And since Photoshop is the most famous example, it's a likely first point of call for new readers with an interest in this topic. So a suitably NPOV version of the above would be a good place to start, if anyone feels inspired. — Haeleth Talk 13:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A few things that might be interesting to have in a future "Features" section:

• Selection changes can be undone (and redone)
• History
• Layers
• Channels
• Filters

Point is, the current article yields no clue as to what can be done with Photoshop. Granted, some of the features are in more, or most, graphics editors but not in all. I think we can agree that an important aspect of any article about a program is what said program does. Shinobu 17:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I added the paragraph; the article as is said nothing of what Photoshop does other that "manipulates bitmaps." Of course my paragraph would need rewording since I'm not very good at that kind of thing. I was just trying actually include Photoshop's features in the "Features" section. I'm just a Photoshop enthusiast, not a writer. ~Travis

Photoshop 6.0.1 vs 6.1

Photoshop 6.0 can be upgraded to 6.0.1 by applying an update from the Adobe website. There is no update to produce a 6.1 version. 6.0.1 is not mentioned in the release history in this article, but 6.1 is. Was 6.0.1 commercially available? Is 6.1 the same as 6.0.1? Please clarify. — mjb 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct, there was no 6.1, just 6.0.1. I just fixed that. Also, 3.0.1 through 3.0.5 are missing from the list. — ccox 2 February 2006

Counterfeiting

Someone should probably mention the measures the program uses to limit the possibility of its being used to counterfeit currency. Has anyone figured out yet precisely how it does that? 68.6.85.167 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They use the EURion algorithm. See EURion. 80.56.150.244

Photo-Retouching : Application Of Photoshop Needs Elaboration ?

I think that the article does not fully explain the fields of applications used with Photoshop.Apart from Web graphics its main application is Photo-Manioulation,Photo-Enhancements and Photo-Retouching.(Which is where *Features* as mentioned above should be!).All this article does is to take dry word-by-word essay from the official site rather than explain in simple the uses for photoshop.Photoshop-Tennis is not all that matters,there is a large section of DTP,Print & Media ,Advertising industry which also uses Photoshop in their work.Filters and the plug-ins are another aspect which should have been elaborated.--asydwaters 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In relation to comment about money counterfeiting, that would be highly illegal to comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.11.62 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11T11:44:02 (UTC)

Help, please

I have a very specific request, which may sound a little odd: I need to find a piece of software (or an option in Photoshop) that will allow me to wrap an image around itself in a tight spiral. Is this possible? -Litefantastic 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Could you elaborate? Or show a mashup? Shinobu 14:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean to take a very skinny image and bend it into a spiral, so the image's qualities will be preserved, but distorted into a spiral. I can't show you an image because I don't have anything I can make it with. -Litefantastic 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some VB code that does that job at User:Gerbrant/Spiral image: VB source. You can inspect the code and change it to work with other languages/programs. As long as you can use formulas to map from one coordinate system to another, there should be a way to do this. Shinobu 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its possible to obtain the specific result as you have described above. Kai's Power Tools Effects and Kai's Power Tools v.6 (KPT-6) plug-ins for Photoshop Version 7 and above ;has the tool called "HyperTiling",you can warp the skinny image onto a spiral ,though you might have to perform some tweaking to get the desirable effect.I have used this feature of KPT 6 in Photoshop Version 7 as I prefer version 7. Note:Though KPT-X are plug-ins with fancy interface but most of the tools are useless or too complex;and KPT does takes time when loading.--asydwaters 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ananya Curves

Has anyone used Ananya Curves? I am considering it, but I don't know how much it costs, yet. How much does it cost and is it worth it? I saw a demo which makes it look like the greatest free-form tracing tool ever. --James S. 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Ananya Curves website: "Each month we will introduce more of our surprising and easy to use features. Then we will launch Ananya Curves." In other words, right now it's vapourware. — Haeleth Talk 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed that; thanks. I met the author for the first time at the math library last week, saw/used the demo by remote control. I thought it was already available and will re-send my email to them. I agree with rm of see also link here until it's released. I, for one, look forward to being able to trace by drawing instead of fiddling with tangent control points, and I can't imagine anyone who doesn't. I'm kind of sad that the natural medium between pixel-based tracing and current Adobe tracing splines is subject to patent protection. If it weren't, it would probably already be in there. I hope Adobe buys them out. --James S. 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Features" section

This has already been touched on above, to a certain extent, but it seems to me that there could be a lot more mentioned in the "Features" section. Would it be possible to add information about brushes, etc; or about tools such as the pen tool and marquee tool? How about some info about slicing? « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where such things are unique to Photoshop, yes, they should certainly be described here. The only problem is that most people only ever learn one package, so there aren't that many people who will easily be able to identify which aspects of Photoshop's brush tools, say, are unique and should be written about here, and which are standard features that should be described in a general article like Bitmap graphics editor. — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What about more detailed descriptions of functionality, like what an adjustment layer is, what it can do, how to superimpose layers in different ways, etc.? Has that been discussed and a decision was taken not to add it to avoid making Wikipedia a user manual, or has simply no one bothered writing it yet? I would like to see more about what calculations are behind "multiply" for example, and what kind of effects it gives. However, I am not sure it fits in the frame of a -pedia. Mlewan 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

These things would certainly be appropriate to discuss on Wikipedia: they are important aspects of modern graphic design. However, you are quite right that we want to avoid having user-manual-like material here. The way to avoid that is to discuss features that exist in many programs in general terms, rather than explaining how to use the specific implementations in Photoshop.

For example, the "multiply" operation you mention is a standard image processing operation that is provided by many other bitmap graphics editors as well as Photoshop. As such, it should definitely be explained, but not here -- it should either have an article of its own, or go in an article on image arithmetic in general (I'm actually a bit surprised that image arithmetic doesn't seem to exist yet. Perhaps it should be requested). — Haeleth Talk 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I did not go that far yet, but I added an article Layers (Digital image editing). If people think that one looks ok, I may look into drafting one for image arithmetic as well. Mlewan 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me; I like the visual approach, which does a great job at explaining what they are and what they're good for, and you've done a nice job at avoiding tying it to one program or making it read like a tutorial. I'm not sure if the title is right (I think the naming conventions might prefer something like Layer (digital image editing)), but that's a minor detail. — Haeleth Talk 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You can always move the article if necessary (use the "move"-tab). Shinobu 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

9.0.1

Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) became available on Adobe's website on May 16th, 2006 and all new versions shipped from Adobe as of that date contains 9.0.1. No new features, only bugfixes. I don't know if you want to update the version list with that information? (As far as I know (and Google searches), there was no widely-used codename for this patch.) --Utopianheaven 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tech support outside scope of WP

This talk page probably shouldn't be used for end user questions regarding how to use Photoshop. I'm sure there are many forums that these sorts of questions would be more appropriate. -- Tomlouie | talk 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 9.0.2

Photoshop 9.0.2 was released a few days ago, but only via Adobe Updater. It is not yet available on www.adobe.com. Should we update the article now? --BbEcPeter 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fireworks?

Is it really in direct competition, I had always thought of it as a programe more aimed at creating and editing pictures and graphics for websites.

Fireworks was designed as a program to edit images before they were used in Macromedia Dreamweaver, or more commonly, Macromedia flash. Fireworks saves only as portable network graphic files (.png) therefore, it is not a proper graphic creation programme, just one used to create images which would be more complex to edit in Flash, Dreamweaver, etc.

Fireworks is rubbish, though. James Random

Learning Photoshop

When people ask me how to learn Photoshop, I always suggest they hire a "coach" for 3 or 4 hours to learn the interface hands-on. Then, I tell them, you can buy books with lots of nice mini-chapters explaining how to do this or that. I discourage them from trying to learn this complex interface by taking a community college course. Do you agree with the advice and is it a good point to place in the article, for the benefit of newcomers? 16 September 2006

I firstly do not agree that community college courses wouldn't be good. However it would depend on the level of interest that the student had (ie: I want to fix the red eye in this picture of my grandma, or I want to be able to work with new and existing images to create inspired and thoughtful pieces of art). In many cases, learning a program like this from a class has several benefits: you have a real live person with (hopefully, but generally) extensive and practical knowledge of the software, you are more likely than not reading the same text that you could buy in the store, and community college classes are generally cheaper than hiring a pro, and longer term with the possiblity of more depth. I'd also like to say that knowing how to "use" software, does not mean you can actually be creative with it. That is where a good art teacher comes in.

But I don't think that this is relavent to this article in the slightest. 66.90.162.101 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What About CS3?

This article lacks anything about Creative Suite 3. Is this on purpose? --Mambo Jambo 09:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

See Adobe Creative Suite. If there isn't a link in this article, you might want to add it. Shinobu 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The next version of PhotoshopCS will be version 2.2. James Random

Romoshop??

Shouldn't this slang term at least be mentioned since it is almost synonymous with Photoshop on many message boards (including the ones you listed)--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Airbrush

I'm removing the following paragraph:

"Photoshop is known for its Air Brush tools used to easily touch up photos. The Air Brush tool was designed with the help of Playboy Inc editors for use in the touch up of images for the venerable Playboy Magazine. Sharon Stone, who appear in the July, 1990 edition of Playboy Magazine, was the first model to receive the "Photoshop" treatment."

The first sentence is unverifiable and false. PS is hardly "known" for the airbrush tool, and it would be impossible to provide a source that says it is.

The section about Playboy is interesting, if it is true, but it should go into a trivia section. And there should be a reliable source to support it.

True enough. Yet the airbrush is somewhat redundant for this purpose since the inclusion of blur, smudge and the healing tools. James Random

---

The rest of the article fails to cite any sources and is flagged for not doing so. I think we should clean up the rest of the article as well, instead of changing what you think is a poor addtion.

Google has 1,450,000 search results for "photoshop airbrush". What do you mean Photoshop is not known for the airbrush tool? There is also the slang of "photoshopped", and when used to referred to a model, it means to use the Airbrush tool to "clean them up".

Google also has 1,450,000 search results for "photoshop elephant". Shall we add a paragraph claiming that Photoshop is known for its use in editing pictures of elephants? I can find no reliable sources that suggest that the airbrush tool is a particular feature that people think of in the context of Photoshop, or even that Photoshop's airbrush tool is particularly different from the airbrush tools in any of its competitors.

Additionally, the fact that the rest of the article also lacks sources does not justify the addition of another section that is no better. The Playboy claim is unverifiable, and thus it fails Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability policy, and thus we are forbidden to include it. This would naturally cease to be a problem if you were able to provide a reliable source for the claim, so that readers can verify that it is true. — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other tools that also have airbrushes, so it is hardly anything associated with Photoshop in particular. The slang term "photoshopped" is hardly limited to modifications using the airbrush. If I apply curves to increase contrast in an image, I may very well say I photoshopped it. Personally, I use Photoshop regularly, but I don't think I have used the airbrush for several years. Mlewan 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Intent

Removed the sentence "The program was intended from the start as a tool for manipulating images that were digitized by a scanner, which was a rare and expensive device in those days." because it lacks a reliable source, and thus it fails Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability policy.

Good catch. According to the only source I can find (Jeff Schewe's article 10 Years of Photoshop, in PEI magazine, February 2000, available online from [1]), the original impetus for developing Photoshop was actually digital special effects for movies, though it was a scanner company that first distributed Photoshop commercially (version 0.87, not version 1.00) -- so not only was this claim unverifiable, it also appears to have been incorrect. — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please verify

This needs to be verified. I believe that both statements are correct but I am not sure where to find a source of this. Perhaps books on the history of ILM might be able to explain the origins of Photoshop in more detail. Robert Elliott 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutorials

I am wondering if it is possible to have our tutorial site listed - PhotoshopSupport.com? We have worked hard at getting many expert authors to submit their tutorials and would like to know what the guidelines are? Eric

Free Version

My photo teacher told me that one can find older versions of Photoshop for free. Does anyone know anything about this?

Sounds like wishful thinking. - 66.93.200.116 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are free versions of other programs. And some programs let you use old versions for free. I don't think Photoshop is one of them. -Althepal 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sites, like http://www.vetusware.com/, allow you to download very very old versions for free. - PGSONIC 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Steganography

Does anyone know how to change this picture into this one using photoshop? Henry Talk 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The person who made your example: User:Cyp. --Althepal 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article seems have a little bit of these elements: worded in glowing terms, only says good things about Photoshop, keeps on saying that it is the best. It should be worded a little more critically, I think. There are also lost of unreferenced, boastful claims in the article, such as "it is considered the industry standard". I only put in one { fact } tag in (I didn't put in a pov or needs citation tag on the entire article, even though one probably should be there), but the article really needs to be fixed. Althepal 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate splash screens

I have seen and can confirm that there are alternate splash screens, as seen here: http://www.photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop-splash-screens/ I can take CS2 and CS3 beta splash screens as well as one for Elements 2, if we should put them up Øřêōş 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop CS3 - Two versions.

I'm not sure how people would set this up in the Wikipedia article, but it is confirmed that Adobe is planning two versions of CS3. "Photoshop CS3" and "Photoshop CS3 Extented". "Photoshop CS3" will feature all the basic and normal content, while "Photoshop CS3 Extented" will house several extra features. This version is aimed towards users that works with film, TV and multimedia, in spesific 3D and movements. Not much else has been released at this moment, but it is said they will release futher information the 27th of March.

SOURCE:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ps_psext_info.html
http://www.hardware.no/nyheter/programvare/_photoshop_cs3_i_to_versjoner/37304 (Norwegian)

Easter Eggs

I would be interested to hear from other users who can get the easter eggs to appear. I have tried in 6 and Elements 4 and in neither can I access the 'hidden about box'. --Jdedmond 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't vouch for Photoshop 6, but in CS3 (Windows) when you press Ctrl and click "About Photoshop", the Red Pill does show up, and if you Print Screen, Fraser does show up if you mess with levels (and paws). The funny thing for me is that I can make out the name and the year (and partly the glasses) without messing with the levels, no paws without level change :) --Modenadude 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Limited information on .psd files

There appears to be very limited details on .psd files, it doesn't state if any other software can read this file type, or such. Is it possible? --Hm2k 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of raster graphics editors. It appears that at least 27 programs support this file type. You can update the article if you like. Althepal 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Video cropping

I just saw the image in this article with the suspension bridge cables, and i dont unertand how the person manged to seamlessly edit out the cables out of the picture.I've also seen people edit out people and add different background to photos, but how do they cut and paste around the picture so seamlessly, and at the edge of a persons body there is no lesft over spots of the other picture or a sighn that a little of it is missing.64.229.201.128 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By StiFF

Alternatives

Does anyone share my view that listing rival products is hardly Wikipedia style and that this should be removed? Notinasnaid 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, do not agree. "See also" is a standard section in wikipedia. Insight on other products gives you perspective, otherwise it is hard to determine whether a good product is good, fast, advanced, effective, etc. --FateClub 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the link to the list of other raster graphics editors might suffice, but really, since Photoshop is so well known, many people might just assume that this is what you need to edit pictures professionally, which is not the case. So I think that the alternatives section is appropriate on this article. To tell you the truth, the article shows obvious POV towards Photoshop ("industry standard," ... "Photoshop is used increasingly," ... "it revolutionized the art of photo retouching," general praising tone, all because it is part of Adobe and thus well-known), which makes this section more important. Althepal 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not of the opinion that "alternatives" is a good section either. I think that a link to the comparison of raster image editors page would totally suffice. I don't think that this article should be an ad for PS, but I do think that this article has no need to talk about GIMP or what ever other freeware/shareware/commercial software there is out there that could "compete" with this software package. A brief mention that some budget conscious folks like to use other pieces of software might be ok, but I don't know that it's a really good direction to go. Crocadillion 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it in a way which better illustrates its importance here, but I would appreciate a review on which programs be listed there. Althepal 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think this section needs to be re-considered entirely. The reality is that PS is the choice of most professionals. The reasons are, I'm sure, varied from person to person, but probably based on reliability availability and support that comes with commercial software.

I'm still of the opinion that this section should be removed. A link to the comparison of raster image editors would suffice. Crocadillion 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that most professionals choose Photoshop, and that is exactly the reason why this section should be included - in order to let people know that there are other programs aside from Photoshop. I agree that the simple link could suffice, but it may not get the attention it deserves (I know I, when researching programs, found this section helpful and probably wouldn't have looked for comparison articles or noticed links). This section probably should be on this article since image editing ("photoshopping") is too synonymous with this program, and this fact could confuse people. BTW: Photoshop is the choice for most professionals for a few reasons. One of them is that if you understand all the ins and outs of this program, you will be able to produce excellent results. Another is that Adobe is well known and markets, causing even the professionals (not just the consumers looking for an image editing program) to think that this is the only good professional program. But the fact of the matter is that many professionals have found and prefer other programs. So even though it could be argued one way or another, I think it probably is appropriate in this particular article. Besides, unless we really get a few more people to voice their opinion, this section which has been here for a long time should not be removed. Anyhow, my question is regarding which programs should be included in the section. I say that the most advanced programs, based on the comparison of raster graphics editors, be listed, in order of popularity, but I didn't really change the programs when re-doing the section. I kind of just re-ordered them. Althepal 05:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point to Microsoft Word as an example of an app with major marketshare with an article that does not have an "alternatives" section, though there are many available for nearly every OS. I think that your reasoning that most people only think of PS when thinking of photo editing is fine in some situations, but here in wikipedia land, it does have a POV taste to it. Now before it's mentioned, this whole article is sort of biased toward PS being super-cool, but making a start on the whole POV thing has to begin somewhere, and I propose this section. Crocadillion 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this section POV against Photoshop? It simply states that other programs do exist which are like photoshop. That is not POV at all. You are right, however. This article is POV towards Photoshop, and it should mention both good things and bad things about it, and it shouldn't give the feel that Photoshop is the only or the best program when this simply isn't true. Althepal 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Industry Standard In Most....????!?

In the first paragraph it is stated: "It is considered the industry standard in most jobs related to the use of visual elements.[citation needed]" I realize that this statement is flagged as needing a citation, but I for one think this is a bogus and non-"industry standard" statement. Photoshop has it's place in a design studio, but is not used for a large portion of images and layouts that an artist may be working with.

In the world of photography, particularly prior to some really "nifty" applications like Lightroom, Apperture and others, Photoshop has probably been the most widely used piece of software. Not so in the world of graphic design as it's use limited (as with any tool).

I propose this statement be removed. Any thoughts?66.90.162.101 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It should certainly be sourced. The source should remove any ambiguity and define the "industries" in which it is "standard". No particular reason to pick that sentence: there are only three references, which is terrible for an article this size. If all the uncited stuff was removed, to meet Wikipedia's basic standards, there wouldn't be enough left for a paragraph. It would in general be better with things like "It is considered the industry standard..." to say instead "someone states that it is considered...". Notinasnaid 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate wikipedias citation rules, however, Photoshop is just NOT the "standard in most jobs related to the use of visual elements". This statement stands out to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's in the first paragraph. Secondly it reeks of "amatureness".

In my experience, which is simply that, my own experience, people who are not well versed in design tend to gravitate to Photoshop for all design jobs. So when confronted with a project best suited to vector graphics and using Illustrator, the uninformed/untrained designer will go first to PS and attempt to develop a "drawing". Now I'm not attempting to say that PS is not a fantastic application, it most certainly is. PS does what it does well, just as Illustrator, and InDesign are amazing tools for their end of production.

And in the event that a reference could be found to support this statement, I don't think that the source would be too reliable. 66.90.162.101 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the wording is very poor; I hadn't picked up on that. It certainly isn't the industry standard for anything to do with text or vector graphics, and such a statement could cause many a newcomer to make the classic error of assuming Photoshop is good at those things. I do regularly hear from people who have typeset entire booklets in Photoshop, which is very scary. Notinasnaid 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Photoshop *IS* by far the industry standard for pixel-based images. This is pretty much indisputable to anyone in the field. Instead of removing the statement, clarify it to make it accurate (instead of insinuating it's for vector graphics or whatever, specify pixel or photos). DreamGuy 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had a go. I've been able to source the "Industry Standard" stuff to a reputable source, and I've added a note about not being the standard for text and vector graphics, which needs sourcing. Ultimately, the source should win and my commentary be removed if nobody can source the qualification: sources trump facts. Notinasnaid 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement is pretty good: 'It has been described as "an industry standard for graphics professionals"'. The fact that it has the word "an" as opposed to "the industry standard" makes an enormous difference in meaning, and the meaning is one that would hold up to the most critcal light.

I've seen that sort of nutty typesetting done with PS as well! 66.90.162.101 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ACTUAL RELEASE DATE OF CS3

I ranted about this on 3 separate edits:

... ADOBE CS3 PRODUCTS WERE NOT REELASED ON MARCH 27!!!!!!!! ... THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DAY THAT A PRODUCT IS ANNOUNCED AND WHEN IT IS RELEASED!!! WHEN IT IS ANNOUNCED, IT IS NOT RELEASED YET AND THUS IT DOES NOT COUNT!!!!

This after I noticed that someone put March 27, 2007 as the date that Photoshop CS3 was "released". Notice that Adobe shipped, and thus released, their products on April 16. [2] Announce and release are not the same, but release and ship are! Release is when the public actually gets it. Announce just lets the public know when the public can get it. Sorry for yelling. - PGSONIC 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My ears hurt. lol. Actually, I didn't look into this or anything, and I'm not saying you didn't, but just make sure that you research a few other places before going to the rant level. Then you can give multiple websites which support your statement and cite that in the article. Then you shouldn't have a problem. Just a thought - was it downloadable before it was available in stores? Althepal 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User Mgekelly Edits

I think that these edits to the page are helpful to weed out some of the info that is not supported by citations, but what does "rm OR sect" mean in the summary edit line? Crocadillion 12:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It means, "original research." However, I think much of the information removed should not have been removed. I think that the removed text needs to be checked and have the appropriate parts put into the article. Althepal 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture add?

I have an example picture made with photoshop that could be added to the article. It's on my userpage. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)