New Photoshop CS2 Emerges Head…!!!

MA
Posted By
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 2, 2005
Views
1991
Replies
104
Status
Closed
Hi Everybody,

I read about that in:

http://www.neowin.net/staff/lardiop/040405Photoshop.pdf

and

http://whereisben.blogs.com/whereisben/2005/03/photoshop_cs2 .html#more

I agree that this wont be a MAJOR upgrade. It will much resemble upgrade from PS 6 to PS 7. Enhancements will mostly be cosmetic. Industry standards grow, and Photoshop should grow with it. MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years. So, I advise people (who want to save money) NOT to buy upgrade now!

In the next 3 years Photoshop will jump into the era of 3D object formats, that will deal with 3D space rather than 2D space, and you will be able to import DXF objects (or any other format, like that invented before by Electric Image), and deal with them in any angle using any kind of lighting, rotate them, texturize them, compute and render real field depth, generate cross-sections by intersection with boolean objects, etc. That will be an amazing addition to Photoshop. They have some problems concerning the rendering procedure. They will solve it and jump into that dimension. That dimension will enable people to deal with 3D objects using layers. I can imagine how this is done, but I will wait and see.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

CC
Chris Cox
Apr 7, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Hi Everybody,

I read about that in:

http://www.neowin.net/staff/lardiop/040405Photoshop.pdf
and
http://whereisben.blogs.com/whereisben/2005/03/photoshop_cs2 .html#more
I agree that this wont be a MAJOR upgrade.

Are you reading the same feature lists that the rest of us are?

Enhancements will mostly be cosmetic.

Obviously not.

Industry standards grow, and Photoshop should grow with it.

And it does.

MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

So, I advise people (who want to save money) NOT to buy upgrade now!

So you can enjoy the advantage of all the new features and do jobs faster than the other sucker who didn’t upgrade?

In the next 3 years Photoshop will jump into the era of 3D object formats, that will deal with 3D space rather than 2D space, and you will be able to import DXF objects (or any other format, like that invented before by Electric Image), and deal with them in any angle using any kind of lighting, rotate them, texturize them, compute and render real field depth, generate cross-sections by intersection with boolean objects, etc. That will be an amazing addition to Photoshop. They have some problems concerning the rendering procedure. They will solve it and jump into that dimension. That dimension will enable people to deal with 3D objects using layers. I can imagine how this is done, but I will wait and see.

And you know this… how?

Please, don’t lie to the users – let them see the new features and decide whether they need them or not for THEMSELVES.

Chris
R
Ron
Apr 7, 2005
"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 7, 2005
Hi Chris,

I DO NOT LIE and you know that!

I wont blame you to defend your employer. If I was in your shoes I would be even more aggressive. Designers all over the world really think that Photoshop is the ultimate in image retouching. Nothing can really defeat Photoshop. Every one in the world (not only me) knows affirmatively that it has a MAJOR upgrade every 3 to 4 years. We all knew Adobe’s policy, SO, do not insult our intelligence. (If you don’t know about your company’s policy then ask your broker at the stock exchange market).

Also, and this is my REAL belief, you are one of the best people in Adobe Photoshop team who really cared for the opinions of the online forums. Actually, I seldom see your colleagues even say anything! As if you are the only guy entitled to answer people in newsgroups.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
EG
Eric Gill
Apr 7, 2005
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
news::

Hi Chris,

I DO NOT LIE and you know that!

No, you most certainly are.

You are holding your opinion, based on press releases, forth as fact. I disagree completely, based on exactly the same source.

You then make a number of claims disparaging Photoshop, Adobe and their alleged upgrade policies, then ask Chris to "not insult our intelligence", without bothering to support any of the aforementioned claims.

Do not attempt to insult our intelligence.

<snip>
H
Hecate
Apr 7, 2005
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:09:16 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
news::

Hi Chris,

I DO NOT LIE and you know that!

No, you most certainly are.

You are holding your opinion, based on press releases, forth as fact. I disagree completely, based on exactly the same source.

You then make a number of claims disparaging Photoshop, Adobe and their alleged upgrade policies, then ask Chris to "not insult our intelligence", without bothering to support any of the aforementioned claims.
Do not attempt to insult our intelligence.
The thing that always makes me ignore someone’s opinion is when they begin a sentence.."Everyone knows…"



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
BH
Bill Hilton
Apr 7, 2005
Rick writes …

No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
was a major upgrade.

Given all the major changes in the color management flow and addition of soft proofing it sure looked like a "major upgrade" to me.
H
harrylimey
Apr 7, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message

The thing that always makes me ignore someone’s opinion is when they begin a sentence.."Everyone knows…"

or ends their message with………
"Senior Graphic Designer"

Does that mean he’s getting on a bit? or that he has some poor unfortunate underling who has to simulate interest when the master speaks?

Harry
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 7, 2005
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department?

Nope.

No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
was a major upgrade.

Unless, of course, they worked on it, read the full feature list, or actually used PS6 to see all the improvements that went into it….

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 7, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Hi Chris,

I DO NOT LIE and you know that!

Every one in the world (not only me) knows
affirmatively that it has a MAJOR upgrade every 3 to 4 years.

And yet that is a bald faced lie.
EVERY time we bump the major version number, it’s because we are doing a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18 months.

We all knew Adobe’s policy, SO, do not insult our intelligence. (If you don’t know about your company’s policy then ask your broker at the stock exchange market).

There is no such policy.
So that’s either very bad speculation, or a lie.

And please, don’t insult our hard work and dedication to our customers.

Chris
R
Ron
Apr 7, 2005
"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department?

Nope.

No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
was a major upgrade.

Unless, of course, they worked on it, read the full feature list, or actually used PS6 to see all the improvements that went into it….

Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.
S
SCRUFF
Apr 7, 2005
"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Hi Chris,

I DO NOT LIE and you know that!

Every one in the world (not only me) knows
affirmatively that it has a MAJOR upgrade every 3 to 4 years.

And yet that is a bald faced lie.
EVERY time we bump the major version number, it’s because we are doing a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18 months.

We all knew Adobe’s policy, SO, do not insult our intelligence. (If you
don’t
know about your company’s policy then ask your broker at the stock exchange market).

There is no such policy.
So that’s either very bad speculation, or a lie.

And please, don’t insult our hard work and dedication to our customers.
Chris

Dude,
You don’t come across very well as a representative for your company. Right or wrong, you need to check out before Bruce pays a visit to your office.
You do know he lurks this newsgroup, don’t you?
Hell, I may even be him.
B
Brian
Apr 8, 2005
Harry Limey wrote:
"Hecate" wrote in message

The thing that always makes me ignore someone’s opinion is when they begin a sentence.."Everyone knows…"

or ends their message with………
"Senior Graphic Designer"

Does that mean he’s getting on a bit? or that he has some poor unfortunate underling who has to simulate interest when the master speaks?
Harry
LMAO @ Harry. That was good!

Brian.
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 9, 2005
Chris,

Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you are free to say whatever you like.

Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your company’s effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand to 3D arena in the very near future?

Even if the person who conveyed the news to me was incorrect, then all facts indicate that Adobe Photoshop will definitely transfer to 3D arena, because of the fact that they need to upgrade themselves. Inspite the fact that there are still many things to accomplish like lockability and linkability of spot channels to layers, and the full operation of filters in 16-bit mode, hexachromatic separation process (CMYKOG) process, halftone preview (preview of actual offsett output at certain angles and line frequency), and other few things. Adobe Photoshop have some choices to invent new ideas that justify upgrade (either major or minor) and as follows:

1- Make Photoshop a real hybrid between raster and vector: This choice will make the Photoshop working like the way Macromedia Fireworks works like a real hybrid between vector and raster. Working in this direction will require Adobe to make a great sacrifice by shrinking the role of Adobe Illustrator. That means that Photoshop may add all tools necessary to eliminate Illustrator. This is a little bit hard task but people at Adobe can do it.

2- Make Photoshop 3D enabled software: This choice is not impossible and is the most likely choice to expand by a company like Adobe. Adobe has always adapted good ideas of other parties. Incorporating 3D in image retouching software is not weird (remember Fractal Design Painter)! Also, 3D for Adobe Photoshop upgrade policy is terrific! I mean in terms of dropping features in the eyes of buyers! Also, it is the right time to cheaply buy software that were parts of out-of-business (but great) software. These software couldn’t continue in business simply because they lacked the genius thinking of Adobe, not because they are not good (from technical point of view)! Also, expanding towards 3D capabilities along with the prepress quality delivered by Photoshop, along with high speeds provided by computer systems will enable designer to boost creation in a completely new direction.

3- Borrow some Adobe Premier functionality into Photoshop: This choice is not impossible but it would be largely useless for designers.

In all above choices, a radical change in Photoshop engineering will be required.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
B
Brian
Apr 9, 2005
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
Chris,

Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you are free to say whatever you like.

Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your company’s effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand to 3D arena in the very near future?

Even if the person who conveyed the news to me was incorrect, then all facts indicate that Adobe Photoshop will definitely transfer to 3D arena, because of the fact that they need to upgrade themselves. Inspite the fact that there are still many things to accomplish like lockability and linkability of spot channels to layers, and the full operation of filters in 16-bit mode, hexachromatic separation process (CMYKOG) process, halftone preview (preview of actual offsett output at certain angles and line frequency), and other few things. Adobe Photoshop have some choices to invent new ideas that justify upgrade (either major or minor) and as follows:

1- Make Photoshop a real hybrid between raster and vector: This choice will make the Photoshop working like the way Macromedia Fireworks works like a real hybrid between vector and raster. Working in this direction will require Adobe to make a great sacrifice by shrinking the role of Adobe Illustrator. That means that Photoshop may add all tools necessary to eliminate Illustrator. This is a little bit hard task but people at Adobe can do it.

2- Make Photoshop 3D enabled software: This choice is not impossible and is the most likely choice to expand by a company like Adobe. Adobe has always adapted good ideas of other parties. Incorporating 3D in image retouching software is not weird (remember Fractal Design Painter)! Also, 3D for Adobe Photoshop upgrade policy is terrific! I mean in terms of dropping features in the eyes of buyers! Also, it is the right time to cheaply buy software that were parts of out-of-business (but great) software. These software couldn’t continue in business simply because they lacked the genius thinking of Adobe, not because they are not good (from technical point of view)! Also, expanding towards 3D capabilities along with the prepress quality delivered by Photoshop, along with high speeds provided by computer systems will enable designer to boost creation in a completely new direction.

3- Borrow some Adobe Premier functionality into Photoshop: This choice is not impossible but it would be largely useless for designers.
In all above choices, a radical change in Photoshop engineering will be required.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

All-in-one applications rarely prove to be the best at anything. Leave PS where it is, it would be more logical to increase Illustrator’s powers in the 3D arena than PS’s. It might then raise it to the standard of PS.

🙂
C
Clyde
Apr 9, 2005
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
Chris,

Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you are free to say whatever you like.

Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your company’s effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand to 3D arena in the very near future?

Even if the person who conveyed the news to me was incorrect, then all facts indicate that Adobe Photoshop will definitely transfer to 3D arena, because of the fact that they need to upgrade themselves. Inspite the fact that there are still many things to accomplish like lockability and linkability of spot channels to layers, and the full operation of filters in 16-bit mode, hexachromatic separation process (CMYKOG) process, halftone preview (preview of actual offsett output at certain angles and line frequency), and other few things. Adobe Photoshop have some choices to invent new ideas that justify upgrade (either major or minor) and as follows:

1- Make Photoshop a real hybrid between raster and vector: This choice will make the Photoshop working like the way Macromedia Fireworks works like a real hybrid between vector and raster. Working in this direction will require Adobe to make a great sacrifice by shrinking the role of Adobe Illustrator. That means that Photoshop may add all tools necessary to eliminate Illustrator. This is a little bit hard task but people at Adobe can do it.

2- Make Photoshop 3D enabled software: This choice is not impossible and is the most likely choice to expand by a company like Adobe. Adobe has always adapted good ideas of other parties. Incorporating 3D in image retouching software is not weird (remember Fractal Design Painter)! Also, 3D for Adobe Photoshop upgrade policy is terrific! I mean in terms of dropping features in the eyes of buyers! Also, it is the right time to cheaply buy software that were parts of out-of-business (but great) software. These software couldn’t continue in business simply because they lacked the genius thinking of Adobe, not because they are not good (from technical point of view)! Also, expanding towards 3D capabilities along with the prepress quality delivered by Photoshop, along with high speeds provided by computer systems will enable designer to boost creation in a completely new direction.

3- Borrow some Adobe Premier functionality into Photoshop: This choice is not impossible but it would be largely useless for designers.
In all above choices, a radical change in Photoshop engineering will be required.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

Remember that Adobe’s goal is to make money. If giving you more makes them more money, they will do it. If loading up PS to make a little while cutting out the market for Illustrator and Premier makes them less money, they aren’t going to do it. Their marketing experts are much more concerned with the overall money making of the company than with just bring out new features.

Clyde
MP
Marc Pawliger
Apr 9, 2005
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.

Sorry it didn’t seem to meet your needs – what are they? The fact 6.0 broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people felt it was worth it for them.

–marc
R
Ron
Apr 9, 2005
"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.

Sorry it didn’t seem to meet your needs – what are they? The fact 6.0 broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people felt it was worth it for them.

That simply means Adobe’s marketing budget was increased for PS6.

Marc, you better than anyone remember formal reviews of
PS6. No defense of my statement is necessary.
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 10, 2005
In article <pSi5e.2369$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department?

Nope.

No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6
was a major upgrade.

Unless, of course, they worked on it, read the full feature list, or actually used PS6 to see all the improvements that went into it….

Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.

As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2 reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that for EVERY release of Photoshop.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 10, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris,

Bad speculations??!!! LOL. ok as you like. This an open forum and you are free to say whatever you like.

Please understand that I am not insulting your effort nor your company’s effort (without which graphic designers would suffer too much all over the world, but remember they paid for it, and this is how they appreciate your efforts). If you think that all what I said is merely allegations, then are you officially and on the behalf of your company really falsify them and that Adobe Photoshop has NO INTENTION to expand to 3D arena in the very near future?

I can’t comment on unannounced products or versions of products.

Chris
MP
Marc Pawliger
Apr 10, 2005
In article <znZ5e.3387$>, Rick
wrote:

"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four
years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.

Sorry it didn’t seem to meet your needs – what are they? The fact 6.0 broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people felt it was worth it for them.

That simply means Adobe’s marketing budget was increased for PS6.

I wish it were that simple! In fact, during the times of Photoshop 6 the overall marketing dollars for individual products were decreased, not increased, and investment in corporate branding and marketing ruled the day. Check the annual reports and see.

Marc, you better than anyone remember formal reviews of
PS6. No defense of my statement is necessary.

I remember the entire 8 foot by 20 foot wall of reviews I had outside my office, all of which were at least 4/5 stars or equivalent, if that’s what you mean.

Every release of a product concentrates on some theme or set of users it is trying to reach. That means each release won’t necessarily speak to you or your needs. Every attempt is made to keep existing users satisfied and excited by new features for them, but clearly that can’t succeed for everyone every time.

–marc
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 10, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

I can’t comment on unannounced products or versions of products.

Oh yes?! You already did.

You should be answering that way EARLIER. You accused me with lying from the begining of this thread, and you allowed yourself to express your denial in public. I suspect more and more, that, what was conveyed to me about Photoshop 3D is correct in many aspects. I wonder why you were upset? What’s wrong with adding 3D capabilities and call that MAJOR UPGRADE?

I know that some features need a lot of work and coding, in order for them to be in final form. Enhancing the functioning of an already available feature is a MINOR upgrade, even if you enhanced many available features. However, adding new (many) features or changing a substancial part of software structure is a MAJOR upgrade. These facts are well-known. For example Autocolor, filter composition, highlight/shadow, cannot be grouped under the features of MAJOR upgrade. While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade. MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a third party.

I don’t know if there is other than Chris and Marc (from Adobe) who can convince people that PS CS2 is not a MINOR upgrade, and that Photoshop is about to add 3D features VERY SOON.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
S
SpaceGirl
Apr 10, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:

Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.

As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2 reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that for EVERY release of Photoshop.

Chris

You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was being released. Google for it.



x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
S
SpaceGirl
Apr 10, 2005
Marc Pawliger wrote:
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.

Sorry it didn’t seem to meet your needs – what are they? The fact 6.0 broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people felt it was worth it for them.

–marc

That’s down to good marketing – nothing to do with new features. PS is *very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just rehashes of old ones). I really like PS, but it’s really expensive for what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all. There are NO NEW features – the ones they claim to be new are things you could already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in. All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again. There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two versions either.



x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
S
SpaceGirl
Apr 10, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:

EVERY time we bump the major version number, it’s because we are doing a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18 months.

Just because it’s called a major version jump doesn’t make it so. They could call it PhotoShop 20.0 🙂

If the feature list is anything to go by, and it’s taken 18 months to complete… what on Earth have you guys at Adobe been doing!? Has the PS code base become so complex it takes over a year to change a few basic features? I suspect this is all to do with politics and marketing – PS had to be released as part of the whole of CS2, and perhaps other programs in the CS2 suit were taking a long time to update? And you wont release one part without the other parts…? Or, again, perhaps waiting until the computer market has moved on a bit so the average user has the computing power to run some of the new features? (In the computer games industry this happens all the time – design your products for the average computer in two years time, which is the very top of the range computer today).

Ah anyway. We WILL be updating to CS2 – some of the new features look interesting, and will save time.



x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
J
Jan
Apr 10, 2005
SpaceGirl wrote:
Chris Cox wrote:

EVERY time we bump the major version number, it’s because we are doing a major upgrade. And lately our release cycle has been close to 18 months.

Just because it’s called a major version jump doesn’t make it so. They could call it PhotoShop 20.0 🙂

If the feature list is anything to go by, and it’s taken 18 months to complete… what on Earth have you guys at Adobe been doing!? Has the PS code base become so complex it takes over a year to change a few basic features? I suspect this is all to do with politics and marketing – PS had to be released as part of the whole of CS2, and perhaps other programs in the CS2 suit were taking a long time to update? And you wont release one part without the other parts…? Or, again, perhaps waiting until the computer market has moved on a bit so the average user has the computing power to run some of the new features? (In the computer games industry this happens all the time – design your products for the average computer in two years time, which is the very top of the range computer today).

Ah anyway. We WILL be updating to CS2 – some of the new features look interesting, and will save time.

I think it is both a hardware and a software issue. For many years now, the 18 month cycle has been popular across the whole spectrum of software. I suspect it has to do with some study made many years ago which showed that the maximum profit occurred every 18 months. Or, perhaps, at 18 the product reached saturation and maybe loyalty began to drop. Competitors plan on releasing their newest and best 18 months after their competition.

Rarely will you see a company waiting 18 months to issue a fix – even if the fix is defective – so it is doubtful that it really takes 18 months to write and publish.

What does happen, however, is that major changes rarely are published all at once. The profit potential of spreading a big jump rewrite over 2, 3 or even 4 ‘new versions’ is considerable. Press releases can give a clue as to which you are getting.

For example, currently the digital market is obsessing over megapixels. The hardware market is responding with machines more capable of handling this. Yet Adobe is tooting ‘vanishing point editing’ when they should be (IMHO) focusing on ease of use, far better scratch disk sizing (not even 2X I understand) and color-matching improvements. 48 bit filter capabilities would be nice, too.

Reality sucks.

Jan, PB, Jelly & Robbie – the ‘A’ Team!
H
Hecate
Apr 10, 2005
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:25:27 -0700, Marc Pawliger
wrote:

Every release of a product concentrates on some theme or set of users it is trying to reach. That means each release won’t necessarily speak to you or your needs. Every attempt is made to keep existing users satisfied and excited by new features for them, but clearly that can’t succeed for everyone every time.
That was quite clear with CS where it was clearly aimed at photographers in general and digital photographers specifically.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Apr 10, 2005
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:50:19 +0100, SpaceGirl
wrote:

Ah anyway. We WILL be updating to CS2 – some of the new features look interesting, and will save time.

Hi Miranda,

I think that’s the most important point – is there enough in it to upgrade. With virtually every piece of software I own, my upgrade cycle is every other version. However, I went from 4 to 5.5 to 6 to 7 and then to CS. Part of that was the clever bundle pricing which meant that if you wanted more than two apps it was cheaper to buy the premium suite. So now I am also upgrading Illy, ID and Acrobat at the same time, every time. FWIW< I think there’s a lot more to be excited about in Illy than PS this time around. Which is also quite clever. I might not have considered upgrading if it was just PS, but Illy is worth it – so it’s back to the suite upgrade. 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
MR
Mike Russell
Apr 10, 2005
or ends their message with………
"Senior Graphic Designer"

Not single out anyone in particular, but I would like to say that think Mohamed Al-Dabbagh’s heart is in the right place. There is enough intentional nastiness here as it is. Please let’s be a little more supportive of each other.

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
J
jjs
Apr 11, 2005
"Mike Russell" wrote in message
or ends their message with………
"Senior Graphic Designer"

Not single out anyone in particular, but I would like to say that think Mohamed Al-Dabbagh’s heart is in the right place. There is enough intentional nastiness here as it is. Please let’s be a little more supportive of each other.

Mohamed’s heart and mind are in the right place. A couple years ago, Mohamed posted specific deficiencies of Photoshop in a most articulate way. Nothing has changed in PS since. I suspect there’s a niche for what he’s looking for, and Adobe is just going to overlook it.
EG
Eric Gill
Apr 11, 2005
SpaceGirl wrote in news:3bsa8rF6jdukjU1
@individual.net:

Chris Cox wrote:

Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.

As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2 reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that for EVERY release of Photoshop.

Chris

You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was being released. Google for it.

Okay.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photoshop+6
+major+upgrade&btnG=Google+Search

5 pages in, and the situation looks to be much more like Chris described. Got some examples in mind?
C
Clyde
Apr 11, 2005
jjs wrote:
"Mike Russell" wrote in message

or ends their message with………
"Senior Graphic Designer"

Not single out anyone in particular, but I would like to say that think Mohamed Al-Dabbagh’s heart is in the right place. There is enough intentional nastiness here as it is. Please let’s be a little more supportive of each other.

Mohamed’s heart and mind are in the right place. A couple years ago, Mohamed posted specific deficiencies of Photoshop in a most articulate way. Nothing has changed in PS since. I suspect there’s a niche for what he’s looking for, and Adobe is just going to overlook it.

Ah, there in lies the rub… Adobe doesn’t and can’t afford to develop for niche markets. They have to develop for an overall market. Their homage to niche markets is through plug-ins.

Clyde
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 12, 2005
Hi!

I think that Adobe always read what is published here and in their online forums:

www.adobeforums.com

They have feature request forum. In that specific forum they listen (mostly silently) to the people who request some features not available in Photoshop. I personally know that they actually listened to some original ideas that were first suggested by me, and they really implemented it. However, they mentioned no credit because they just don’t want to run into legal problems of intellectual property. For example Image Warp (that is introduced in CS2 now), stroke of more than 16 pixels, filters refurbishing, large-format printing and other things were first suggested by me as concepts in this article that dates back to March 2002:

http://members.fortunecity.com­/dabbagh/photoshop

And this article was discussed on ng following this thread:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.graphics.apps.photo shop/browse_frm/thread/c7f8c4ef9b22d6a2/198bf263d7cc2271?q=p hotoshop+is+an+old+man&rnum=2#198bf263d7cc2271

I wish that Adobe Photoshop people recognise these contributions and write a credit for the people who suggested them. As far as I am concerned I hereby declare that I will claim no financial advantage whatsoever from Adobe if they mention a credit for me that I am the creator of those ideas, or recognise the favor of whose created it if it wasn’t me.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
R
Roberto
Apr 12, 2005
I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number of times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.
3. Conditional statements in actions.
4. Password protection of action source code.
5. Live filters

They would have added these and many others by now. In fact the few Adobe people that float around in these and the Adobe User Forums seem to have a really negative opinion of user’s comments. Chris Cox being one of the most obnoxious and negative of all of them. He often poo poo’s users suggestions or just flat out says it isn’t possible. Even though of course many programs have such features.

It seems to me that Adobe for the most part goes off and does what they want with no regard for what their customers want. Sure on occasion something will get added that has been asked for but that isn’t very often and a lot of times it is half-assed. And, then of course we a lot of times get features that we didn’t ask for that are totally half-assed like CS’s filter gallery which is a big slow joke.
J
jjs
Apr 12, 2005
"No You Spam Me Sucker" wrote in message
I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number of times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.

You can save a history log to the metadata, but of course not use it. 🙁
H
harrylimey
Apr 12, 2005
"No You Spam Me Sucker" wrote in message
news:wST6e.14267

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.

How big would that make a saved file? – the default History setting is 20 (allowing you to undo 20 times) If you have a 5mb image that would make it 100mb!! – it would not take long to fill your drive, especially if you had a large file to start with! – unless I have my sums wrong.

Harry
B
Brian
Apr 12, 2005
Harry Limey wrote:
"No You Spam Me Sucker" wrote in message
news:wST6e.14267

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.

How big would that make a saved file? – the default History setting is 20 (allowing you to undo 20 times) If you have a 5mb image that would make it 100mb!! – it would not take long to fill your drive, especially if you had a large file to start with! – unless I have my sums wrong.
Harry
Being able to save the history as an action (script) is a better option. It is saved as a separate file and adds nothing to your image file. Obviously, you have to name it in a way you will know what it is later on. I already use this feature with the software I use. I can not only apply it to any image, I can delete steps and add steps to the script once it has been saved, to suit particular images.

Brian.
R
Roberto
Apr 12, 2005
Prime example of a half-assed feature. People have asked for saving of history since they added the feature and what do they do, that add a such a feature but it is a worthless half-assed feature. Typical of most peoples Adobe has added recently. I still say the problem is that to fix up most of these half-assed features would require a re-write of Photoshop and that is something Adobe is either too terrified of doing or they lack skilled enough programmers to pull it off. Meanwhile Photoshop is falling behind. Just now they are getting around to adding features that many other programs have had for several versions. Really sad if you ask me.
R
Roberto
Apr 12, 2005
It doesn’t matter. For some files and for some jobs the file size wouldn’t matter. They could make it smaller if they basically saved the history as an in file action that is simply replayed when the file is opened. But Photoshop wasn’t designed to work that way and it would require a major re-write to get it to. For one thing it would have to remember everything done like brush strokes, etc. Programs like Corel Photo-Paint and Painter have worked this way for ages (as far as remember brush strokes and being able to record them as actions and scripts.)

"Harry Limey" wrote in message
"No You Spam Me Sucker" wrote in message
news:wST6e.14267

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.

How big would that make a saved file? – the default History setting is 20 (allowing you to undo 20 times) If you have a 5mb image that would make it 100mb!! – it would not take long to fill your drive, especially if you had a
large file to start with! – unless I have my sums wrong.
Harry

C
Clyde
Apr 16, 2005
No You Spam Me Sucker wrote:
I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number of times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.
3. Conditional statements in actions.
4. Password protection of action source code.
5. Live filters

They would have added these and many others by now. In fact the few Adobe people that float around in these and the Adobe User Forums seem to have a really negative opinion of user’s comments. Chris Cox being one of the most obnoxious and negative of all of them. He often poo poo’s users suggestions or just flat out says it isn’t possible. Even though of course many programs have such features.

It seems to me that Adobe for the most part goes off and does what they want with no regard for what their customers want. Sure on occasion something will get added that has been asked for but that isn’t very often and a lot of times it is half-assed. And, then of course we a lot of times get features that we didn’t ask for that are totally half-assed like CS’s filter gallery which is a big slow joke.

Do you have any hard stats for any of this? i.e. How many people have asked for what features? Remember that Newsgroups is not a good way to get population statistics on anything. If you and 3 others have repeatably asked for saving history that doesn’t mean that there is a statistically significant group of users who want it.

Also, silence doesn’t tell you anything statistically either. I don’t have any need to save history with my file, but I’ve never stated that any where before. How many users are like me and how many are like you? I don’t know, but I’m sure Adobe knows.

What do you mean "live filters"?

Clyde
R
Ron
Apr 16, 2005
"Clyde" wrote in message
No You Spam Me Sucker wrote:
I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for. Otherwise based on the shear number of times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.
2. Being able to save history as an action.
3. Conditional statements in actions.
4. Password protection of action source code.
5. Live filters

They would have added these and many others by now. In fact the few Adobe people that float around in these and the Adobe User Forums seem to have a really negative opinion of user’s comments. Chris Cox being one of the most obnoxious and negative of all of them. He often poo poo’s users suggestions or just flat out says it isn’t possible. Even though of course many programs have such features.

It seems to me that Adobe for the most part goes off and does what they want with no regard for what their customers want. Sure on occasion something will get added that has been asked for but that isn’t very often and a lot of times it is half-assed. And, then of course we a lot of times get features that we didn’t ask for that are totally half-assed like CS’s filter gallery which is a big slow joke.

Do you have any hard stats for any of this? i.e. How many people have asked for what features? Remember that Newsgroups is not a good way to get population statistics on anything. If you and 3 others have repeatably asked for saving history that doesn’t mean that there is a statistically significant group of users who want it.

Also, silence doesn’t tell you anything statistically either. I don’t have any need to save history with my file, but I’ve never stated that any where before. How many users are like me and how many are like you? I don’t know, but I’m sure Adobe knows.

Oh please. This issue isn’t even debatable. A software developer’s willingness to listen to its customers is inversely proportional to the amount of market share they have, and Adobe isn’t any different. Even millions of requests for the most basic improvements, such as context-sensitive help in Windows have been steadfastly ignored by Adobe.
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 16, 2005
"Clyde" wrote

5. Live filters

What are live filters?
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 17, 2005
Just read Adobe’s over user to user forums. While this is not the most direct route to Adobe there have been Adobe personal in these forums that say they do read them and pass the info along.

It seems to die at that stage however. It is really quite easy to see what user’s want and it shouldn’t be that hard for Adobe to figure this out if they really gave a crap. Which I am sure they don’t.

I myself have spent a great deal of time sharing my ideas with Adobe. Generally I refrain from suggesting a feature that wouldn’t be useful for a wide range of users.
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 17, 2005
Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don’t know how many times that this is not possible with today’s computer technology. That it would slow the program down too much. Yet, I know of at least one other program that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.

Adobe’s response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not in so many words of course), no one would want it (even when it has been requests hundreds of times before) or it isn’t possible or my favorite it would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that Photoshop wasn’t designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as well as the ability to save history as an action.

Adobe does pretty much what they want. I think a good example in CS2 is the new perspective tools. I don’t recall in since Adobe opened their user to user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn’t more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won’t turn out to be useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds of times that we are still waiting for.

My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe’s starting after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn’t asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for over and over and over again. I have been doing this since Adobe opened the forums. It has been very interesting.

If Adobe isn’t going to listen to what people are writing in these forums then I ask why they created them in the first place. I don’t expects Adobe to say yay and nay any of the suggestions posted. But one would expect that the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions. But, it doesn’t. Adobe adds things like Filter Gallery no one wanted and just about everyone hates and to make matters worse they half assed the feature besides by adding layering abilities, but no opacity or blending mode controls.
MP
Marc Pawliger
Apr 17, 2005
In article <5fm8e.14973$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don’t know how many times that this is not possible with today’s computer technology. That it would slow the program down too much. Yet, I know of at least one other program that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.

It certainly makes sense for generally small images – up to around 4K pixels or so. That’s why Adobe applications like After Effects can apply filters live. When are talking about the full-range of image sizes Photoshop supports – from that size up to 200K pixels square – it quickly runs into those limits and users would not find the performance affectable. We do not like to place arbitrary limits on which operations operate on what size images so, for now, live filters are not supported.

Adobe’s response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not in so many words of course), no one would want it (even when it has been requests hundreds of times before) or it isn’t possible or my favorite it would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that Photoshop wasn’t designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as well as the ability to save history as an action.

Asking several times does not make the request more or less relevant. In fact, asking multiple times may in fact decrease the impact of the request. Adobe hearing the same request from multiple quarters and sources that represent many users does make the request more relevant. As someone else said in a similar thread, USENET does not represent a good sample of the great many Photoshop users out there,

Adobe does pretty much what they want. I think a good example in CS2 is the new perspective tools. I don’t recall in since Adobe opened their user to user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn’t more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won’t turn out to be useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds of times that we are still waiting for.

The list of feature requests we have on hand is in fact huge.

My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe’s starting after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn’t asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for over and over and over again. I have been doing this since Adobe opened the forums. It has been very interesting.

If Adobe isn’t going to listen to what people are writing in these forums then I ask why they created them in the first place. I don’t expects Adobe to say yay and nay any of the suggestions posted. But one would expect that the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions. But, it doesn’t. Adobe adds things like Filter Gallery no one wanted and just about everyone hates and to make matters worse they half assed the feature besides by adding layering abilities, but no opacity or blending mode controls.

The purpose of the U2U forums is exactly that – _User_ to _User_ communication for the purpose of fostering a community of users that share experiences and tips with one another.

It is fortunate several of us who work on Photoshop can also devote time to participate in these discussions. The fact we do means we can hear feature requests in these venues, however that is only one part of research done when determining what features go into future versions.

–marc
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 17, 2005
Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user’s to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn’t listen to its customers and your comments below just proves that.

Any company that thinks a feature request should to pretty much ignored because it has been asked for over and over by its customers is a lame ass company especially when apparently they give a feature that has been asked for once or twice a higher importance. This is a what is called lame ass behavior.

Thank you for proving my point about Adobe. This is also why Adobe Photoshop will continue to fall behind.

"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message
In article <5fm8e.14973$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don’t know how many times
that this is not possible with today’s computer technology. That it would slow the program down too much. Yet, I know of at least one other program that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which
is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to
Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.

It certainly makes sense for generally small images – up to around 4K pixels or so. That’s why Adobe applications like After Effects can apply filters live. When are talking about the full-range of image sizes Photoshop supports – from that size up to 200K pixels square – it quickly runs into those limits and users would not find the performance affectable. We do not like to place arbitrary limits on which operations operate on what size images so, for now, live filters are not supported.

Adobe’s response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not
in so many words of course), no one would want it (even when it has been requests hundreds of times before) or it isn’t possible or my favorite it would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that Photoshop wasn’t designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as
well as the ability to save history as an action.

Asking several times does not make the request more or less relevant. In fact, asking multiple times may in fact decrease the impact of the request. Adobe hearing the same request from multiple quarters and sources that represent many users does make the request more relevant. As someone else said in a similar thread, USENET does not represent a good sample of the great many Photoshop users out there,
Adobe does pretty much what they want. I think a good example in CS2 is the
new perspective tools. I don’t recall in since Adobe opened their user to user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn’t more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won’t turn out to be useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds
of times that we are still waiting for.

The list of feature requests we have on hand is in fact huge.
My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe’s starting after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn’t asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and
large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for
over and over and over again. I have been doing this since Adobe opened the
forums. It has been very interesting.

If Adobe isn’t going to listen to what people are writing in these forums then I ask why they created them in the first place. I don’t expects Adobe
to say yay and nay any of the suggestions posted. But one would expect that
the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions.
But, it doesn’t. Adobe adds things like Filter Gallery no one wanted and just about everyone hates and to make matters worse they half assed the feature besides by adding layering abilities, but no opacity or blending mode controls.

The purpose of the U2U forums is exactly that – _User_ to _User_ communication for the purpose of fostering a community of users that share experiences and tips with one another.

It is fortunate several of us who work on Photoshop can also devote time to participate in these discussions. The fact we do means we can hear feature requests in these venues, however that is only one part of research done when determining what features go into future versions.
–marc
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 17, 2005
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message
Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user’s to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn’t listen to its customers and your comments below just proves that.

Okay, okay. What feature do you want the most. Maybe someone will be your hero and hack a solution. Or not.
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 17, 2005
What feature do I want most? Hmmm, that is a hard one as I have several that are pretty equal on my most wanted list. I guess the best way would be this…

I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more powerful. This would include…

1. Being able to save history as an action.
2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)
3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering actions
source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from running the action, just looking at the steps and changing them).
4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions. As it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record the action instead of editing problems.
5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in the action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does when it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track of what an action does.
6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as well. Besides the thumbnail above the description can be showed in the action palette under the actions name (with the thumbnail to the right or left of the name), this would also make it easier to keep track of what various actions do.
7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc. This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create more powerful actions.
8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides ones to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of all of the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and general action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.

Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would like to see is the ability to save history with your file. This too would require a major re-work of Photoshop to do effectively. None of these will ever happen because Adobe doesn’t have the balls or the programmers to re-write Photoshop from the ground up. It is much easier for them to add features that resemble patches to the program than it is to really add features that are well integrated in the core structure of Photoshop.

"jjs" wrote in message
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message
Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user’s to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn’t listen to its customers and your comments below just proves that.

Okay, okay. What feature do you want the most. Maybe someone will be your hero and hack a solution. Or not.

C
Clyde
Apr 17, 2005
Little Bopeeps Sheep wrote:
Sorry Marc just sounds like a bunch of excuses for Adobe to go off and do whatever in the hell they want and expect the majority of Photoshop user’s to continue to pay for it. As I said in another before Adobe doesn’t listen to its customers and your comments below just proves that.
Any company that thinks a feature request should to pretty much ignored because it has been asked for over and over by its customers is a lame ass company especially when apparently they give a feature that has been asked for once or twice a higher importance. This is a what is called lame ass behavior.

Thank you for proving my point about Adobe. This is also why Adobe Photoshop will continue to fall behind.

Remember the Adobe User Groups? I was the founding VP of the Chicago branch. (REALLY no big deal.) It was created by Adobe to have a forum for graphics pros to communicate with themselves and with Adobe.

In my experience with AUG, Adobe really did listen. Yes, sometimes they told us that they couldn’t do things. Sometimes they told us to help them find out how widespread the demand was. OK, AUG failed because graphics pros don’t have time for extra meetings or running extra organizations.

Even before that, I was involved in a pre-release meeting with Adobe for Acrobat. It looked great and wonderful, until they told us that they intended to sell the reader. I told them very pointedly that would never fly. Bringing in a new concept into my corporation and having to buy something for every desktop would never get passed the CIO. They need wouldn’t be there. Adobe listened very closely and asked questions. Shortly after that they dropped the idea of selling the Reader.

Therefore, my experience is that Adobe DOES listen. I don’t know everyone they listen to. I don’t know where they spend their resources listening. Hell, I don’t know if Adobe hasn’t changed a lot since the early ’90s. Hey, there was a lot of cut backs in a lot of companies; they may have cut all the marketing people who did that listening. I’m pretty sure they don’t "listen" to every source; no company has that kind of time and resources.

Just to flatly say that Adobe or any other company doesn’t listen isn’t very smart. Adobe wouldn’t survive if they didn’t. (I know you say they won’t, but there isn’t much evidence for that either.) They got their ideas for the improvements and additions in CS2 from somewhere. They could have just made them up, but that has been a very dangerous marketing strategy since the Edsel.

Clyde
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 17, 2005
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more powerful. This would include…

1. Being able to save history as an action.
2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)

Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and Programmable.

3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering actions source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from running the action, just looking at the steps and changing them).

So you can sell Adobe actions, no doubt. Well, nothing will stop the hackers from busting it, so forget that one.

4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions. As it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record the action instead of editing problems.

So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language structure.

5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in the action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does when it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track of what an action does.

No fucking way, Jose. If you edit the action, PS would have no way to re-render the thumbnail, and besides, changes usually cascade to the next, and so-on, so all the thumbnails would have to be re-rendered. And people are irritated by having to re-run actions?

6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as well.

That would be cool.

7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc. This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create more powerful actions.

Programming language issues. Maybe what you should do is study up on Forth and then PostScript and start hand-coding your images.

8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides ones to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of all of the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and general action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.

That might be cool.

Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would like to see is the ability to save history with your file.

You can do that now. See this?

2005-04-17T18:06:42-06:00 File Untitled-1 opened
Make New: document
Preset: "4 x 6"

New Layer
Make layer
Type Tool
Make text layer Using: text layer
Text: "Show this dreamer what’s up."
Warp: Warp
Style: None
Bend: 0
Vertical Distortion: 0
Horizontal Distortion: 0
Axis: horizontal
Text Click Point: 29%, 33.2%
Text Gridding: none
Orientation: horizontal
Anti-alias: sharp
Text Shape: Text Shape list
Text Shape
Text Shape Type: point
Text Orientation: horizontal
Transform: transform
xx: 1
xy: 0
yx: 0
yy: 1
tx: 0
ty: 0
Row Count: 1
Column Count: 1
With Use Row Major Order
Row Gutter: 0 points
Column Gutter: 0 points
Column Spacing: 0 points
First Line Alignment: Ascent
First Line Minimum Height: 0 points
Base: 0, 0
Style Range: style range list
style range
From: 0
To: 5
style: text style
PostScript Name: "Arial-Black"
Font Name: "Arial Black"
Font Style: "Regular"
Script: 0
Font Technology: 1
Size: 48 points
Horizontal Scale: 90
Vertical Scale: 100
Without Faux Bold
Without Faux Italic
With Auto-Leading
Tracking: 0
Baseline Shift: 0 points
0
Auto Kern: metrics
Font Caps Option: normal
Baseline Position: normal
Open Type Baseline Position: normal
Strikethrough: Strikethrough Off
Underline: Underline Off
Underline Offset: 0 points
With Use Ligatures
Without Use Alternate Ligatures
true
false
Without Use Oldstyle
Without Use Fractions
Without Use Ordinals
Without Use Swash Characters
Without Use Titling Characters
With Use Contextual Alternates
Without Use Stylistic Alternates
Without Use Ornaments
Figure Style: normal
Without Use Proportional Metrics
Without Use Kana
Without Use Italics
false
Baseline Direction: with stream
Text Language: English: USA
Japanese Alternate: Default Form
Tsume: 0
Grid Alignment: roman
false
2
0
0.5
2
2
Auto Justify
0
0
-0.2 points
-0.2 points

FWIW, there are hooks into CS to deal further with histories and actions, but I am not sure how far we can get into that without violating the license.
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

I can’t comment on unannounced products or versions of products.

Oh yes?! You already did.

Nope.
Not a bit.

You should be answering that way EARLIER. You accused me with lying from the begining of this thread, and you allowed yourself to express your denial in public. I suspect more and more, that, what was conveyed to me about Photoshop 3D is correct in many aspects. I wonder why you were upset? What’s wrong with adding 3D capabilities and call that MAJOR UPGRADE?

Because you really have no idea what we’re doing in the next few releases.

However, adding new (many) features or changing a
substancial part of software structure is a MAJOR upgrade.

Like, oh – maybe teaching Photoshop how to deal with floating point pixels?
Changing the way placed files work so that they can be re-edited? Adding new ways to sharpen images?
Adding new ways to reduce noise in images?

These facts
are well-known. For example Autocolor, filter composition, highlight/shadow, cannot be grouped under the features of MAJOR upgrade.

Why not?
AutoColor is sort of old technology.
But Shadow & Highlight was very much new technology.

While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade. MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a third party.

That’s one weird definition you’ve got there.

I don’t know if there is other than Chris and Marc (from Adobe) who can convince people that PS CS2 is not a MINOR upgrade, and that Photoshop is about to add 3D features VERY SOON.

Well, those of us here on planet earth know better.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:

Oh please. A dozen separate formal reviews all came to the exact same conclusion: 6.0 should have been called 5.5.

As I recall (and I have most of the reviews archived) there were only 2 reviews that said that. And both were written by people who say that for EVERY release of Photoshop.

Chris

You recall wrong. People were complaining all over the place when it was being released. Google for it.

I already did – and the only negatives I found were the same 2 bad reviews that I already knew about.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:
In article <US25e.1925$>, Rick
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

MAJOR upgrades of Photoshop are really done in a cycle of three to four years.

No, every major version number change of Photoshop is a major release with major new features.

Hey Chris, did you recently get transferred to Adobe’s marketing department? No one in their right mind would claim PS5 to PS6 was a major upgrade.

Sorry it didn’t seem to meet your needs – what are they? The fact 6.0 broke all sales records for all Photoshop versions up to that point for the entire time it was on the market meant a large number of people felt it was worth it for them.

–marc

That’s down to good marketing – nothing to do with new features. PS is *very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just rehashes of old ones).

Wow.
Where did you get that idea?

I really like PS, but it’s really expensive for
what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all.

It may not offer you much.
But it does offer a lot to photographers, movie and special effects folks, designers, web designers, printers, etc.

There are NO NEW features –

OK, that’s GOT to be a troll.
Nobody’s that dumb.

the ones they claim to be new are things you could
already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in.

Really?
How exactly do you get Photoshop to use floating point pixels (HDR) with a plugin?

All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again.

Bullshit.
Again.

There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two versions either.

Yep – this has to be a troll.
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

I wish that Adobe Photoshop people recognise these contributions and write a credit for the people who suggested them. As far as I am concerned I hereby declare that I will claim no financial advantage whatsoever from Adobe if they mention a credit for me that I am the creator of those ideas, or recognise the favor of whose created it if it wasn’t me.

Do we have to list every one of the thousands of people who requested the same feature?

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article <wST6e.14267$>, No You Spam Me
Sucker wrote:

I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for.

Which is complete Bullshit.

Otherwise based on the shear number of
times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.

And just how many terrabytes of storage do you have available to hold that?

2. Being able to save history as an action.

Sounds nice, but I’ve explained several times that history and actions ARE NOT THE SAME and history doesn’t have the information necessary to make an action.

3. Conditional statements in actions.

RTFM Scripting

4. Password protection of action source code.

And everyone else has asked: "why"?

5. Live filters

Sounds good in theory.
But just doesn’t work on large images.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article <R3m8e.14972$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Just read Adobe’s over user to user forums. While this is not the most direct route to Adobe there have been Adobe personal in these forums that say they do read them and pass the info along.

It seems to die at that stage however. It is really quite easy to see what user’s want and it shouldn’t be that hard for Adobe to figure this out if they really gave a crap. Which I am sure they don’t.

Which is at odds with how many user requested features we add in every release….

I myself have spent a great deal of time sharing my ideas with Adobe. Generally I refrain from suggesting a feature that wouldn’t be useful for a wide range of users.
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 18, 2005
In article <5fm8e.14973$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Take adjustment layers and apply that technology to say the lens flare filter, noise filter, ripple filter, etc. Basically, making the special effects filters live. Adobe personal have said I don’t know how many times that this is not possible with today’s computer technology. That it would slow the program down too much.

And they’re right.

Yet, I know of at least one other program
that offers this and allows it to work are large images without any problems. That program is Canvas from what used to be Deneba Software which is now ACDSystems. I have loaded 50MB, 100MB, 200MB and 500MB images in to Canvas and had no problems using live filters with them. This on a Pentium 4
2.8 Ghz with 1GB of RAM.

I’ve used Canvas.
That’s about as far as you can get from "without any problems".

Adobe’s response to most suggestions is that it is either a stupid idea (not in so many words of course)

Because nobody from Adobe has ever said that.
You’re reading something into their statements which doesn’t exist.

no one would want it (even when it has been
requests hundreds of times before) or it isn’t possible or my favorite it would take a re-write of the program to get it to work that way, that Photoshop wasn’t designed with that in mind. I have gotten this response several times when asking for the ability to save history with your file as well as the ability to save history as an action.

No you haven’t.
You’ve gotten pretty detailed explanations of why it doesn’t work that way and why it really shouldn’t work that way.

Adobe does pretty much what they want.

Um, no.
We do what the customers want and sneed.

I think a good example in CS2 is the
new perspective tools. I don’t recall in since Adobe opened their user to user forums ever seeing these features asked for. If they were it wasn’t more than once or twice. Now this is not to use they won’t turn out to be useful, but there are many other features that have been asked for hundreds of times that we are still waiting for.

And you think the user to user forums are the ONLY feedback Adobe has from it’s customers?

My suggestion is to read the feature request forums of Adobe’s starting after CS2 is released and just keep a general idea of what is and isn’t asked for between then and when CS3 is released. You will find that by and large 95% of the requests are ignored even for features that are asked for over and over and over again.

I don’t know what forums you’re reading – but Adobe is implementing an awful lot of what’s been reqeusted.

I have been doing this since Adobe opened the
forums. It has been very interesting.

Yeah, but we still wonder what you’re reading…

If Adobe isn’t going to listen to what people are writing in these forums then I ask why they created them in the first place.

Um, maybe because Adobe DOES listen?

But one would expect that
the most popular features would be added even if it took several versions.

And that is what happens.

Chris
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 18, 2005

"jjs" wrote in message
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

I would like to see Adobe update Photoshop so that actions are more powerful. This would include…

1. Being able to save history as an action.
2. Add conditional statements to actions (if/then/else, do/while, etc.)

Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and Programmable.

Yes it would and that is why it will never happen. Adobe doesn’t have the balls needed for doing such a major overhaul of the application. They would rather keep milking a dieing cow instead of getting a new one.

3. Add password protection to keep people from viewing and altering actions source code (this has nothing to do with stopping people from running the action, just looking at the steps and changing them).

So you can sell Adobe actions, no doubt. Well, nothing will stop the hackers from busting it, so forget that one.

No I have no interest in selling actions. I have several interesting things I would like to release free as actions but don’t want people looking or messing with the code. As for hackers, sure nothing is unbreakable, but it helps with the majority of people who are honest.

4. Add an action editor so that it is easier for people to edit actions. As it is right now it is often easier if not mandatory that one re-record the action instead of editing problems.

So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language structure.

No. This is where being able to add an recorded action easily would be nice. You could simply insert an if/then statement and tell the action if it does this then continue playing from here, etc. No programming language required. In fact you could fix it quite easily so you could just point to the statement that it should branch off to.
5. Allow the inclusion of a small thumbnail image with action so that in the action palette you see this thumbnail that shows what the action does when it is played and completed. This would make it easier to keep track of what an action does.

No fucking way, Jose. If you edit the action, PS would have no way to re-render the thumbnail, and besides, changes usually cascade to the next, and so-on, so all the thumbnails would have to be re-rendered. And people are irritated by having to re-run actions?

I never said Photoshop would generate the thumbnail. The author of the action creates the thumbnail as say a .JPG image and you just tell Photoshop where it is and it embeds it in to the action file. If you edit the action and don’t update the thumbnail in it, then that is your problem. Photoshop besides embeding it in the action doesn’t do anything else with it, that is except show it.
6. Allow besides the name of the action a description of the action as well.

That would be cool.

7. Expand actions so that they record or can be set (with a preference option) to record everything a user does including all brush strokes, etc. This along with the conditional statements would make it easier to create more powerful actions.

Programming language issues. Maybe what you should do is study up on Forth and then PostScript and start hand-coding your images.

Don’t be stupid. Just look at Corel Painter. Corel Painter records everything including brush strokes. You can actually create its version of an action that paints a picture and you can watch it do it as it does.
8. I would like to see a new view added to the actions palette (besides ones to show thumbnails, description, etc.) that was like a tree view of all of the installed actions and allow for easier folder creation and general action organization. Kind of like Windows Explorer for actions.

That might be cool.

Well, this is what I would like to see most. My second top feature I would like to see is the ability to save history with your file.

You can do that now. See this?

Again, don’t be stupid. This file is worthless. You can’t doing anything useful with it. It isn’t saved as part of the image file and it isn’t undoable after loading up the image. For example saying you clone out a horse from a field, save the file as a PSD file and later decide that you want the horse back. You have now way of using this text crap to undo the cloning out of the horse.

I want real history saving not this worthless half-assed crap that Adobe added as a patch/joke.

2005-04-17T18:06:42-06:00 File Untitled-1 opened
Make New: document
Preset: "4 x 6"

New Layer
Make layer
Type Tool
Make text layer Using: text layer
Text: "Show this dreamer what’s up."
Warp: Warp
Style: None
Bend: 0
Vertical Distortion: 0
Horizontal Distortion: 0
Axis: horizontal
Text Click Point: 29%, 33.2%
Text Gridding: none
Orientation: horizontal
Anti-alias: sharp
Text Shape: Text Shape list
Text Shape
Text Shape Type: point
Text Orientation: horizontal
Transform: transform
xx: 1
xy: 0
yx: 0
yy: 1
tx: 0
ty: 0
Row Count: 1
Column Count: 1
With Use Row Major Order
Row Gutter: 0 points
Column Gutter: 0 points
Column Spacing: 0 points
First Line Alignment: Ascent
First Line Minimum Height: 0 points
Base: 0, 0
Style Range: style range list
style range
From: 0
To: 5
style: text style
PostScript Name: "Arial-Black"
Font Name: "Arial Black"
Font Style: "Regular"
Script: 0
Font Technology: 1
Size: 48 points
Horizontal Scale: 90
Vertical Scale: 100
Without Faux Bold
Without Faux Italic
With Auto-Leading
Tracking: 0
Baseline Shift: 0 points
0
Auto Kern: metrics
Font Caps Option: normal
Baseline Position: normal
Open Type Baseline Position: normal
Strikethrough: Strikethrough Off
Underline: Underline Off
Underline Offset: 0 points
With Use Ligatures
Without Use Alternate Ligatures
true
false
Without Use Oldstyle
Without Use Fractions
Without Use Ordinals
Without Use Swash Characters
Without Use Titling Characters
With Use Contextual Alternates
Without Use Stylistic Alternates
Without Use Ornaments
Figure Style: normal
Without Use Proportional Metrics
Without Use Kana
Without Use Italics
false
Baseline Direction: with stream
Text Language: English: USA
Japanese Alternate: Default Form
Tsume: 0
Grid Alignment: roman
false
2
0
0.5
2
2
Auto Justify
0
0
-0.2 points
-0.2 points

FWIW, there are hooks into CS to deal further with histories and actions, but I am not sure how far we can get into that without violating the license.
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 18, 2005
Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that it was savable.

As for history and actions not being the same. Again it is because Adobe half assed it and took short-cuts to adding them instead of doing it right. Had you even thought for half a second you would have seen it coming that these are things people would want to do, these are natural feature desires given history and actions.

You keep running the same lame ass excuses you always do. Adobe hasn’t added a feature to Photoshop in years that wasn’t done in a half-assed way. Take Filter Gallery. You make it big, slow and a pain in the ass. Do you bother to think that hay we added layering capabilities to it so we might want to add opacity controls and blending modes as well. After all these are features people use often when layering things together. Just another example of a half-assed feature and one that you didn’t even bother to fix so you can turn the thing off.

I think it is time that Adobe gets new programmers and marketing people. The ones they have had their heads up their asses for far too long. Too many brain cells have died for oxygen to do any good now.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article <wST6e.14267$>, No You Spam Me
Sucker wrote:

I have found the opposite to be true. I have found that Adobe rarely listens
to what customers want and in fact have added overall very few of the features that users have asked for.

Which is complete Bullshit.

Otherwise based on the shear number of
times people asked for…

1. Being able to save the history with the document.

And just how many terrabytes of storage do you have available to hold that?

2. Being able to save history as an action.

Sounds nice, but I’ve explained several times that history and actions ARE NOT THE SAME and history doesn’t have the information necessary to make an action.

3. Conditional statements in actions.

RTFM Scripting

4. Password protection of action source code.

And everyone else has asked: "why"?

5. Live filters

Sounds good in theory.
But just doesn’t work on large images.

Chris
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 18, 2005
The problem is that you never see any body asking for them. I don’t know who these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it doesn’t look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.

If you are going looking to professionals, then it is high time Adobe start looking at all of their users and not just the 10% of professionals. Professionals are important too but there are more intermediate and hobbyists using Photoshop than professionals. You keep ignoring them and you are just killing the product.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article <R3m8e.14972$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Just read Adobe’s over user to user forums. While this is not the most direct route to Adobe there have been Adobe personal in these forums that say they do read them and pass the info along.

It seems to die at that stage however. It is really quite easy to see what
user’s want and it shouldn’t be that hard for Adobe to figure this out if they really gave a crap. Which I am sure they don’t.

Which is at odds with how many user requested features we add in every release….

I myself have spent a great deal of time sharing my ideas with Adobe. Generally I refrain from suggesting a feature that wouldn’t be useful for a
wide range of users.
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 18, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

……..While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR
upgrade.
MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by
a
third party.

That’s one weird definition you’ve got there.

LOL! Don’t be grumpy only! Be constructive and provide us with the right definitions for the concepts MAJOR and MINOR upgrades, as they are understood and adopted by Adobe! I will be more than grateful to learn.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 18, 2005
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have
to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and Programmable.

Yes it would and that is why it will never happen. Adobe doesn’t have the balls needed >for doing such a major overhaul of the application. They would rather keep milking a >dieing cow instead of getting a new one.

Please share with us your programming experience.

No I have no interest in selling actions. I have several interesting things I would like to >release free as actions but don’t want people looking or messing with the code.

I don’t buy that rationalization. If you were as generous as you expect Adobe to be, you would leave it open.

So now Actions will have to be represented as a programming language structure.

No. This is where being able to add an recorded action easily would be nice. You could >simply insert an if/then statement and tell the action if it does this then continue playing >from here, etc. No programming language required. In fact you could fix it quite easily >so you could just point to the statement that it should branch off to.

You don’t understand the problem.

Don’t be stupid. Just look at Corel Painter. Corel Painter records everything including >brush strokes. You can actually create its version of an action that paints a picture and >you can watch it do it as it does.

How does that differ from CS?

You can do that now. See this?

Again, don’t be stupid. This file is worthless. You can’t doing anything useful with it. It >isn’t saved as part of the image file

Yes it is. It is in the Metadata.

and it isn’t undoable after loading up the image.
For example saying you clone out a horse from a field, save the file as a PSD file and >later decide that you want the horse back. You have now way of using this text crap to >undo the cloning out of the horse.

Why don’t you use file versioning like mature image developers do?
J
jjs
Apr 18, 2005
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message
Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that it was savable.

Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.
S
Stephan
Apr 18, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:
In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

That’s down to good marketing – nothing to do with new features. PS is *very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just rehashes of old ones).

Wow.
Where did you get that idea?

I really like PS, but it’s really expensive for
what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all.

It may not offer you much.
But it does offer a lot to photographers, movie and special effects folks, designers, web designers, printers, etc.

There are NO NEW features –

OK, that’s GOT to be a troll.
Nobody’s that dumb.

the ones they claim to be new are things you could
already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in.

Really?
How exactly do you get Photoshop to use floating point pixels (HDR) with a plugin?

All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again.

Bullshit.
Again.

There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two versions either.

Yep – this has to be a troll.

Are you really Chris Cox from Adobe?
Is that how Adobe treats their customers?
I just can’t believe my eyes…

Stephan
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 18, 2005
How about 42 years both for the government and private sector. Can you program a computer using punch cards? I can and much much more.

"jjs" wrote in message
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have
to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and Programmable.

Yes it would and that is why it will never happen. Adobe doesn’t have the balls needed >for doing such a major overhaul of the application. They would rather keep milking a >dieing cow instead of getting a new one.

Please share with us your programming experience.
LB
Little Bopeeps Sheep
Apr 18, 2005
Chris has always had a very obnoxious attitude when dealing with Adobe customers. He one of those that should be kept away from the public as he reflects very poorly on Adobe and what Adobe thinks of their customers, their wants, needs and suggestions.

"Stephan" wrote in message
Chris Cox wrote:
In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

That’s down to good marketing – nothing to do with new features. PS is *very* slow at introducing *really* new features (rather than just rehashes of old ones).

Wow.
Where did you get that idea?

I really like PS, but it’s really expensive for what it is and frankly CS2 does not offer much new at all.

It may not offer you much.
But it does offer a lot to photographers, movie and special effects folks, designers, web designers, printers, etc.

There are NO NEW features –

OK, that’s GOT to be a troll.
Nobody’s that dumb.

the ones they claim to be new are things you could already do by hand without having to use a 3rd party program or plug in.

Really?
How exactly do you get Photoshop to use floating point pixels (HDR) with a plugin?

All they have done is make it easier, and rehash a few features. Again.

Bullshit.
Again.

There is no inovation. But there was no inovation with the last two versions either.

Yep – this has to be a troll.

Are you really Chris Cox from Adobe?
Is that how Adobe treats their customers?
I just can’t believe my eyes…

Stephan
H
Hecate
Apr 18, 2005
On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

……..While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR
upgrade.
MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by
a
third party.

That’s one weird definition you’ve got there.

LOL! Don’t be grumpy only! Be constructive and provide us with the right definitions for the concepts MAJOR and MINOR upgrades, as they are understood and adopted by Adobe! I will be more than grateful to learn.
Let me save you the time:

Major Upgrade: A feature that you want

Minor Upgrade: A feature that other people want.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
C
Chris
Apr 19, 2005
Wow. As soon as Photoshop is available as a stack of cards, you’ll be set.

In article <dCV8e.15127$>,
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote:

How about 42 years both for the government and private sector. Can you program a computer using punch cards? I can and much much more.

"jjs" wrote in message
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

Now that would, indeed, take a huge rewrite because the history would have
to be represented as a programming language. Recordable, Scriptable and Programmable.

Yes it would and that is why it will never happen. Adobe doesn’t have the balls needed >for doing such a major overhaul of the application. They would rather keep milking a >dieing cow instead of getting a new one.

Please share with us your programming experience.


C
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 19, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" Let me save you the time:

Major Upgrade: A feature that you want

I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people know about that.

Minor Upgrade: A feature that other people want.

Oh hecate, cool down….. Let Chris answer, he is an authority.. I want to know the answer from him. Please, let him answer himself (if he dares to)… 😉

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
R
Ron
Apr 19, 2005
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
Hecate wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" Let me save you the time:

Major Upgrade: A feature that you want

I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people know about that.

You’re joking, right? How do you know you were the first person to suggest anything? E.g. image warping has been around at least since Kai’s Power Tools ver. 3 (circa 1996), and most likely well before that. You definitely were not the first one to suggest adding something similar to PS.
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 19, 2005
In article <dCV8e.15127$>,
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote:
How about 42 years both for the government and private sector. Can you program a computer using punch cards? I can and much much more.

That’s supposed to be a good thing?
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 19, 2005
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message

I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people know about that.

Step back and consider the fact that this newsgroup is but a small sample of CS users. People all over the world have input to Adobe. The fact that you, a member of the smaller sample, have made a suggestion indicates a high probability that other people also made the same suggestion.
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 19, 2005
Rick wrote:
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
message
Hecate wrote:
You’re joking, right? How do you know you were the first person to suggest anything? E.g. image warping has been around at least since Kai’s Power Tools ver. 3 (circa 1996), and most likely well before that.

Definitely, Image Warping or image distortion tools existed in other software long before I suggested anything at all! LOL. However, Image Warping in the concept and the methodology introduced to Photoshop CS2 was suggested by me in March 2002. I have published this article:

http://members.fortunecity.com/dabbagh/photoshop/

You may read paragraphs 2-1 which indicate the way of achieving this. It wasn’t an original idea in vector software (as it was there in KPT vector filters for Illustrator), but it was an original idea for Adobe Photoshop.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
S
Stephan
Apr 19, 2005
Little Bopeeps Sheep wrote:
Chris has always had a very obnoxious attitude when dealing with Adobe customers. He one of those that should be kept away from the public as he reflects very poorly on Adobe and what Adobe thinks of their customers, their wants, needs and suggestions.

Until recently I found his answers helpful.
Lately he became incredibly rude, if I was his boss and came across his latest postings I’d fire him on the spot.

Stephan
S
Stephan
Apr 19, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

snip<

While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade. MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a third party.

That’s one weird definition you’ve got there.

No, it’s a very good definition indeed.
What is weird is the way you, representing Adobe, are treating customers, openly treating them like idiots when they dare suggesting that your product is not "perfect" or that some major upgrades are in fact minor.
Maybe you should go back to what you do best and have a colleague more skilled in dealing with customers take your place here.

Stephan
J
jjs
Apr 19, 2005
"Stephan" wrote in message
Little Bopeeps Sheep wrote:
Chris has always had a very obnoxious attitude when dealing with Adobe customers. He one of those that should be kept away from the public as he reflects very poorly on Adobe and what Adobe thinks of their customers, their wants, needs and suggestions.

Until recently I found his answers helpful.
Lately he became incredibly rude, if I was his boss and came across his latest postings I’d fire him on the spot.

Aw, give him some slack. Or, if you like, hack his name out of the credits. :()
H
Hecate
Apr 19, 2005
On 19 Apr 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote:

Hecate wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" Let me save you the time:

Major Upgrade: A feature that you want

I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people know about that.

Minor Upgrade: A feature that other people want.

Oh hecate, cool down….. Let Chris answer, he is an authority.. I want to know the answer from him. Please, let him answer himself (if he dares to)… 😉
It’s nothing to do with me being angry – it’s a simple given – people will consider anything they want to be a major upgrade and anything they don’t want to be a minor upgrade. You see it all the time when people don’t get what they want…



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Apr 19, 2005
On 19 Apr 2005 10:52:31 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote:

Rick wrote:
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
message
Hecate wrote:
You’re joking, right? How do you know you were the first person to suggest anything? E.g. image warping has been around at least since Kai’s Power Tools ver. 3 (circa 1996), and most likely well before that.

Definitely, Image Warping or image distortion tools existed in other software long before I suggested anything at all! LOL. However, Image Warping in the concept and the methodology introduced to Photoshop CS2 was suggested by me in March 2002. I have published this article:
http://members.fortunecity.com/dabbagh/photoshop/

You may read paragraphs 2-1 which indicate the way of achieving this. It wasn’t an original idea in vector software (as it was there in KPT vector filters for Illustrator), but it was an original idea for Adobe Photoshop.
Now you’re being silly. That you, on a particular group, which is a small subset of the number of people who make suggestions to Adobe, are solely responsible for the inclusion of this is ridiculous. In case you hadn’t noticed, software companies take ideas from other software companies all the time, and, as has already been pointed out to you, this idea has been around for a long, long time.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
S
Stephan
Apr 20, 2005
Little Bopeeps Sheep wrote:
The problem is that you never see any body asking for them. I don’t know who these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it doesn’t look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.
If you are going looking to professionals, then it is high time Adobe start looking at all of their users and not just the 10% of professionals. Professionals are important too but there are more intermediate and hobbyists using Photoshop than professionals. You keep ignoring them and you are just killing the product.

No, for "users" Adobe offers Elements.
Photoshop should stay what it is, a tool for the pros.

Stephan
S
Stephan
Apr 20, 2005
jjs wrote:
"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that it was savable.

Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.

Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.

Stephan
B
Brian
Apr 20, 2005
Stephan wrote:
jjs wrote:

"Little Bopeeps Sheep" wrote in message

Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that it was savable.

Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.

Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.

Stephan

Fair comment. 🙂
J
jscheimpflug
Apr 20, 2005
"Stephan" wrote in message
jjs wrote:
Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.

Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.

Nope. It’s more like suggesting to someone that they learn how to cook before demanding impossible receipes.
B
Brian
Apr 20, 2005
jjs wrote:
"Stephan" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.

Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.

Nope. It’s more like suggesting to someone that they learn how to cook before demanding impossible receipes.
fair comment too 🙂
S
Stephan
Apr 20, 2005
jjs wrote:
"Stephan" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

Dear Sheep:

Show us by example with your impressive computer programming expertise.

Stupid answer.
Like saying you need to be a cook to determine if the meal tastes like crap.

Nope. It’s more like suggesting to someone that they learn how to cook before demanding impossible receipes.

Nope too.The recipes in this case are not impossible at all. Little Bopeepes Sheep was talking about features other software makers now how to cook!
Ketchup or marinated tomatoes, chose your style…

Stephan
F
Fungusamungus
Apr 22, 2005
I haven’t been hanging around too much, and missed most of this discussion, but from what I can gather of it:

Photoshop can cook for you now too? Hot damn! A graphic designing bachelor’s dream!

:
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 25, 2005
In article <XVG8e.15047$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

The problem is that you never see any body asking for them. I don’t know who these people are that you are going to for feature suggestions but it doesn’t look like they are anyone we see here or on your own forums.

They’re users, sometimes at large companies, sometimes individuals. But we keep in contact with many users through many different channels.

Not everyone has time to hang out in the forums all day.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 25, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Hecate wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 02:08:12 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" Let me save you the time:

Major Upgrade: A feature that you want

I am stunned because Adobe has adopted many ideas that were first suggested by me, and without any credit. Do you want to know what ideas where first suggested by me: ok: one idea is Image Warp that is introduced in CS2, and I suggested it since March 2002 and many people know about that.

I have yet to see any features "first suggested" by you. Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years (I know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).
We have many users, and we talk to them through many forums.

Most features fall into two categories: things that lots of people have requested, and things that are so new in concept that nobody has asked for them because they don’t even know it’s possible.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 25, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Rick wrote:
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in
message
Hecate wrote:
You’re joking, right? How do you know you were the first person to suggest anything? E.g. image warping has been around at least since Kai’s Power Tools ver. 3 (circa 1996), and most likely well before that.

Definitely, Image Warping or image distortion tools existed in other software long before I suggested anything at all! LOL. However, Image Warping in the concept and the methodology introduced to Photoshop CS2 was suggested by me in March 2002. I have published this article:
http://members.fortunecity.com/dabbagh/photoshop/

You may read paragraphs 2-1 which indicate the way of achieving this. It wasn’t an original idea in vector software (as it was there in KPT vector filters for Illustrator), but it was an original idea for Adobe Photoshop.

BTW – the code we’re using for the basis of the warping code is older than 2002.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 25, 2005
In article <wRc9e.684$>, Stephan
wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

snip<

While Layer Styles, 16-bit Layers, 64-bit programming, code optimization in a different criteria are all considered MAJOR upgrade. MAJOR upgrades are the upgrades that CANNOT be added as plug-ins by a third party.

That’s one weird definition you’ve got there.

No, it’s a very good definition indeed.
What is weird is the way you, representing Adobe, are treating customers, openly treating them like idiots when they dare suggesting that your product is not "perfect" or that some major upgrades are in fact minor.

I don’t treat too many people like idiots — people have to go well out of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one. By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Apr 25, 2005
In article <XTG8e.15046$>, Little Bopeeps
Sheep wrote:

Chris, the only reason that you would have to have terabytes to save history with a document now is because Adobe fucked the dog when they added history. Instead of doing it right they did it quick, dirty and sloppy like some half-assed patch. If it had been fully integrated in the product at a core level instead of an add-on history would have been done in such a way that it was savable.

No, it’s done far better than anyone else has been able to do such a feature. (and got a few patents for the methods used to make it so much better)
Once again, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

As for history and actions not being the same. Again it is because Adobe half assed it and took short-cuts to adding them instead of doing it right.

No, again.
They’re intended to do very different things – and they do.

Had you even thought for half a second you would have seen it coming that these are things people would want to do, these are natural feature desires given history and actions.

Not if you’ve actually learned what they are and what they do.

You keep running the same lame ass excuses you always do. Adobe hasn’t added a feature to Photoshop in years that wasn’t done in a half-assed way.

Sorry, but the other several million users seem to disagree.

Chris
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 25, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:

Do we have to list every one of the thousands of people who requested the same feature?

Who was the first to mention (in public) any idea, is the one really entitled to a credit.

Another thing I don’t really know: What is the approximate number of Photoshop users in the whole world. Are there some approximate figures along the years? I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in 1998 didn’t exceed 5000 in the whole world… Is that true? Can anyone provide an approximate toll for Photoshop users?

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
B
Brian
Apr 25, 2005
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:
<snip>
I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in
1998 didn’t exceed 5000 in the whole world… Is that true?
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

That sounds like a contradiction to me. "I know…….". Then, "Is that true?"
Well obviously you don’t "know".

Why not drop this whole argument and just enjoy the strengths of the programme.

Regards,
Brian.
S
Stephan
Apr 25, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:

I don’t treat too many people like idiots — people have to go well out of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one. By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.

Since you represent Adobe and these people are CLIENTS you should refrain to treat them like idiots in public places or forums. Ask your boss what he thinks about it.

Stephan
S
SCRUFF
Apr 25, 2005
"Stephan" wrote in message
Chris Cox wrote:

I don’t treat too many people like idiots — people have to go well out of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one. By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.

Since you represent Adobe and these people are CLIENTS you should refrain to treat them like idiots in public places or forums. Ask your boss what he thinks about it.

Stephan

Didn’t he just write that he doesn’t do that?
D
Dave
Apr 25, 2005
On 25 Apr 2005 01:34:16 -0700, "Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote:

I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in
1998 didn’t exceed 5000 in the whole world… Is that true? Can anyone provide an approximate toll for Photoshop users?

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

well, I started working on Photoshop in 2003 which of course brings the total up to at least 51000

Dave (sapa)
Senior Amateur Photographer (accredited)
H
Hecate
Apr 25, 2005
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:46:53 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:

I don’t treat too many people like idiots — people have to go well out of their way to prove their idiocy before I will treat them like one. By default I treat everyone as an intelligent, rational human being.

Since you represent Adobe and these people are CLIENTS you should refrain to treat them like idiots in public places or forums. Ask your boss what he thinks about it.
Sorry, but I’m with Chris – a client who’s a real idiot is still an idiot. I don’t know about you, but I’m not so desperate that I need idiots as clients – and as far as Adobe is concerned, there is a good alternative for idiots – Microsoft PictureS*IT or whatever they’re calling it now.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 26, 2005
Brian wrote:

That sounds like a contradiction to me. "I know…….". Then, "Is
that
true?"
Well obviously you don’t "know".

Why not drop this whole argument and just enjoy the strengths of the programme.

Oh Brian! I wish I can have a specific answer about that from Chris. He is an authority, and should state the right approximation.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
MA
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Apr 26, 2005
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
J
jjs
Apr 26, 2005
"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

The feature in question (perspective cloning) is questionable (IMHO) and is available elsewhere as a plug-in. I certainly see it as a very limited-use thing and I’m not at all unhappy that Adobe waited to incorporate it. Other things were far, far more important.

Methinks the suggestions for more advanced prepress features was more important but you haven’t mentioned them recently.
CC
Chris Cox
May 1, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

He’s a power user, and he was using third party plugins to accomplish his warping even then.

But it wasn’t something that most users needed until relatively recently (as people become more and more sophisticated about what they want to do with their images). And the cost of doing it right — well, it took one engineer most of the development cycle to get it done (and even then, we didn’t get it meshed with SmartObjects as well as I would have liked).

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
May 1, 2005
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:

Do we have to list every one of the thousands of people who requested the same feature?

Who was the first to mention (in public) any idea, is the one really entitled to a credit.

In which case I’d have to go back many years and see who developed the first image warping. But I’m pretty sure Wolberg’s "Digital Image Warping" book predates any user requests. And I think I recall a mesh warp morphing program from around 1990.

Another thing I don’t really know: What is the approximate number of Photoshop users in the whole world. Are there some approximate figures along the years? I know that the maximum number of Photoshop users in 1998 didn’t exceed 5000 in the whole world… Is that true? Can anyone provide an approximate toll for Photoshop users?

1998? There were a few million users in 1998.
1988 was a different story (because Photoshop hadn’t been released yet 😉

Someone from Photoshop Marketing would have to provide the current numbers. And it’s difficult to get accurate numbers, since Photoshop is one of the most heavily pirated applications out there.

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
May 1, 2005
In article
wrote:

"Mohamed Al-Dabbagh" wrote in message
Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

The feature in question (perspective cloning) is questionable (IMHO) and is available elsewhere as a plug-in. I certainly see it as a very limited-use thing and I’m not at all unhappy that Adobe waited to incorporate it. Other things were far, far more important.

Actually, the feature in question was warping.

Methinks the suggestions for more advanced prepress features was more important but you haven’t mentioned them recently.

The really advanced features are hard to justify – because when we introduce them, very few people will be using them (HDR anyone?). But there can be long term reasons to introduce the technology and get people started using it, or helping certain niche user segments simplify their work. And what the high-end users are doing today, the average user will probably want to do in 3 to 5 years time.

Our features are always a balance of time (how long will it take to develop this into something that works right), demand (customers want it), need (customers haven’t said they want it, but it fills a workflow gap that we see from many customers), and availability (Are desktop computers fast enough to do this now? Does anyone actually have a solution to this difficult problem? Does this problem have a stable solution at all? etc.). There are lots of things that we’d like to do – but we can’t do all of them at once, and some of them just aren’t ready for prime time.

Chris
DC
Don Cole
Jul 3, 2005
Come on Gang, lets back off of Chris.

Yes he is arrogant, but what programmer that you know isn’t.

Yes he is blunt and to the point. I like someone to be up front with me and tell me like it is.

I have been reading the Photoshop newsgroups for more then a decade and I have
never seen where he has called people names. Unless it is with I think Timo and they
can not find a common ground on "Color Management"

For those of you that have made recommendations that have been incorporated into the
program is that not recognition enough?

As the man from Independence said
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." – Harry S Truman

Lets let Chris get back to work unless you have a bug to report or a question about the operation of the program.

Maybe he is working on an up-date for us!

Don

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

He’s a power user, and he was using third party plugins to accomplish his warping even then.

But it wasn’t something that most users needed until relatively recently (as people become more and more sophisticated about what they want to do with their images). And the cost of doing it right — well, it took one engineer most of the development cycle to get it done (and even then, we didn’t get it meshed with SmartObjects as well as I would have liked).

Chris
OC
Oliver Costich
Jul 3, 2005
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:50:57 GMT, "Don Cole"
wrote:

Come on Gang, lets back off of Chris.

Yes he is arrogant, but what programmer that you know isn’t.

Almost all of them that I know or who have worked for me. The few arrogant ones weren’t nearly as good as they though they were.
Yes he is blunt and to the point. I like someone to be up front with me and tell me like it is.

I have been reading the Photoshop newsgroups for more then a decade and I have
never seen where he has called people names. Unless it is with I think Timo and they
can not find a common ground on "Color Management"
For those of you that have made recommendations that have been incorporated into the
program is that not recognition enough?

As the man from Independence said
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." – Harry S Truman

Lets let Chris get back to work unless you have a bug to report or a question about the operation of the program.

Maybe he is working on an up-date for us!

Don

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

He’s a power user, and he was using third party plugins to accomplish his warping even then.

But it wasn’t something that most users needed until relatively recently (as people become more and more sophisticated about what they want to do with their images). And the cost of doing it right — well, it took one engineer most of the development cycle to get it done (and even then, we didn’t get it meshed with SmartObjects as well as I would have liked).

Chris
S
Scruff
Jul 3, 2005
Isn’t he a big enough boy to decide all that on his own?

"Don Cole" wrote in message
Come on Gang, lets back off of Chris.

Yes he is arrogant, but what programmer that you know isn’t.
Yes he is blunt and to the point. I like someone to be up front with me and tell me like it is.

I have been reading the Photoshop newsgroups for more then a decade and I have
never seen where he has called people names. Unless it is with I think
Timo
and they
can not find a common ground on "Color Management"
For those of you that have made recommendations that have been
incorporated
into the
program is that not recognition enough?

As the man from Independence said
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." – Harry S Truman

Lets let Chris get back to work unless you have a bug to report or a question about the operation of the program.

Maybe he is working on an up-date for us!

Don

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
In article ,
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh wrote:

Chris Cox wrote:
In article ,

Warping is something that people have been asking for for many years
(I
know one prominant user who has been beating me up about it since 1995).

Poor that user…. So the feature were asked for since 1995… Now I understand how responsive you are (Photoshop guys)… This is one hell of a stunning fact!

He’s a power user, and he was using third party plugins to accomplish his warping even then.

But it wasn’t something that most users needed until relatively recently (as people become more and more sophisticated about what they want to do with their images). And the cost of doing it right — well, it took one engineer most of the development cycle to get it done (and even then, we didn’t get it meshed with SmartObjects as well as I would have liked).

Chris

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections