CS3 news

P
Posted By
Phosphor
Mar 9, 2007
Views
1019
Replies
60
Status
Closed
Go ahead, knickers! Do your thing!

Read-y-y-y-y…S-e-e-e-t….TWIST!

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

DM
dave_milbut
Mar 9, 2007
Photoshop Extended edition? wow. What a crock of sh!t.

I brought that up many moons ago when they first let it "slip" there were going to be multiple version. It does suck. The only way I can think to mitigate it is if they give the current users the same upgrade price to PS EE as they would to the regular version. The premium pricing should be for NEW purchases only.

When we bought into PS and KEPT buying into it by buying the upgrades, were were under the impression that we were getting (and buying into the upgrade path) for the best image editing sw on the planet. If they turn around and say well, you really have the 2nd best, but if you want THE best, it’ll be 50 bux (or whatever) more than the standard upgrade, that’ll REALLY pees me awf! like a feenga in me bum!
G
Gener
Mar 9, 2007
I’m glad they didn’t label it "Photoshop Dweeb" and "Photoshop Cool!" 😀
BL
Bob Levine
Mar 9, 2007
Here we go again…everyone getting ticked off over something that hasn’t happened, yet.

Chill out folks…at least you know when you’ll find out. March 27 it will all be made clear.

Bob
B
Buko
Mar 9, 2007
dave, you really need to see what’s in the extended version before you say anything.

and after you see what is there you need to ask yourself do I really need this.

read what has been released, do you really need the extended features?

If you have tried the Public Beta you Know that the straight up Photoshop CS3 is well worth the upgrade price. Extended is definitely hitting specialized markets. I see Adobe getting a few extra dollars from something very few of us will really use anyway as a bonus. It will save the core users a few bucks and it pays for the extra research that went into these specialized areas when they sell the Extended version to the people who need it.
B
Buko
Mar 9, 2007
What Bob said.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Mar 9, 2007
It was perhaps suggested by a user that not everyone will need 3D and certainly not everyone will need motion graphics and such. So these are expensive things to develop and the market maybe limited in the current user base but might open up the user base for other folks.

For instance in an architectural firm they may have 200-300 or more workstations and 20 of the have Photoshop running one them. As those are the folk that know how to make a 3D model work for presentation and the like and they use Photoshop and this they will all buy.

But and this is a big but…with this capability many of the other workstations can now have this capability that can be used for a design visualization. This looks like it is perfect for this type of scenario.

The motion thing lots of people who do motion graphics don’t necessarily use photoshop but now they have reasons to use it and it can be an important tool for them.

But again it is not something everyone needs,most photographers don’t need it. Probably won’t ever touch it.

And of course Kevin is hoping if he makes a big stink they will somehow get a lot of people to say it stinks and Adobe will give in and say ok everyone gets these capabilities for the same price.

I admire you for your efforts and hope you are successful at this sometime from now and before your final passing! Trust me I am on you side if you’re successful I and my wallet will thank you for it.

What do you think Buko? Aren’t you on his side as well, and that blessing…I am afraid I am disappointed I know you can do better!
RB
Robert_Barnett
Mar 9, 2007
Adobe isn’t splitting anything. They are offers and extended version with features and tools that the vast majority of users that don’t do 3D work or in a science or other such industry will probably never need. Kind of like when Fuji released an IR version of the S3 dSLR for forensics. It wasn’t designed nor intended for everyone.

Geeze people complain about the bloat in Photoshop and now they are complaining because Adobe didn’t bloat it with stuff most people won’t use. Someone needs to make up their mind.

Robert
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Mar 9, 2007
Just wait until you see the price of the extended version. It won’t be cheap, but those who need it will be glad to pay.
JJ
John Joslin
Mar 9, 2007
The word "extended" says it all. It’s an extension of the capabilities of Photoshop for a minority of users.

We should be glad not ranting.
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 9, 2007
dave, you really need to see what’s in the extended version before you say anything.

no, i don’t. i’ve read the same reports as you and everyone else. now don’t make me demote you to bishop! 🙂

and i’m not ticked off. just stating my opinion. i’ll be ticked off if/when adobe wants to charge me more for the top of the line version of photoshop. i’ve been stating the same opinion since they first mentioned versioning photoshop. the non-top-o-the-line photoshop is called "Photoshop Elements". i paid into the top of the line photoshop and should be afforded the top of the line photoshop as an upgrade for the same price as the regular upgrade. or do you think they’ll knock 50 buxs off the standard upgrade price and charge the old upgrade price for the extended version. imo, current users who are upgrading should be automatically be moved into the EE version.

I can’t believe this doesn’t potentially tick more people off here.

Just wait until you see the price of the extended version. It won’t be cheap

exactly my point.
JJ
John Joslin
Mar 9, 2007
But will you want it for any other reason than to have the top-of-the-range product?

I find a hell of a lot of features that have been added since Version 6 have a wow factor and then get forgotten.

Not all of them I hasten to add!
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 9, 2007
But will you want it for any other reason than to have the top-of-the-range product?

maybe, maybe not. i’ll never know if they want to charge me 200 bux more for it will i? my guess is yes, i will want it to use it.
B
Buko
Mar 9, 2007
Kind of like when Fuji released an IR version of the S3 dSLR for forensics. It wasn’t designed nor intended for everyone.

This is the best description yet.

I personally still have not found a use for the extended capabilities. I’m working on it though part of the problem is that I don’t have any 3D software myself and need to get some files from people that do.

Thing is None of us know what the pricing will be, we are all just speculating Those that know can’t say and those that say don’t know
KP
Ken_Pratt
Mar 9, 2007
As I see it Adobe is still upgrading the product to CS3 and giving us more features and it will still be the best 2D imaging product on the planet so what is the problem?

The extended version, with the inclusion of some 3D features, is a new product aimed at a new market and nothing is being taken out of the product we have all bought into.

Some of you must have sleepless nights when a car company slots in a new model above yous in the range. 🙂

Ken
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 9, 2007
in the big scheme of things, is this important? no. is it as much of a PITA as activation? no. does it still add up to one more thing that annoys me? yup.

i’m not losing any sleep. that doesn’t mean i’ll be happy if they release a version that will supersede the one I have and want to charge me more if i want it.

will i pay extra to buy it? probably. will i be happy about it? nope. does adobe (or any big corporation) care when it pisses off loyal customers? generally, nope.

they don’t care one iota. they calculate and spreadsheet and recalculate and pie chart and hope that any losses they incur due to lost customer loyalty will be made up for in the increased $$$ they’ll charge for an extended edition. the days when big companies like adobe actually cared about customer loyalty are long gone. long live the spreadsheets!

<big honkin’ TonyShrug>
D
deebs
Mar 9, 2007
Hmmm – and I thought it was a rather neat development.

Now then, for all the "read between the lines" people out there have a looksee here

<http://www.dx3conference.com/schedule?day=4>

(2:15 pm what’s new in …… )

Adobe and MS as joint sponsors too. Now that really should be an indication of important stuff ahead, yes?
P
povimage
Mar 9, 2007
M$? The people who bought that ridiculous Canon color space system? The people who then wasted years of development time trying to get it to work with Vista (as one more whoring proprietary cash cow), only to shelve it? The same people who are screwing up writing directly to LUTs with Vista, for "security reasons"? The same people who created ICMs simply to remain proprietary and avoid using ICCs?

Oh yeah… I forgot all those great M$ imaging products that all those users use everyday… Like… umm… I forgot because they were so great and ubiquitous. Yup, that’s why we’re all posting this thread on an M$ site, right?.. They understand imaging so well… NOT!

ALL M$ understands is proprietary product and market control. That’s part of why Vista is the last OS they will even develop this way. It’s a dead end.

Sure… Yup, Adobe and M$ teaming up on imaging directions, great idea. What’s next? Leica/Zeiss teaming up with Minolta to sell disposable digital cameras?

UGH!!!

Keith
P
povimage
Mar 9, 2007
From Deebs’ first URL:

"[Q] Overall, did you end up with fewer bugs, more bugs, the same number of bugs fixed faster? Did you have to sacrifice features to work this way?

[A] Some people feared this would mean fewer features. That hasn’t been the case. We certainly had far fewer bugs overall and fewer during mid-cycle (about a third less in total last time I checked). Better quality, plenty of features, fewer nights and weekends: what’s not to like?"

Anyone find it just a trifle suspicious that no-one is talking launch-date bugs?

The bottom line for production environment users is how many bugs are in the Gold version as shipped.

The proof will be in comparisons of the first patches to the initial patches of prior versions. Anything else is pure beancounting and vacation planning for the development team.

Keith
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 9, 2007
I know that if i got up to 20 bugs in test i’d probably be fired. it’s supposed to be "clean" code before we send it to the testers. bugs are inevitable, but that whole conversation sounds funky to me…
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
Mar 10, 2007
Dave,

Dude, check out all the new fearures in Photoshop CS3. All of them. Come back and say you’re still pissed.

And then, tell us why you NEED the extended features, and then, why you can’t justify the extra price.

Anything else, and you’re moaning about something that is actually really great.
P
povimage
Mar 10, 2007
…and which definition of "upgrade" says "..only the features we think you need. Need more features, pay us more." ?

Just wondering?

Adobe is pulling an outright marketing & accounting end-run on the very meaning of the term "upgrade."

Should I mention the separation between different Photoshop product development teams? (Which explains, for example, why Lightroom settings may not always transfer seamlessly to RAW) The word "Photoshop" is simply being blatantly leveraged by Adobe to describe applications not even from the same development teams (and I don’t mean platform specific versions). Photoshop is effectively becoming an internal subsidiary of Adobe where it denotes not AN application any longer, but a suite of products. (Legally, that will allow Adobe to call anything it wants the PROPER upgrade in future. For example, CS3 could LEGALLY upgrade only to Elements X. I’d explain the $ decisions behind this move but they’re as self-obvious as UCC changes allowing shrink-wrap licensing was.)

Just tell me how far you want me to pull the proverbial pants down on the marketing decisions and the current software engineering structure for product offerings. As Chris Cox knows, people willingly talk to me off the record, because I protect my sources. So, back off on the spin.

Feel free to correct me on any FACTUAL inaccuracies.

Nothing I hate more than unabashed apologist corporate toadies for any company.

Keith

PS – Mathias you should be ashamed of how much you sound like those shills for M$ and Vista.
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
Mar 10, 2007
Personally (and I´m not an Adobe apologists. If anyone want to acuse me of same, say so directly), I think the feature set of CS3 is exceptionally good for an upgrade.

I view the extra features of extended version as just that… Extras for specialized business… 3D?, animation and scientists.

Again, if you’re going to moan, try to justify your moaning. I, for one, think its one of the most substantial upgrades ever. And thats the ‘normal’ version.
JJ
John Joslin
Mar 10, 2007
Thank god for a bit of sanity among all these cry-babies!
BL
Bob Levine
Mar 10, 2007
Feel free to correct me on any FACTUAL inaccuracies.

You haven’t provided any FACTS. IMO, you’re just complaining for the sake of it since there are no real facts out, yet.

The fact that Adobe is going to be creating a specialized version of Photoshop shouldn’t take anything away from the mainstream application.

I don’t see anyone in the Acrobat forum crying that they should get Acrobat 3D just because they have Pro.

Bob
P
povimage
Mar 10, 2007
LEVINE,

The separate development teams, leveraging of the app name to the disutility of current product owners, and partally incompatible products bearing the SAME PHOTOSHOP NAME (Lightroom and RAW), AS well as the LEGAL naming implications, ARE facts… They are just facts you wish to ignore or to BLATANTLY SPIN as "irrelevant".

Keith
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Mar 10, 2007
I CAN SHOUT LOUDER!
I feel better now.
P
Phosphor
Mar 10, 2007
P
Phosphor
Mar 10, 2007
OH
YEAH?
BL
Bob Levine
Mar 10, 2007
So if they called it something else you’d be happy?

They’ll always be something bigger and better than what you have. I suggest you learn to live with it. You’ll be far happier.

Bob
B
Buko
Mar 10, 2007
Did Phos…. break the interweb thingy with his big letters?

Oh my! B)
P
Phosphor
Mar 10, 2007
It’s been awhile, Buko.

I was feeling my anarchy today.

XD
P
povimage
Mar 11, 2007
Of course, there’s always omething better Levine. That’s not the issue. I’m not evena slave to upgrades. But if you release a new version, there BETTER be a REASONABLY priced upgrade from the old version to the new one. NO MATTER HOW MANY NEATO NEW FEATURES YOU ADD. Otherwise, just call it something else, because it isn’t the same product anymore.

That’s why we don’t pay the full price for upgrades Levine. It doesn’t matter if they add neat new features. We already bought in, and our original purchase helped make the current upgrades logically possible.

Keith

BTW: Levine, stop posting false dichotomies. It’s logic of the worst sophomoric kind. Life is far more complex than choices between A and B. (You must be really fun when it comes to choosing from more than two options. I can just see you now, a schoolboy logicican attempting to use transitivity to whittle incomparable options down in pairs just so you can choose between a final two…) OTOH if you really prefer a world of trafficking in the "blacks and whites" of false dichotomies, they are the stock and trade of politics these days… In fact, I hear Dick Cheney still is looking for a real replacement for Scooter.
P
Phosphor
Mar 11, 2007
I seem to remember some wise sage telling me something about learning how to pick my battles.
P
povimage
Mar 11, 2007
Prolly troo Phos… I just like throwing transitivity around though… 😉

BTW: Phos. I’m non-tenured faculty at RU now, part-time lecturer teaching Human Ecology (an interdisciplinary study combining elements of seven traditional Social Sciences: Psychology, Geography, Sociology, Political Science, History, Economics, & Anthropology), as well as some random class sessions in Environmental Science and Philosophy. Whee… LOL

I’m still doing graduate coursework in: Philosophy, Poli Sci, Law, and Public Policy/Planning as well. (So, dear readers, unless you want your kids totally confused, don’t send them here! 😉 You were warned.)

Keith
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 11, 2007
P
povimage
Mar 11, 2007
I need that for my office door!

Keith
L
LenHewitt
Mar 11, 2007
Keith,

That’s why we don’t pay the full price for upgrades<<

I think you will find that is because the bean-counters calculate that the revenue raised from selling the volume they do of upgrades is greater than the revenue that would be raised selling a smaller volume of full versions at full price. It’s a marketing model they have found to work well for them.

Let us just hope they don’t decide a better marketing model is to charge by hours use or on an annual fee basis…because I’m sure if they ever believe that will generate more income, that’s what is likely to happen. Then we would all have something to moan about.
D
deebs
Mar 11, 2007
It is also easy to overlook an importance attached to hardware stuff.

For example. the best code to get a computer to make a fresh cup of coffe is useless without the hardware to do so.

Proposition 1
Software can only do what hardware allows it to do.

Consequence 1
If hardware changes then software has to update accordingly.
Mar 11, 2007
Yeah, something akin to an annual fee was asked somewhere already.

I disagree the idea of another company managing the tools the company I work for uses. That would be tantamount to exposing our ‘personality’ to random emasculation.

It seems that is not in Adobe’s horizon, is it?
JJ
John Joslin
Mar 11, 2007
If it is, I guess the Gimp would be on a lot of users’ horizons.

I hear it’s getting better and better!
D
deebs
Mar 11, 2007
A good point Gusto!

Is a license to use exactly that?

A license to use whatever the hardware framework?

Or is a license to use a strict limitation. A difference?

Hardware cannot enter into legal agreements.
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 11, 2007
Software can only do what hardware allows it to do.

the hardware is at a point now that it can do near anything…
DM
dave_milbut
Mar 11, 2007
Hi Dave! What is your specialism?

hi deebs. sorry i missed this… how about this… you tell me what you do (i guess some kind of math major/user) and i’ll tell you what i do. XD
D
deebs
Mar 11, 2007
I am a mere ne’er do well with qualifications to show absolutely that it is so.

On the other hand and perhaps unfortunately(?) I seem to have an affinity for visualisation, a bit of math and very little else.
P
povimage
Apr 3, 2007
Robert,

I generally differentiate personal attacks, from actually liblous or slanderous comments, in how I respond. But that doesn’t mean your point isn’t partially valid.

I also didn’t call anyone an idiot for disagreeing. The problem IMHO, is that some hadn’t read the points other people raised earlier, and immediately reduced it ALL neatly down to the amount of money for these particular upgrades. They then, as could be expected, marginalized those concerns easily.

Ok, I shouldn’t have said "idiot", calling the position they took "simplistic and poorly thought through" would probably have been more accurate and more charitable. I could have also tried explaining it again, but, I simply wasn’t in the mood to rehash what we’d all teased out already.

Finally, I’m just in an ornery mood the last week or so…

Keith
B
bob733
Apr 3, 2007
Marketing. marketing. Marketing.

How to appeal to the masses at a price point that is acceptable to them. Truly a difficult decision. But the key is flexibility for the customer base.

This is why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Not all people like or want the other flavor. But everyone likes one of them. Why not allow Chocolate and vanilla flavors of CS3?

1. Have a basic upgrade path. Have a price point that will make it to where the masses will lunge at it just to get the new features the Basic version offers. (vanilla)
2. Have the basic version actually ship with locked additional features (chocolate).
3. Have free trials for additional chocolate features. (Vanilla and Chocolate now being used for a period)
4. If additional (chocolate) features are what the user wants, he upgrades ($$$), and receives an additioanl key to unlock the choclate version

Would it work. I believe so.
1. The customers do not feel gouged at the greedy upgrade prices. they do not have to make a big $$$ decision from the get go.
2. The customer can try the additional (chocolate) features for 30 days after gaining the base level (vanilla) of expertise.
3. Adobe doesnt have to spend millions with different (and extremely confusing) packaging
4. The chances of customers upgrading after trying the vanilla version for a while are far better then the customer having to make a signifincat financil decision initially. But if he had originally bought the full vanilla version, he might not want to upgrade to the full chocolate version.
5. Customers abilitys with the use of an application and this often would lead to subsequent upgrades to the chocolate.

think of it. You get to buy/upgrade at a reasonable price. Then you get to upgrade when YOU are ready and at a resonable price.

They may have eliminated all this confusion and bad comments by allowing the customer the number 1 feature of all –
marketing flexibility for the customer base at a reasoable price point"

Marketing, marketing marketing

Bob
DM
Don_McCahill
Apr 3, 2007
Nice idea, Bob. But by CS5 the entire program will be delivered online, and you will pay per use or via subscription. That’s when it will really hit the fan.
D
deebs
Apr 3, 2007
I think quite a lot depends upon the product user base.

For a product with lots of plug-ins directed to a creative community who can predict what creative use may or may not be made?

It seems a good idea (to me) to have one lite product and one full product
B
bob733
Apr 4, 2007
Ahhhh… I think they already have that. PS CS2/3 and PSE Bob
DM
Don_McCahill
Apr 4, 2007
And Photoshop Lightroom and Photoshop Extended and Photoshop Album.
DH
Dannie_Hedgpeth
Jun 18, 2007
I am also in the group of being unhappy with Adobe. CS3 is NOT offered to college students. Only CS3-Extended. I have no use for any of the Extended Foo-Foo, as I’m learning to master photography, printing, and Graphic Arts. Adobe has a lock on college, because many courses require Photoshop. I have to purchase CS2 and try and learn a work-a-round on any special CS3 tools or effects. Bummer
Uncle Dannie
RB
Robert_Barnett
Jun 18, 2007
Actually there are a couple of things in Extended that are very useful for photographers that is why there are so many complaints about Adobe creating two versions. But, then if you already had your photographic education you might see that. If you don’t know what to look for and can see features from a creative stand point the couple of things in Extended could easily be over looked.

In buying CS2 you bought a dead horse. No more updates for the program itself and no more RAW updates, for a photographer the RAW updates are going to prove important.

Robert
DM
Don_McCahill
Jun 18, 2007
Actually Dannie, the reason they offered only the extended version is because they are pretty much giving it to you. Ask other people what they paid for CS3 PS — either version. I doubt it was $299.

And if you really are learning Graphic Arts, then you should be buying the full Design suite and getting Dreamweaver, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign, and Acrobat. If you have to buy even two more of those, you will have paid way more than the suite costs.
DM
Don_McCahill
Jun 18, 2007
Actually Dannie, the reason they offered only the extended version is because they are pretty much giving it to you. Ask other people what they paid for CS3 PS — either version. I doubt it was $299.

And if you really are learning Graphic Arts, then you should be buying the full Design suite and getting Dreamweaver, Flash, Illustrator, InDesign, and Acrobat. If you have to buy even two more of those, you will have paid way more than the suite costs.
DM
dave_milbut
Jun 19, 2007
it has zero to do with what users want anymore. here’s the bottom line. the bottom line.

Adobe bullish about summer after 24 percent profit growth, record revenue in 2nd quarter <http://www.yorkdispatch.com/business/ci_6169274>
I
ID._Awe
Jun 19, 2007
Well the way I look at is that they should make one sh!t-kickin’ version of PS that installs and behaves perfectly without all the foo-foo. When they get that right, then add some more foo-foo and Adobe has always made great foo-foo for Photoshop.
RB
Robert_Barnett
Jun 19, 2007
There is no doubt that Photoshop has some exisiting features that could use some work. Extract, Filter Gallery (they could get rid of that now since you can do live filters using Smart Objects, never liked the filter gallery anyways. The old filter interfaces were small and much more elegant.) There are other things too that have been around for sometime that could use some work as well.

Robert
JJ
John_Joslin
Jun 19, 2007
It’s no wonder that people hang on to earlier versions, that are compact, stable and fast. Some of the new features that have appeared over the years have been wonderful. Others, as Robert says, need some work, and others again after the initial wow factor rarely get used anyway.

Speaking of Ps Extended (which I didn’t go for) there’s an interesting article here on the 3D aspects:

< http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/112671/adobe-does-3d/page5. html>
DM
dave_milbut
Jun 19, 2007
thanks for the link john!
JJ
John_Joslin
Jun 19, 2007
He writes good stuff!

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections