Photoshop How To Use: adobe.photoshop.macintosh - 25 new messages in 11 topics

adobe.photoshop.macintosh
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en

adobe.photoshop.macintosh@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Upgrading to Leopard; Installing Photoshop 5.5 and Upgrading to CS2
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/1a98a30d22e086f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 11:56 pm
From: David_Muir@adobeforums.com

I don't see a problem running any Adobe software on a G4 if you upgrade the processor
and add enough RAM. I'm running 1.6Ghz and 1.62Gb respectively and it's certainly not slow
but I wouldn't even attempt it with my G4 Power Book. As much as both Adobe & Apple would prefer otherwise, it's way too early to suggest that theG4 is obsolete for most applications, much less for the G5, but such is the nature of keeping up with the Digital Jones'.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: image size
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6dc00245ecbe5a53?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:11 am
From: barbara_macklowe@adobeforums.com

When I change image size to a JPEG for emailing eg from 300 to 72 DPI and the length to 800 ppi from a higher one the new setting does not hold and one or both changes reverts back to original

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:40 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com

barbara,

Although I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by "the length to 800 ppi from a higher one", it sounds like you are merely changing the pixel density (ppi), not resampling down to reduce the overall "weight" of a file, which is the whole point of resizing for email. That, or you are accidently not saving and sending the smaller file. Do you rename your resized file to distinguish it from the original?

If you've resampled the image down, you've permanently discarded at least some of the data of the original file -- and there is no way that it can be recreated from what remains, regardless what CSI shows with their miraculous racks of beeping and burping computers. <g> Only lossless file compression schemes (such as zip and sitx) will reduce the "weight" of a file, yet allow it to be fully reconsituted without data loss.

Neil

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:51 am
From: Buko

use save for web and reduce the image

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:19 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com

Well, I found that there is a large (original) size limit beyond which "Save for Web..." won't work.

Neil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: scanning B&W 35mm negs to G5
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/403d397f01caccd4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:22 am
From: Richard_Rose@adobeforums.com

pfigen,

I see the same on my Howtek. In fact, the same thing has been shown on D4000s when set to scan at 8000dpi. (!)

The increase in the 4000s is of course a surprise, but is significant and must have something to do with the internal processing of the raw scan data. I'm not sure either D4000 or D8000 machines are deriving any more actual resolution, maybe just delivering everything they should have at the 4000 setting (?). When I had a Tango, it resolved no more detail than the D4000.

Somewhere I have a chart for drum scanners of the relationship between scanning dpi and "real" resolution as measured in line pairs per inch. All I can remember right now is that actual resolution doesn't double from 2000 to 4000 dpi. I think it's about a 1.5x increase. And the real resolution increase of 8000 dpi vs 4000 is less than that.

CCD scanners have significantly less resolution at given "dpi" scan frequencies.

Rich

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:40 am
From: "Phos±four dots"

"1. Neither scanner can approach a D-max of 3.8, let alone 4.0. These
are CCD systems. The highest useable D-max obtainable with either is 2.8-3.0.
The methods scanner manufacturers use to calculate D-max for these kind
of machines is blatantly dishonest and nothing but shameful marketing
hype."

That speaks to a MAJOR pet peeve of mine, with any kind of equipment.

Standardize the parameter testing. Have the tests performed and vetted by an independent lab. Publish the data. Let the consumer make a properly informed decision.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:40 am
From: pfigen

Richard,

On the 4000 and 4500, when you asked for 8000, you were scanning with the 6.35 micron aperture, but slowing down the drum lead screw speed. This effectively give slightly more resolution in on direction. On the 8000, you can scan with the 3.17 micron spot, and you really can see the difference if and only if you have film and image detail that can show it. The Tango has a 10 micron minimum aperture with give it a pure optical resolution of 2540, but with the same drum mechanics as the Howtek, effectively gets somewhat more in one direction. All scanners have some optical loss and never really reach their stated resolution but at least the drums are closer. The numbers I've seen from tests on the Howtek were something like 7300 actual ppi when scanning at 8000 and about 3600 when scanning at 4000.

Phos,

Agreed. Unfortunately there seems to be no standard out there for what is acceptable noise, and that's where the scanner makers have always fudged their specs. People who test these ought to scan a Kodak density wedge and note where you stop seeing separation in the steps. For drum scanners you have to double the wedge up, as it only goes to a 3.4 density, and drum scanners in good condition can hit around 3.9.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:15 am
From: "Phos±four dots"

Peter...

Where I first really started noticing the deficiency back in the '70s (and which is still rampant today) is in music gear catalogs.

For example: You see a page (or several pages, or several dozen pages-the current Sweetwater catalog devotes over 30 pages to them!) full of microphones, along with their short sales descriptions.

Why is it that a catalog retailer would describe the frequency response specs for one microphone, but leave those specs out for the description of a competing microphone just below it on the page?

That **** makes no bloody sense to me whatsoever.

Same with Dmax and other specs on scanners, same with comparing specs on ANY type of equipment. How the heck ccan a retailer expect a consumer to make a smart buying decision, considering those omissions?

Sure, we can go to each individual manufacturer's website, and gather the info for offline comparison. But the smartest retailer will have already done that work for us. And there don't seem to be many that think that way, for ANY type of gear, audio, video, computer stuff, power tools...ANYTHING.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To much ink
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/7dcfa12cc35b46ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:24 am
From: Richard_Rose@adobeforums.com

um . . .

OK.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:08 am
From: Mike_Ornellas@adobeforums.com

Exactly Rich -

I have done my part.

They want to know - they know where to get a hold of me. If not, I still make money.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ATTN: Host/FAQ-Masters...We were doing it the hard way!
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/5dac2efb65c7e774?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 3:44 am
From: "Phos±four dots"

It'll only take a minute to add this to the FAQ.

What? You say that your house is on fire!?

OK, then. That's as good an excuse as one might have...

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:15 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com

Errr … DOUBLE D'OH …

<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b51428>

That has been in the FAQ's in it's current form for nearly a year now — and there was a similar FAQ before Neil edited all of them and tidied them up!

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:17 am
From: "Phos±four dots"

Read before you spout, Ann.

My O.P. in this thread is different than the description and image *I* put together for that FAQ as it currently stands.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Changing Action Scripts outside of Photoshop CS3
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/48dddfd163bd70df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:36 am
From: PictureDude@adobeforums.com

I'm speaking about the Actions that you record in Photoshop...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/8948fc2c826ed062?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:36 am
From: DAVID_PARISI@adobeforums.com

Whatever Chris. I'm not an engineer/programmer but I don't see why you still can't have an option when opening exr's to open them using the CS2 convention of RGBA rather than transparent RGB. Is it that hard?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:42 am
From: DAVID_PARISI@adobeforums.com

Also, since you seem so intent on adhering to the openEXR spec, where's the support for the rest of the file format features:

-alpha; luminance and sub-sampled chroma channels; depth, surface normal
directions, or motion vectors

-Multiple versions of a tiled image, each with a different resolution, can be stored in a single multiresolution OpenEXR file

-color timing information, process tracking data, or camera position and view direction. OpenEXR allows storing of an arbitrary number of extra attributes, of arbitrary type, in an image file.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:08 am
From: Cliffton._Santiago@adobeforums.com

Chris,

I second everything progress, jonah and David Parisi are saying.

How can discarding the A channel possibly be the correct way of opening an EXR file? And if discarding the A channel is correct according to ILM, then AE, Combustion, Nuke, Fusion are all wrong?

And in a file format that allows one to save multiple channels as described by David Parisi, how does discarding the A channel make any sense? If the proEXR plugin allows one to access multiple additional channels, including the alpha channel, are the proEXR guys doing it wrong as well?

AE has now adopted portions of the proEXR plugin which allow access to additional channels in the EXR format. Why would Photoshop refuse to accomodate such added functionality? What if Photoshop adds multiple channel access in future releases? Will they still discard the alpha channel?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Exporting as a PEF file
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6b5c5b07ddb5f8be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:06 am
From: Jon_Harrison@adobeforums.com

I have an Illustrator file that needs to be sent to a vendor in PEF format. Is there a way, either in Illustrator or Photoshop to save or export a PEF file?

If it helps, I am using Adobe CS3 on a MacBook Pro with Mac OS X 10.4.11.

Thanks!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:28 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com

A quick Google turned up this:
<http://www.tucows.com/preview/194967>

I have no idea if it is any good.

I am curious as to why your client wants to have an Illustrator vector file rendered to a Pentax camera's Raw format?

Are you sure that he didn't mean a PDF ?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:33 am
From: Buko

Not that I know of.

What is the PEF file for?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:35 am
From: Buko

I found this to <http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/pef_fmt.htm>

looks like you need dedicated software.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Still can't get Photoshop CS4 extended to launch in OS 10.4 or 10.5
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/14be4f5556eb1212?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:59 am
From: Kit_Rosenlund@adobeforums.com

Thanks everyone for your help. Turns out my install process was flawed.
There was a font problem. After I first installed just parts of the suite, the message
at the end was "Installed with errors", and I thought that was because I left some programs out. When I did it this time, and got the same message, I used Install Advisor, and it correctly stated some needed fonts had the wrong permissions. I went in and manually changed the permissions of the fonts I thought Adobe would need in that folder to "Admin read & write".

It works great now, and I have OpenGL support in the flashed 6800 GT card, as well as in the flashed 7800 GS card I tried earlier.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Never could get Photoshop CS4 Extended to launch in Tiger or Leopard on
my G5
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6613925e91dc5c07?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:01 am
From: Kit_Rosenlund@adobeforums.com

It works great now, and I have OpenGL support in the flashed 6800 GT card, as well as in the flashed 7800 GS card I tried earlier.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PS CS4 Import/export
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/3b57043a7a157f25?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:34 am
From: eric_Friedman@adobeforums.com

I read somewhere that now we should use Adobe Acrobat>Document>Scan to PDF... >Scan, rather than the TWAIN Plug-in, because TWAIN causes Crashes?
If that is the new and more Correct Workflow, Acrobat Scan has Options... which are numerous. Any guidance for best Photoshop Photographic Quality Options to specify w/ Acrobat Scan Options?
Thank you,
Sincerely,
eric

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photoshop.macintosh"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photoshop.macintosh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en