Photoshop How To Use: adobe.photoshop.macintosh - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

adobe.photoshop.macintosh@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Set Foreground and Background Color Options?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/dd67f7b9fb4dd5d6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 11:21 pm
From: christoph_pfaffenbichler@adobeforums.com

That's also the only faintly possible source of the behavior I could imagine: the Eyedropper Tool being set to Sample Size: Point Sample on a (hard scan of a) grainy image, but that should account only for a grey, not an outright black.
I could not recreate the behavior on my station, so You're right in that I don't know the answer to Your problem either. (You've trashed the Preferences already, I suppose.)

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 4:46 am
From: PECourtejoie@adobeforums.com

Make sure also that the blending mode of your brush is set to normal, or an appropriate setting for the effect you are trying to acheive.

Or, as it was said, you have the wrong setting in the colors panel, and you sample the color for the background, not foreground...

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 5:40 am
From: "Mark B Anstendig"

A respected Computer technician in the Arizona area asked for and told me how to get all pertinent information.

The final upshot was as follows:

(me, after supplying all aksed for info, which was plenty):

I hope this helps make what is happening clear.

(his reply):
Everything except why the problem is happening.

The top left color of the two squares is your foreground color. How you can select the brush, option-click on black, and get white chosen as a foreground color is a total mystery. The fact that when the top left square color is white the brush paints white is normal. The fact that you have no layers in your photo is normal. What's not normal is why your color selection is not working.
(end of all quote)

I also suggested that maybe a trashing of the prefs might help. But since the possibility now exists that something could really be wrong technically, a support request by me has been sent to Adobe.

Thanks,

Mark

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 5:56 am
From: PECourtejoie@adobeforums.com

Why did you not trash the preferences? or just move them elsewhere, so that newer ones are re-created? This would tell you immediately if it works.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 6:30 am
From: "Mark B Anstendig"

I would have to spend a long time trashing and then working on something at the time I trashed them to be sure.

I have also been busy with other things and students. I do other things than photography these days...and for decades now.

Doing the trashing and any other technical steps, I would rather be iun touch with Adobe, since I did contact them. I can wait.

I would rather wait and see if Adobe has any tech support experience with my problem. I know others have it.

There may also be other files that should also be trashed at the same time, so, as said, I prefer to do that with an Adobe expert, since I will probably be paying for one, anyway.

Thanks,

Mark

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:34 am
From: Buko

Mark you are making this much more difficult than it needs to be. Trash the damn prefs and save your self $39 or whatever they charge now for tech support.

And if you don't know how to trash the prefs that is covered in the FAQs too.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where to begin when touching up a photo?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/d790859fbe8ba994?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 1:14 am
From: barkerjohn@adobeforums.com

I would return to the original as suggested and rescan. Then first thing for me would be to sort out the white point, black point then also check in the levels window to see where most of the tonal information is. I would probably be looking to steepen the curve in the tonal range that includes the facial features.
Then I would move on to non global issues, however I usually leave the sharpening until the end, but I know many who prefer to do the sharpening after they've dealt with the tonal balance.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 3:10 am
From: pfigen

If you've got a 40 x 40 700 ppi and it's only 100 mb or so, it has to be a one bit bitmap image. A 16 bit Grayscale of those dimensions would be almost 1.5 Gigs.

The first thing you have to do is determine what you really have here. You won't be able to retouch a 1 bit bitmap image. It will have to be converted to Grayscale first. From then on it's like any other retouching job. Do your retouching on an empty layer above the background layer. Use Curves Adjustment Layer to affect your tonality.

I would NOT downsize your original. I would do ALL my retouching on the full size original and only downsize a copy when you're ready to print. By doing all of your work on the super hi-res image, any retouching flaws will be minimized when you finally shrink your image.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:50 am
From: John_Danek@adobeforums.com

I agree, do everything on a copy ( you did ) at the biggest size you can. This may prove to be a bit of a challenge with my approach, however. You're going to get better results by ( IMHO ):

1.) You've done your scratch and dent removal, good. Now, if it's 1-bit, convert to GS and then convert to RGB. You can now look at which channel is the best to save in the final GS.

2.) With it still RGB, convert to LAB. You'll want to do your curve adjustments and sharpening on the "L" channel.

3.) You can also get creative with curve adjustments on the "A" and "B" channels that might help in getting the sepia ( or duotone ) look you're after.

All this can be done in 16-bit ( I think ). But, the size is an issue. I see no risk in sizing it down ( a copy of course ), you sound like you know what you're doing.

There are a few very good books by Dan Margulis ( 1.) Professional Photoshop, and 2. ) Photoshop LAB Color ) that could help you through some of the steps. Good luck, sounds like a nice project.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:52 am
From: Adrian_Hoff@adobeforums.com

As you make complex selections throughout the process, save them. And as per g ballard above, convert to a psd and work on new layers. Then you can (after turning off those between your current working layer and the unaltered pix layer) turn the top layer on and off to, in effect, view just the changes you've made. I catch a lot of mistakes that way. It's also a great way to impress a client with the final version vs. original.

If you have already worked on the background layer (but haven't cropped or straightened the image) double click on the background to make it a regular layer; open the original scan and hold the shift key down as you drag it into the image you're working on. Maneuver it to the bottom of the stack.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:14 am
From: pfigen

This is a grayscale image if I'm not mistaken. No need for L*a*b in this case. That would only be of help in certain color images. They didn't have color images yet in the 1860's.

As far as file formats go, psd might be too limiting by the time you have layers. It's very likely that you'll go over the 2 gig limit and need either layered tiffs or psb's. What you really don't want is to encounter the somewhat rare situation where a psd files saves but ends up being too large to re-open.

If you're working on Adjustment Layers, any masking will be automatically saved within those adjustment layers. The original poster mentioned the level of work needed in this image and it's unlikely that it will need any really complex masking to fix cracks and sharpen a single face.

Part of the job of effective retouching is identifying what is really necessary and what is not. I'm much more in favor of simplicity and working smart whenever possible. This does not need to be more complicated than it needs to be.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:23 am
From: Tom_Tomasko@adobeforums.com

Hello all,

Thanks very much for all the suggestions. There is a lot to ponder and experiment with.

I was a bit wrong in describing the image. The original is 1.4GB (only ten times bigger than what I said!), 27625 by 28170, grayscale 16 bit tiff.

If anyone is interested you can see the photo at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>:Featured_picture_candidates/African-American_soldiers

The above has an interesting discussion of the photo.

To get the original go to the Library of Congress at:

<http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cwpb/01900/01930a.tif>

The photo is in the public domain.

Tom

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photoshop performance on new Mac Pro "Nehalem"
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/51c1421c634f2c2f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 2:26 am
From: Søren_Theilgaard@adobeforums.com

I realle don't think the question in this thread has been answered.

Chris Cox said:

For large documents, the speedup on the new machine is very visible. But
for small (screen res) documents, overhead hides the performance increases.

From the rest we know, that Photoshop CS4 will be about 1.2 times faster according to Apple, and that CS5 will be 64bit, according to Adobe.

What essentially is not cleared up is if I will gain the optimal situation for general Photoshop use on a Quad Core 2.9 GHz or on a Dual Quad Core 2.16 GHz?

The obvious answer is "That depends...", but we all know in the end that Photoshop is about layers with effects and masks, and a few filters here and there. There is generally a lot more done in this app using layers and masks, than in filters (at least from here I am). Screen res. documents is no problem, if that was all we did an iMac would be fine.

So is the simple conclusion in this what Chris wrote:

Flattening and merging usually (not always) use a single processor ) because
it's limited by RAM bandwidth, not by calculation speed. If we used additional
processors for an operation limited by RAM bandwidth, it would actually
run slower. For blend modes and operations that are calculation limited:
we do use multiple processors. Every release we go back and test which
operations are limited by what factors and retune them for best performance.
But best performance does not always mean using all the processors.

And in my scenario this concludes that faster GHz is generally faster than more cores, or Chris could you describe what we should be able to expect from Photoshop, and what that means when the app is 64 bit (will RAM be so much more important resulting in the 8 GB limitation being the worst part for that release)?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 3:52 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com

And in my scenario this concludes that faster GHz is generally faster
than more cores,

I don't think it's that simple. You can't always look to just a single spec and conclude an improvement. A machine with a less powerful processor can actually perform better than one with a mightier processor if the architecture is faster. It's about removing bottlenecks.

<http://www.barefeats.com/nehal01.html>

From the rest we know, that Photoshop CS4 will be about 1.2 times faster
according to Apple

Remember, that the "1.2 times faster" benchmark from Apple is comparing it to the previous generation, 8-core 3.2GHz Mac Pro. Obviously you'd realize a higher performance increase compared to your 1st generation 2.66 Mac Pro. (I have the same machine)

-phil

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 4:08 am
From: DYP@adobeforums.com

For me the deciding factor would be the 8 GB limitation. Also there are some filters and some PS operations that will used more than 4 cores.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:00 am
From: JimGoshorn@adobeforums.com

I think we are placing too much weight on Apple's benchmarks given we don't know what their 45 filters/actions are or how they had PS configured for performance. Not to mention they only used 400mb files which are small files for many of us.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop 3.0 (Mac) Serial Number Input Problem
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/931713f19535a550?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 2:55 am
From: "Nini Tjäder"

As far as I remember, once upon a time the serial actually was printed (or a sticker glued to) on a loose piece of paper which you also used for registering the software (by snailmail, no internet-registering at the time) and if you sent it in and not copied it, the serial was gone. Serial has also in the early years sometimes been glued on to the tip-sheet that then used to accompany the software. So if tipsheet is gone, no serial.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Updater no longer detecting available updates?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/1b4fa795c997d602?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 3:06 am
From: "Nini Tjäder"

Not all adobe updates are actually released via the Adobe Updater. That's been the case on and off over the years. In those cases you either get it via manual download directly from adobe.com or via Versiontracker.com. There is also a known case (don't remember in which version or OS-version) where the Adobe Updater simply loops and never finds a thing. It's somewhere around in the adobe support pages. Personally I got the ACR 5.3 and DNG converter from VersionTracker.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Any recommendation for online UK print shop with ICC paper/printer
profiles
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/2eef59d81894b4ec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 3:42 am
From: Dick_Kenny@adobeforums.com

if you find somebody good, please come back here and share the contact
info. I'm sure it would be appreciated.

For anyone interested, we have been test printing a couple of images with Fauxfilm Print Studio at:

<http://www.fauxfilm.co.uk/about.html>

Amongst many other things they offer as downloads two of their paper/printer ICC profiles - Hahnemuhle Fine Art, and Professional Satin; the latter being an incredibly pure white German paper.

Testing the process is somewhat taxing as there are so many potential hiccups between source computer and their printers. Eventually we settled on three versions of the same file; all individually soft proofed in Ps. Two used the Faux download profiles (as above), the third using out in-house profile for Epsom Premium Glossy to serve as a control.

The resulting prints on 16x12 papers are outstanding, both in consistency of colour on papers of widely differing Dmax, and in overall snap, crackle and pop. So very pleased with the exercise.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:32 am
From: John_Danek@adobeforums.com

I think OxfordGiclee's concern was your softproofing and as seen in your tests with FauxFilm. I would approach it a little differently by doing my own printer calibration using their specific paper. This is not an inexpensive proposition, but would allow you to proof inhouse and nail your total ink limit. As I see it, you'd need more than a printer profile to softproof accurately. There is an inherent risk to approving what you see on screen.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Curves adjustmentlayer in cs4, are there any way to get it to work like
in cs3?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/68839d735a863e44?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 4:20 am
From: einar@adobeforums.com

yes I did, turning of vertical sync helped abit and also increasing cache lv. But stil the new way to handle adjustmentlayers are to shitty for me to upgrade to cs4, stikking to cs3 until the problem are solved:)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Transferring text box or table from InDesign to Photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6510b14f0d73eb45?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:30 am
From: Adrian_Hoff@adobeforums.com

The reply from RenéG proved most useful. I have Illustrator on my computer only because it came in the bundle. I'd never used it. After reading the line about opening smart objects in Illustrator. making corrections, and having them applied automatically to the object embedded in Photoshop, I played with it for awhile. Thanks.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: buy upgrade of 2 product
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/fc0a15ff2412d269?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:54 am
From: Dustin_Vogel@adobeforums.com

Hi,

I own a older (CS1) version of the adobe suite and want to get 2 (photoshop and illustrator) of the CS4 version. Can i upgrade the 2 products using the old version of the suite? or can i upgrade 1 and have to buy 1 with the full price?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:26 am
From: Buko

If you bought the suite you can only upgrade to the suite.

the other 2 apps you will need to buy at full price.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS4 Cropping Problem
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/007d0035910306a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:58 am
From: David_Garrett@adobeforums.com

Thanks you-all.

Will give these tips a try.

Cheers

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, March 6, 2009

adobe.photoshop.macintosh - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic