Untitled Document

Product Manager for CS4 has contacted me, wanting any suggestions for the next version of Creative Suite. If anyone is interested in an ongoing thread on features for Lightroom, Photoshop, Bridge, or Camera RAW. Let's hear 'em.

Some of the enhancements I am going over:

JPEG HD support:

Already in progress...

Calculations & Apply Image:

*Ability to apply more than 100% of a channel

*An "apply now" button so I don't have to keep going back to the menu to apply another channel

* Ability to import channels from other color spaces (pre rendered via a default conversion) without having to have a duplicate open and converted.

*Export Channel as a selection from the box-perhaps even a jump to refine edge

Color Balance:

A suggestion from Dan,

"*True red-cyan, green-magenta, and yellow-blue opponents (assuming that cyan is the opposite of any working space's red is a good approximation, but more accuracy is possible);

*Colors to be computed independent of any gamma correction;

*The addition of a lime green-violet axis;

*The ability to control the size of the highlight, midrange, and shadow adjustments with sliders."

Dodge/Burn/Sponge Tool:

*Ability to control range of highlights,mid-tones a shadows either with sliders or a curves box

*Ability to set the contrast of the tool via a curve or sliders

*Color picker to select a range of colors that are to be dodged and burned

*Ability to coordinate how saturation(color) is effected when dodge and burn is used

Curves:

*Option to display a live composite histogram- such as in RAW

*Option to have multiple channel curves open at same time- instead of hitting cmd1, cmd2 or selecting from the menu bar at top

*Ability to manipulate individual channels in the composite view

I got more, but I have work to do...

Alan Klement

___________________________________________________________________________

Alan:

There are significant issues between how Lightroom is handling the new "hierarchical keywords" and the fact that these are not read in Photoshop/Bridge. It would be nice if these worked properly between the two.

Also, there appears to be an issue with how the color ratings are being written in metadata between Bridge 2.1 and Lightroom 1.2. when dealing with RAW files.

While the star ratings can be applied in either Lightroom or Bridge, they will show up in the other application. however, the "color labels" as applied in Bridge do not appear in Lightroom, and vice-versa, at least with Bridge 2.1 and Lightroom 1.2.

If I apply a color label in Lightroom, I can tell it's applied as it will create a color border border around the selected image, or turn the area surrounding the thumbnail a tint of red, yellow, etc if not selected. However if I select the image and use the "Save Metadata to File" and then view the same file in Bridge, those changes are not reflected (regardless of whether I refresh or not). If I change the color label and the start rating, in either application, the star ratings are reflecting the change, but not the color label.

Anyone else experiencing this issue? This is something that should be addressed if it hasn't already.

David

--

David Riecks http://www.riecks.com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member

___________________________________________________________________________

The first two that spring to mind are the ability to use Darken and Lighten mode in LAB and of course Dan's suggestion of editable CMYK profiles.

Thanks for asking! With all these, I might have the incentive to upgrade from CS2!

Russ Brown

___________________________________________________________________________

We have a more complete list going at work, so maybe one of us will follow up with the entire thing, but here's some that come to mind...

1. Why can't I delete more than one channel at a time? I can delete more than one layer, but not a channel?

2. Why can't I delete more than one path at a time? I can delete more than one layer comp, but not a path?

3. Please update some of those ancient filters that haven't changed since I was a teenager, especially Unsharp Mask. If you can make the curves dialog busy, you can add features to the USM filter.

4. I don't remember if this was changed in CS3, but the lightness setting in Hue/Saturation is stupid. The brightness feature in Brightness/Contrast in CS3 is a step in the right direction.

5. Can we make it so Nuetrals in Selective Color actually does something other than "apply to everything?" Give us a real Nuetrals correction, and put it in Hue/Saturation as well.

6. The warp feature under transform was a welcome addition, but it needs to be more advanced. Let me set the grid rather than just giving me the 3x3 Brady Bunch warp field.

7. 3d programs are doing some pretty neat things with displacements--something other than the Displacement and Lighting Effects filter is needed. (This is related to #3)

8. More and more people are using Blend-if masks these days. Any reason why a person can't select a range of colors with the eyedropper like you can with Hue/Saturation?

That's all I can think of right now. Will someone from Adobe really listen? Or perhaps the better question - will I ever get to use even CS3 at work? Ugghhhhh.

____

J Walton

Sr. Retoucher

McCann Erickson, San Francisco

___________________________________________________________________________

At 2007-10-28 15:19, Alan Klement wrote:

*...

Why not simply a working space a la Lab that lets you pick your axes?

A USM filter that only works on the L layer (and does an implicit conversion to and from Lab if you're not working in that space), and that deals with noise, highlights, saturation (cf Dan's last USM method) "intelligently" (is there such a thing?)

Francis Corvin

___________________________________________________________________________

1. The possibility to change the blend mode direct from the dialogue box when using an adjustment layer.

It's amazing that we have to open the adjustment layer, click ok to go out, alter the blendmode and then return to make the adjustments with the correct preview.

It seems quite simple...

just my 2 cents

[ ]s

Antonio Garcia

___________________________________________________________________________

If you're only viewing one channel in an RGB image, you should still be able to bring up Channel Mixer, initialized to monochrome with that channel's value set to 100% and the others to 0%.

The grid is sometimes hard to see, depending upon the color of the image. Also, it would be nice to have a grid whose size remains fixed relative to the screen pixels, rather than the image pixels.

The Liquify filter should allow a grid of any size. A grid of, say, 1000 pixels would divide the image into a small number of large boxes, which would allow one to push large areas of the image around slightly. This could be useful for manual correction of certain kinds of distortions, especially in pano stitching.

I'd like to be able to control the rotation in Free Transform, even when zoomed way in, when I can't click outside the selection. Perhaps the cursor should turn into the rotate tool when moved close to any corner of the displayed portion of the image.

The Color Range selection tool would be more useful if it had separate sliders for the "fuzziness" in three dimensions. Often, I want to select sky, all of which has pretty much the same color, but varies quite a bit in brightness.

PS _really_ needs a separate memory of the most recent folder used for Open and Save. I never, ever save an image in the folder I keep my originals in, so I always, always have to navigate from the original folder to my edited image folder, over and over and over and over again. They should have fixed this in, oh, 1995.

Saving a JPEG takes a long time to put up the dialog, at least under Windows. I think it's a priority thing, having to do with computing the amount of space the image will take, given the compression setting. I wouldn't mind if there was an option to suppress that calculation entirely, if that's what it takes to speed it up.

In Windows, the various file dialog boxes default to "thumbnail" view, for any folder that's a descendent of My Pictures. This is a wretched awful folder view mode that should be eliminated from Windows entirely, but since that's not gonna happen, it would be nice if PS had a way of suppressing this, and always reuse the last view mode for the folder.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco

___________________________________________________________________________

Keep those curves suggestions coming!

You may see results sooner than you think. I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of alternatives to Lab, with the color axis rotated to manipulate different primaries.

Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Mike,

About your idea to be abe to work work an rotated color axis in Lab... Exactly my idea.

In addition to that, what about the possibility to be able to sample a colour from a foto and have the axis align to that colours a/b components? In that way, you'd be able manipulate, on the one hand, a colour aligned with the sampled pixels and, on the other had, manipulate colours 'orthogonal' to the sampled pixels colour.

Regards -- Eric Loots

___________________________________________________________________________

Well, this is interesting. If Lab were rotated to have a skin tone axis, would this make adjusting skin tones easier? And would the perpendicular axis be useful for adding variations to skin tones, or something else entirely?

And outside of Lab: If RGB is a rotated version of CMY, are there other color spaces in between these two that would also be useful for curve manipulation?

Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Every program (and I mean *every* single one, graphics or otherwise) should have this as a preference, or perhaps a set of quick-access buttons in the dialog (one that jumps you to the Last Opened location and one that jumps to Last Saved). There are compelling reasons to default to either of these locations, and I see passionate arguments on both sides.

Me personally, I need both depending on what I'm working on at the moment, and invariably the one I prefer for the task at hand is not the one the program defaults to.

:o(

BRIAN PYLANT

Manager, Electronic Prepress

Disc Makers

7905 North Route 130

Pennsauken, NJ 08110

Toll free: 1-800-468-9353 ext. 5539

www.discmakers.com

___________________________________________________________________________

OK,

For Photoshop:

My biggest desire at the moment is to have the ability to use Blend if sliders for Layer Groups.

I'd like to have the eyedropper indicate where a value in the image sits along the Blend-if sliders (a little bubble, like in curves)

I'd like to have add and subtract calculations be available in layer apply modes.

For Lightroom:

I need to have fixed samplers in Lightroom the way they are in ACR

I'd like to be able to set different color spaces for the info numbers instead of just the linear ProPhoto RGB percentages - at the very least allow LAB, also, the functionality of the camera "calibration" tab is compromised because you have hue and saturation sliders but no hue or saturation "numbers" in the numbers read out - \I'd love to have SWOP v2 as well – this applies to ACR as well.

My other wishes have already been stated.

regards,

Lee Varis

President, LADIG

Photographer and Digital-Photo-Illustrator

___________________________________________________________________________

Workaround: Press the Option (Mac) or Alt (PC) key and hold it as you make the adjustment layer and you will get the option to name the layer, clip it to the one underneath, and change it's blend mode.

I, too would like to see a popup list _in the actual dialog box_.

/andrew webb

On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Antonio Garcia arranged some pixels so they looked like this:

___________________________________________________________________________

If Adobe is seeking feedback for CS4, I'd like to see a luminance report in Camera Raw and in Lightroom.

I know it's not hard to do (we do it with Photoshoot) because Photoshop does it. RGB levels is an OK report at the endpoints of the picture, mostly because the endpoints are neutral. But adjusting a reflectance in the middle of the picture is display reference only for most folks because there isn't a practical color guide for RGB.

For those who adjust pictures in less than ideal viewing conditions, on laptops in the field for example, Adobe has left these people out in the cold, despite requests for a luminance report in the CS2 and CS3 beta programs.

Richard Chang

MegaVision, Inc.

___________________________________________________________________________

1. An old request, but still valid. Have the ability to assign a color to the cursor. The current precise cursors can easily disappear in the image.

2. While working with individual channel curves: After assigning multiple control points along a curve, have the ability to select as many as required with a lasso style tool. The current curves allows choosing multiple control points using the shift key. You can then move the selected group with the cursor or use the arrow keys to move the group of selected points and alter the curve.

The problem with the current system of shift-click is that the control points work on a proximity basis. You can be close, but not on, a control point when making a selection. The control point then jumps to the cursor position, so the shape of the curve is altered.

Having a lasso style selector would allow selecting multiple points without moving them. Shift key plus lasso selects more control points; Alt plus lasso allows removal of a control point.

3. Echo Dan's request for additional channels in Lab, e.g. Red/Cyan

I'm 4 cs4 with 123.

Regards

Raymond St Arnaud

-------------------------------------------------

Raymond St Arnaud, Victoria, B.C., Canada

Photography and Digital Imaging

http://www.raymondstarnaud.com

http: //www.worldprintmakers.com/shows/arnaud/starnaud.htm

___________________________________________________________________________

Ability to generate any channel from any colorspace (within Photoshop) in any colorspace...

For example - in RGB I would go to "channel -> Generate Channel -> Generate LAB b" (or any other channel)....this I would like...and I assume this is not possible even today...? ...unbelievable - and this would be an extremely simple thing to accomplish...I'm using version 3.05 but I follow the evolution so I'm pretty much aware of what you guys are using.

Ability to crop from any selection - I suggested this ten years ago and was met with idiotic and obstructionist counter questions... Abiity to add more than one mask to any layer (and alternate at will between the two...or three?)

A new sharpening algorithm that actually does what one wants - narrows transitions..

And if I can't have that - an unsharp mask that sharpens edges AND simultaneously blurs non-edges... ...and if I can't have that - the opposite of un-sharp mask...(surely I can have that..?)

Curves - ability to set two more grey points - in addition to white point, black point and mid-grey I want to be able to set "high grey" and "low grey" - neutralizing an image at five points rather than just three...I cannot believe that this simple measure has yet to be offered... - Sure three points is enough with many, perhaps most, pictures, but when needed, a five point correction would be a huge help...and I know now that I am not the only one wishing for this - it has been implemented in certain software packages...

"Reverse emboss" - ability to take an embossed image and "un-emboss" it...(ok, so this might not be totally simple)...this would be useful in some situations when a bump-map (for 3D rendering) is needed... Some sort of "crutch" for achieving "ideal" saturation...to this day, this is one of the most difficult things to do...

Brush morphing - ability to set two brushes and have every stroke go from "brush 1" to "brush 2" (in addition to fading) Direction sensitive brush - if a brush is not circular, the brush alters its "direction" based on direction of brush move...(an elongated brush could for example always stay perpendicular to direction brush is moved)

Better "resizing" - until now, Photoshop has been the best in my opinion...but the top spot now goes to BlowUp...I challenge Photoshop to re-take the that spot....

This is my list, thank you...

Gunnar Kullenberg

___________________________________________________________________________

The opposite of USM... Do you mean Gaussian blur?

Francis Corvin

___________________________________________________________________________

Francis Corvin wrote:

I doubt that would happen Francis - but I would not mind being proven wrong in some future update! Not all are fans of true LAB sharpening, even more so when layer blend modes "do the same thing" [not my assertion/words] ...But if enough customers ask for it then it may happen. Bruce Fraser's sharpening methods are in favour at Adobe, so perhaps expect similar things as in the current versions of ACR/ALR.

I would like to hear what Mike Russell has to say on the topic of colour transforms from RGB to various alternate colour modes/models, such as LAB, XYZ, HSI, HSB and how some modes or conversion methods are better than others, which may have a bearing on their adoption for use in sharpening or other edits, such as curves (Mike's Curvemeister plug performs on the fly conversions to various modes).

I know of a MS Win only product that performs sharpening in the I channel of HSI in 32 bpc mode with "proper math" for a "lossless conversion", I presume that HSI was chosen over LAB due to the conversion being less damaging to the underlying image data (whether or not the I or the L channel are better for sharpening).

Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

One of the advances I really appreciate with CS3 is the option for the Heal Brush and the Cloning Brush to sample "Current Layer and Below". This makes retouching in a complex composite much easier.

Now for CS4 I'd really like to see this expanded for the Spot Healing tool and for the Eye Dropper as well. Especially for the Eye Dropper!

Currently when I am working on a complex composite and I need to add paint to a layer I need to turn off all the other layers to sample the color then turn them back on so I can see how the painting works with the rest of the composite. It would be so much easier to just have an option to sample the color from that layer, or from all the ones below that layer without worrying about everything on top.

Dennis Dunbar

___________________________________________________________________________

Hear! Hear! For the Eyedropper improvements mentioned. How about more than 4 samplers, and even labeling/grouping possibilities? And yes, allow assignation of samplers to layers/groups. Samplers on steroids! Of course, the lack of samplers in ALR is crippling--even bewildering, and when they finally do arrive (they do *have* to put these in the next version, right?) it would be helpful to be able to assign them more than the default linear color space readout. And I might as well add my pitch for ALR channel curving to the mix...at the very least let's get the SDK out the door to let the plug-in games begin!

Bruce Albrecht

___________________________________________________________________________

....

From: "Stephen Marsh"

For all practical purposes the color transforms are lightning fast in all directions. Photoshop's existing Luminance mode layer modes are based, AFAIK, on HSB. A Lightness channel based USM could be implemented relatively easily, and as a Smart Filter it would have procedural advantages for those who prefer "lossless" editing.

I remember, Stephen, that you suggested adding USM in as a feature for Curvemeister 1. This is still a great idea..

There's nothing really wrong with using one of the HSB or HSL related spaces, but the conversions must be based on linear gamma RGB data, and there must be enough computational headroom in the original RGB channels to avoid clipping intermediate results. Unless these two criteria are met, and they seldom are, you will get the same color fringing issues that you would get in pure RGB space, and that Dan warns against.

Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

___________________________________________________________________________

No specifically color theory, but a usability issue:

Use of the Mouse Wheel with sliders/input boxes is critical for fine control (versus mousing back and forth). However, there are a number of sliders in CS3 that lack that fine control and the lack of consistency can be a major irritant:

USM HAS it, thank goodness!

Filter-Blur-Gaussian, Box, Radial, Shape, Surface HAVE it

Most/All Image Adjustments HAVE it

Filter-Blur-Lens Blur, Motion, Radial DOES NOT and needs it

Filter- Distort doesn't

Camera Raw: All Sliders/input boxes need Mouse Wheel capability for fine control etc. etc.

---------

John Naman

___________________________________________________________________________

Mike Russell wrote:

The concept of not sharpening the colour component of the image for acquisition and output sharpening is understood and implemented by many. Not by default in Photoshop USM, which is what the request is for. As one can easily simulate this with a blend mode or by converting to LAB to do this task, Adobe may not see a compelling reason to add this basic feature to USM (separating tone from colour, one only has to sharpen one channel, not three in a space like LAB, HSB, HSI, XYZ, LUV, YCrCb etc).

What I was asking was about how "lossless" some conversions are compared to others. One barrier for some programmers is that LAB is a lossy conversion in that some minor discrete L values are lost from the original RGB image. I was wondering if say HSB or HSI provide a "cleaner" conversion with less "data loss" than L of LAB mode.

I find it interesting that one can simulate a RGB > YCrCb conversion and vice versa using the channel mixer. I have not tested this in regards to LAB conversions and how many levels are lost, nor with sharpening etc. Another thing of interest to me is how close LAB's AB channels and the CrCb channels are on a superficial level when initially viewed.

That was more for an easy way for RGB users to access WGCMYK K channel sharpening.

As you probably know, many users are fond of the new clarity slider in current versions of ACR/ALR. Prior to this, over the years various "midtone contrast" techniques have been employed in Photoshop, based around USM or high pass filtering at low amount and very high radius settings.

As your product is focused on tonal correction, the obvious addition of USM would be in adding midtone contrast via low amount and high radius settings (higher than commonly used in Dan's HIRALOAM USM method). The extreme tonal ranges are protected as this is intended for the midtones of the image and one does not wish to blow things out at the shadows or highlights.

If one uses appropriate curves, the need for a "clarity" feature is reduced. As good curves are much harder, one can see why the midtone contrast type clarity sharpen is favoured by many. Don't get me wrong, I use it too, my point being that good curves often lessen the need

for stronger midtone contrast/clarity moves.

Very interesting for a non programmer, thanks!

Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

Ditto for Lightroom - especially when using a tablet.

Graham Bird

On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:40 AM, John Naman wrote:

___________________________________________________________________________

Curves:

The ability to pin a curve: i.e. pin center; pin upper left or right, pin whole curve.

When adjusting the a and b channels I'm often placing a point in the center of the curve and then sometimes fixing one part of the curve or another. Doing this manually is a pain. Fix= right click/pin...

/howie nordström

howienordstrom.com

___________________________________________________________________________

I'd like to see a Curves shape that simply connects the anchor points with straight lines. A polynomial curve (or whatever it is) isn't always what you really want, as it's easy to get meaningless non-monotonic curves, even if the anchor points are monotonically increasing.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco

___________________________________________________________________________

Alan,

I just bought a Canon 40D, which uses CR2 RAW files, just like my 20D. When I went to use ACR (the latest version of ACR for CS2) it wouldn't recognize my RAW files. I currently have 3 options that I know of.....buy CS3 or Lightroom, convert to DNG format, or use another software program for conversion. I am perfectly happy with CS2 and don't see enough reasons to spend the money to upgrade to CS3 at this time.

It may not be possible, but it sure would be appreciated if new camera models could be added to older version of ACR, or better yet, make ACR upgrades so that they work with previous versions of Photoshop. Like I said, it may not be doable due to coding issues, or whatever.

Thanks for asking.

Lou

___________________________________________________________________________

I'd like the ability to fade the smart filters, just like we can with 'regular' filters.

If, for example I want to use the two step output sharpening method published by Fraser, Schewe and Bigalow (and others I'm sure) involving a moderate amount of USM followed by a High Pass filter, the ability to fade the USM with a luminosity blend protects me from color fringing.

However the current approach uses a normal duplicate layer for the sharpening. As a result, the control I have afterwards is limited to the opacity slider, which affects all of the sharpening equally as I slide it.

By first converting the sharpening layer to a smart object, I can now adjust both the USM and the High Pass after the sharpening and can adjust parts on the sharpening, without affecting other aspects.

For example I can reduce the size of the halo but maintain the intensity of the halo that is left. I can't do this with the opacity slider and I need to trash the layer and repeat with different sharpening settings.

The use of the smart filters gives me much more control and is something I've been testing with good results lately.

However at the moment I can't fade the smart filter after applying it, which leaves me with the risk of fringing due to the inability to fade the USM to a luminosity blend (unless there's another way to do it that I haven't discovered yet).

I think the added control of the smart filter approach is useful, but it's currently limited by the inability to fade the filter.

Regards,

PReeter

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Peter, You can get very presise control of sharpening on a dupe layer by using the layer style menu and the blend if sliders. You can go channel by channel or use the gray values. By holding the option key as you move the sliders it will split them and give smooth transisitions and get rid of harsh edges. It takes a little playing around like everything in Photoshop dose,works like a charm once you get the hang of it and will solve the problem of affecting all sharpening equally.Just takes a little playing around with the layer style menu, Hope this helps, Jim Donovan ___________________________________________________________________________

Jim,

Yep, I already use the blend if sliders.

That's not quite what I'm getting at so much. My point is more that at the moment, once the sharpening is applied, it can't be edited if it is applied to the layer.

The benefit of the smart filter approach is that I can edit the sharpening, in addition to the parameters of the layer.

As a result, it would be good to have complete control with the smart filters by being able to Edit > Fade them after applying them.

There are probably other application of the fade capability that would be good to be able to use with smart filters as well, the sharpening example is something that was easy to relate.

Regards,

Peter

___________________________________________________________________________

My wish for the new Photoshop is more color dialog boxes. When I make color adjustments via curves, I open the curves and then place my eyedropper on a flesh tone. When I adjust the curves, the color dialog box, the sliders moves in real time. I like watching the color sliders in real time rather than using numbers in the info dialog box. I like to visually watch the color sliders. Doing that is almost like playing the blues in music. Playing the Blues on the fretboard can be done using patterns. The same pattern is used up and down the fretboard. Using the color slider box, I can also use patterns, like in golds I would make magenta half of the yellow and I would also make cyan half the magenta. You can see that patterns in the gold color. Like warm greys, the black triangles in the color slider is lined up. In the flesh, the cyan is half the magenta and the yellow is slightly more yellow. You can see the patterns in the color slider dialog box for many colors. Over time, you'll be able to quickly adjust colors watching the color box.

The sad thing is that you only get one color slider box. I don't use the multi-eye dropper along with the info box but I would use multi color slider boxes very often. Can you imagine how much faster we can work when we can glance multiple color boxes at once, and moving in real time and only watching for patterns. Lets say we have 4 color boxes opened and place the eyedropper in different lightness of the fleshes, We can use patterns, visually and quickly make color corrections throughout all the lightness of the flesh. Thats my wish list for the new Photoshop. To have multi- color slider boxes that behaves like multi eyedroppers. Having that, my work would be done much faster. I want to play the Hues like Jimmi Hendrix plays the Blues.

Dow Thompson

___________________________________________________________________________

I sent off a .pdf with tons of the feedback from here. Here's what [SUBSEQUENTLYDELETEDBYLISTMODERATOR] had to say:

"Alan,

This is fantastic and very timely - I'll present this to my team today.

Thanks so much for the time you took to put this together, it means a lot.

More once we review this as a team..."

Of course it's loaded with suggestions by people from this list, so the thanks would extend to you as well.

Alan

___________________________________________________________________________

Moderator:

Sorry to bother, but Andrew Rodney, Richard Wagner and Mark Segal have complained to Adobe about my post asking for advise on the new photoshop. I received a notice from Adobe to stop all communication regarding the issue.

If you could, remove any public posts of the thread and stop any future posts from appearing on the list.

Alan

___________________________________________________________________________

I should like to make it perfectly clear that I did no such thing. I have had no communication whatsoever with any person at Adobe about this thread.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Did you get an explanation as to why those three were complaining? Is it only the Photoshop elite that get to chime in about what they need to work on?

FWIW, I don't think Adobe has the authority to stop me from posting on a relatively public forum about their products. That's protected speech, right?

Just to be sure -

"I think Adobe should update some of those ridiculously outdated filters that haven't changed in a million years."

Yep - I think the first amendment covers that, and I don't have some special deal with Adobe that prevents me from saying anything constructive.

--

J Walton

___________________________________________________________________________

On Nov 1, 2007, at 5:22 PM, markds0 wrote:

I have also had ZERO communication with Adobe regarding this thread, or anything remotely close to it. This assertion By Mr. Klement is absurd. My only communication with Mr. Klement was as follows:

On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Richard Wagner wrote:

> This is a very strange way for Adobe to solicit feedback for CS4.

> I think I'll stick with my usual, well-verified channels.

>

> Thanks.

>

> --Rich

On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Alan Klement wrote:

> Can't do that, sorry. But if anyone else feels the same way you

> can do this...

>

> The best thing to do is to reply to me off list and I will I can

> pass along your suggestions, with your email address, to him and it

> would be up to him to contact you.

>

> There's definitely politics involved in developing new features.

> It's not a 'direct line to God' kind of thing. The ideas get

> bounced around to developers and managers, filtered and then if

> it's 'economically feasible' it gets tested then...... you get the

> idea.

>

> Alan

>

> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Richard Wagner wrote:

>

>>

>> Alan,

>>

>> I have some comments / suggestions that I would like to make that

>> would not be of interest to the ACTL list. Would you please pass

>> on the name / e-mail of the person at Adobe so that I might

>> contact him directly?

>>

>> Thanks in advance,

>>

>> --Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

I would absolutely LOVE to be able to run all the menus/commands from a tablet. Having to use a 2nd monitor to run menus/commands so I can have my image free of them seems silly to me. A number of years ago, I was a drafter using CAD, & the program ran completely off the tablet. I see so little reason that Adobe can't make this feature possible - unless they have some stock in monitor companies?

Short of this, it would be nice to have toolboxes/pallets that have fly out capability - using all 4 sides. That way you could have the toolboxes/pallets that you use 'open', but not blocking your image. When you needed it, just move your mouse to whatever location & it would be visible/useable again.

Joseph Prescott

www.JPrescottPhoto.com

___________________________________________________________________________

On Nov 2, 2007, at 7:59 AM, J. Prescott wrote:

You can!

At least with higher end products like the Wacom Intuos and the Cintiq (I know that is a screen).

Graham Bird

www.brearleyphoto.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Dow Thompson wrote:

Dow, I too have long used the color palette to visualise colour relationships. I have uploaded two GIF illustrations that I have used in the past on another site to describe the process.

http: //tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/photos/browse/76e6

(Color Palette album)

Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh.

___________________________________________________________________________

This is a response to the disturbing events on this list on 1 November, when after a thread concerning feature requests for Photoshop CS4, we first received information that Adobe had found the suggestions made by this list "fantastic" and then, only a few hours later, a message suggesting that Adobe wanted us to expunge all records of the discussion from our list. Several accusations were exchanged. We almost immediately stopped accepting further posts commenting on these, informing those who attempted to post that we were not rejecting the posts permanently, but rather putting them on hold until we had a better grasp as to what had factually occurred and could issue a statement explaining what we thought had happened.

I. REVIEW.

On 28 October, Alan Klement posted a message entitled "Gimme Your Feedback for CS4". He alleged that he had been contacted by the product manager of the Adobe Creative Suite, asking his suggestions as to features to be included in the next version of CS4. Alan requested the help of the list in preparing a list of desired enhancements. He listed many of the features he was himself intending to include in his final suggestions.

Over the following four days 25 different list members responded to Alan's request with feature suggestions, making a total of 29 posts. I did not participate in the thread, had no contact with Alan Klement before or during it, and did not know in advance that anyone proposed to start a thread like it.

On 1 November at 3:12 pm EST, Alan Klement reported to the list that he had sent a PDF "with tons of the feedback from here" to the Adobe manager. He quoted the manager as replying. "Alan, This is fantastic and very timely--I'll present this to my team today. Thanks so much for the time to put this together, it means a lot. More once we review this as a team."

Less than five hours later, under the title "ATTN: Moderator pls pull this thread", Alan posted: "Sorry to bother, but Andrew Rodney, Richard Wagner and Mark Segal have complained to Adobe about my post asking for advice on the new Photoshop. I received a notice from Adobe to stop all communication regarding the issue. If you could, remove any public posts of the thread and stop any future posts from appearing on the list."

Within twenty minutes, Mark Segal replied, "I should like to make it perfectly clear that I did no such thing. I have had no communication whatsoever with any person at Adobe about this thread."

Ninety minutes later, Richard Wagner posted, "I also had ZERO communication with Adobe regarding this thread, or anything remotely close to it. This assertion by Mr. Klement is absurd."

Between the two posts above, another member posted criticizing Adobe for being heavy-handed, based on the contents of Alan's post. After these three responses, we did not permit further discussion, because of concerns about the accuracy not just of Alan's statements about the three persons named above, but also his statements about Adobe, and also because we had previously received an offline communication asserting that Alan's entire story of being approached by Adobe was fabricated.

Therefore, we began inquiries with the objective of finding out whether the person named in Alan's OP had in fact acted as described; if not, whether any other Adobe officer had done so; if so, whether that person was in a position to influence what new features would be included in Photoshop; whether Alan had submitted his PDF as described; whether the purported "fantastic" letter from Adobe was authentic; whether Alan had received pressure from Adobe as a result of a complaint and if so how the complaint came about; and whether Adobe had made improper demands aimed at stifling free expression.

FINDINGS.

After a series of inquiries to invididuals who by and large were not inclined to be cooperative, I have satisfied myself of the following:

*The product manager for the Creative Suite line is, when last I checked, Mr. Lonn Lorenz. This is the person I took to be identified in the OP as asking Alan's assistance. Any implication of involvement by Mr. Lorenz is not correct. Alan has stated in response to an inquiry about this that he made an error in cutting and pasting his OP and that he intended to use a less specific title for the manager involved. Again: no involvement by Mr. Lorenz as far as I can determine.

*Taking Alan's post as meaning "any Adobe officer", his assertion that he was expressly asked by an Adobe officer to submit a list of suggestions for product improvement, outside of normal channels, is correct.

*It appears that the Adobe officer has suffered some embarrassment as a result of the thread. Therefore, we will not name him or permit others to do so on this list. He is, however, definitely in a position to influence development of Photoshop features.

*The assertion that Alan Klement supplied a PDF to the Adobe officer with suggested new features is correct. The statement that it contains many of the suggestions offered by list members is correct. The PDF is 22 pages long.

*The quoted "This is fantastic..it means a lot" message from the Adobe officer to Alan Klement in response to the receipt of the PDF is authentic.

*The allegation that Alan Klement was asked to stop participation in the thread, as a result of specific complaints by others to Adobe, is correct. It should be noted, however, that Alan Klement states that he did not intend for this message to be posted. It was approved for distribution to the list because it came in as a list message requesting approval, rather than as a private message to one of the moderators.

*Any implication in Alan's post that Adobe was attempting to restrict discussion of its products, that Adobe had asked us to halt the thread, or that Adobe had asked us to expunge records of our discussion, is false. The communication to him was courteous, and requested only that *he* withdraw from the thread.

TIMELINE

With respect to the question of who complained to Adobe about the ACT thread and when, the following progression of events took place.

*Alan Klement's original post asking for feedback from list members appeared at 2:37 pm on 28 October. At 3:53 pm on the same date, Mark Segal attempted to post a message suggesting that members not respond. He wrote, "There are formal channels within the Adobe corporate and web access structure for licensed product users to make feature suggestions related to any of their products. For any of these suggestions to be taken seriously, it is necessary to explain the reasons why you want the feature, how you think the new feature should be configured, what the new feature will enable us to do that cannot already be done with the existing toolset within the product (e.g.Photoshop), and what value-added you think the proposal would bring to the broad community of product users."

*Two recent posts by Mark Segal had each provoked several responses by group members that were rejected on grounds of unprofessional language. In each case, the uproar caused by the offending post resulted in moderator action to close or limit the thread within 48 hours of Mark's post. These two posts were

http: //tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/message/18568 (deliberate misinterpretation of text of PP5E, followed by a claim that the deliberately misinterpreted phrase was "inaccurate")

and

http: //tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/message/18624

("clarification" of a "misuse" of a term that has been standard in the graphic arts for half a century)

In light of this recent history and the many complaints from list members about similar posts from Mark Segal, we rejected the "formal channels" post as trolling. Reaching out for customer feedback outside of "formal channels" is normal practice at Adobe and all other sensible software companies, particularly when the person being reached out to represents a group unlikely to use those formal channels (Alan Klement is a high-end retoucher). In rejecting the Segal message, I wrote, "If there is nothing to refute the proposition that the named Adobe officer contacted the OP seeking his opinion, or that the named officer is in a position to influence development of new features, then assertions about what others have said about Adobe's customary practices with respect to requests for new features serve only to disrupt the thread."

*This rejection was then communicated by Mark Segal to Andrew Rodney and Richard Wagner. Consulting together, the three speculated that no such Adobe manager existed and discussed why they felt that the thread was not advisable.

*Shortly after Mark Segal received notice that his "formal channels" post had been rejected (29 October), Richard Wagner wrote to Alan Klement offline: "I have some comments/suggestions that I would like to make that would not be of interest to the ACTL list. Would you please pass on the name/e-mail of the person at Adobe so that I might contact him directly?"

Alan Klement replied,

"The best thing to do is to reply to me off list and I will I can pass along your suggestions, with your email address, to him and it would be up to him to contact you."

Richard Wagner responded,

"This is a very strange way for Adobe to solicit feedback for CS4. I think I'll stick with my usual, well-verified channels."

*The following day (30 October) Andrew Rodney advised list moderatorStephen Marsh offline:

"Nearly 100% of the requests to the list will never see the light of day. And the bit about the product manager asking about this is complete crap. I know every product manager, that never happened. You guys are being taken for a ride.

"There's a well defined and observed process for making feature requests.The OP is dreaming."

EVENTS ON 1 NOVEMBER.

*Messrs. Rodney, Segal, and Wagner had still not been able to identify the Adobe officer by the time Alan Klement posted his report that the Adobe officer had received his final PDF and characterized his work as "fantastic".So, by the time the complaint was made to the Adobe officer, all three knew that the thread had already ended. It was too late to avoid the poisoning of anyone's mind by exposure to the heinous ideas found on this list. Therefore, the complaint had no purpose at all except to create trouble for the officer. The events on this day were rapid--all of the correspondence described below was exchanged in a period of four hours, forty minutes.

*At 3:12 pm EDT, Alan Klement's "This is fantastic..it means a lot" post appeared on the list. It did not give the full name of the Adobe officer, but used a nickname.

*Picking up on this, Mark Segal messaged offline: "Do any of you know who [NICKNAME DELETED] is?"

*Andrew Rodney replied, "[FULL NAME DELETED] perhaps? I?ve never heard him referred to as [NICKNAME DELETED]. Perhaps he needs a heads up from someone on Dan?s list as to what he?s got himself into."

*Mark Segal replied,

"Andrew, I don't know him so I can't do that. Why all of the sudden can Alan Klement name [NICKNAME DELETED] when he told Rich Wagner that he can't reveal his source person in Adobe? ...There is something mysterious - an unclarified motivation - underlying all this that I haven't quite unravelled inmy mind yet, despite the hypotheses I've suggested recently."

*Andrew Rodney then himself messaged the Adobe officer: "[FIRST NAME DELETED], do you know this guy Alan and what he?s up to on the infamous dreaded Dan Margulis Color Theory list? First an unnamed product manager asks for feedback, then he?s uncovered in an odd way. I

suspect he?s referring to you...Danger Will Robinson, Danger! You know Dan?s history of course right? I?d be cautious with this group based on past experiences and exchanges regarding Photoshop and Adobe."

Andrew Rodney's message to the Adobe officer cited both Mark Segal and Richard Wagner by name and quoted derogatory comments from each about this list. One quotation attributed to Richard Wagner by Andrew Rodney contained a factual allegation known by both to be false, namely, that posts to this list had been rejected because they pertained to the Adobe-sponsored discussion of raw processing written by Karl Lang.

*The Adobe officer messaged Alan Klement:

"Alan,

I find this unusual and disconcerting...Your feedback is appreciated, this sort of thing is unusual and very challenging. Please back out of the discussion gracefully and accurately (I?d rather not get involved)."

*Alan Klement posted his message requesting that the thread be withdrawn for at 7:52 pm. It was approved and sent to the list at 8:05 pm, followed shortly by the denials of involvement by Messrs. Segal and Wagner.

*At 10:43, Mark Segal messaged me offline stating, "Perhaps you will now understand that the message about this subject I sent to your List at the outset and you rejected as being disruptive, had it been heeded, could have avoided this unfortunate outcome. I was trying to be helpful by advising you and the membership to the best of my knowledge how Adobe handles feature requests."

MODERATOR STATEMENT.

After reviewing the matter, the list moderators unanimously

1) Commend the Adobe officer for his initiative in reaching out to a representative of a group not normally in close contact with the Photoshop team.

2) Express regret that the Adobe officer was in any way embarrassed or made to feel uncomfortable as a result of Alan Klement's using this list as a resource.

3) Commend Alan Klement for taking the time to put together a thoughtprovoking list of feature suggestions.

4) Noting Alan's statement that he did not intend for his request to stop the thread to be posted, find that it was unduly alarmist. We regret the implication that anyone at Adobe was seeking to stifle free expression, as there is no indication that this was the case.

5) Condemn as unethical the conduct of those who contributed directly or indirectly to the communication with the Adobe officer on November 1. Given that the thread had already ended de facto by virtue of Alan handing in his PDF, this vengeful action had no possible purpose except to create trouble for the Adobe officer and to deter others in similar positions from reaching out for *any* feedback outside of "normal channels".

6) Call on those involved directly or indirectly in this action to apologize publicly.

7) Indicate that appropriate action has been taken against list members in connection with this matter.

8) Thank those who participated in the thread for expressing their ideas so constructively.

Dan Margulis