Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Four Suggested Rules for Software Design
On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:01 am (PDT)
While out of the country, I was monitoring traffic from
list members about the CS4 release. I wasn't motivated to join in, for the
same reason that I've never commented on the overall merits of CS3. I wrote
or posted extended reviews of each of the seven whole-number versions
between Photoshop 3 and CS2. With no more books on the horizon and the
column winding down, there was no further incentive for me to look at beta
versions, and there are more productive ways to spend my time than writing
reviews of software, even Photoshop.
I still feel the same way. I don't want to speak about
Photoshop CS4 as a whole. Like every other release it has certain nice new
features and certain disappointments. Instead, I would like to focus on one
specific issue, with a view to making FUTURE releases better than they
otherwise might be. I do this because in one area in which Photoshop has
historically been better than other software products, it has recently
slipped badly. For reasons of length, my comments are split into two posts.
Up until roughly Photoshop CS2, while some releases
were better than others, the overall updating pattern was satisfactory.
That is, the product was always stable, speed and performance continually
improved, and care was taken that it would not unduly difficult for users
to migrate to the new version.
These factors are not to be taken for granted.
*Anybody who suffered through the release of Quark 4,
Illustrator 9, or the final deathrattles of GoLive is grateful for
Photoshop's consistent stability.
*I've just "upgraded" to the most recent
version of Microsoft Excel, running in native mode on a powerful Intel Mac.
It is somewhat disconcerting to find that performance is worse than in a
five-year-old version running in emulation mode on an old G4. That has
never happened with Photoshop.
*When applications are mature, rather than devote time
to developing useful new features, which among other things require talent
and run the risk of being found not to work properly just when the product
is about to ship, the developer resorts to jacking around with the
interface, making useless changes that are then fobbed off as making the
product more efficient. The archetype of this type of "upgrade"
was Illustrator 7. There were so many random, stupid changes in the
interface that many users (including me) trashed it in disgust, not wishing
to spend the time to relearn the program. By contrast, a Photoshop 4 user
confronted with Photoshop CS would have to spend some time learning
functions that didn't previously exist, but he would have no trouble
figuring out to use the ones he was already familiar with, in spite of a
slightly retooled look.
From CS2 afterward, Photoshop has continued to shine in
the first two categories. With the notorious exception of Bridge, which as
I understand it is not really a product of the Photoshop development team,
the application itself has remained solid. And every version has continued
to be faster than the one previous. CS4's performance, particularly in
image display, is significantly better than CS3's.
It's that third category that's gone seriously
downhill. Instead of making meaningful improvements in the core product,
the Photoshop team has branched out on various tangents. And it has
followed the lead of others in eschewing serious improvements in favor of
renamings of commands that don't need to be renamed, reassignment of
functions that doesn't need to be reassigned, and repackaging of existing
capabilities without adding new features. When I see Photoshop CS4, I think
Illustrator 7.
Foresight is not always 20/20. When new capabilities
are added, one doesn't always know how they will be used or what flaws in
the concept may be. When something like layers, or adjustment layers, or
Camera Raw, or Bridge is introduced, we cannot expect perfection. The
development team has to be given leeway to improve the presentation based
on user experiences, even if the basic idea doesn't change. Renaming,
reworking, or redesigning something one, two or possibly even three
releases after it has been introduced cannot be faulted.
That a function has stabilized, however, is a powerful
indication that there's nothing grossly wrong with it. If the developers
want to add significant new functionality, that's great. If all they want
to do is to rework the same capabilities into a different-looking package,
that's not great. It should be seen as what it is, an attempt to justify
the "upgrade" that, in fact, reduces its value.
I would like to suggest that the following four simple
rules should be adopted not just by the Photoshop team, but by every Adobe
product and, for that matter, every other software company in our field.
1. Any component that has existed under its present
name for at least three versions may not be re-named unless its basic
functionality has radically changed.
2. The physical location of any component that has
existed unchanged for at least three versions may not be moved
significantly, absent an overwhelming, irrefutable reason.
"Compatibility" with other products is not a valid reason.
3. Any keyboard shortcut that has existed unchanged for
at least three versions may not be changed, absent an overwhelming,
irrefutable reason. "Compatibility" with other products is not a
valid reason.
4. Any parts of the interface that have been stable for
at least three versions may not be drastically redesigned unless
accompanied by significant new capabilities.
Abiding by these simple concepts should be the mark of
the skilled, and client-sensitive, development team. Failure to abide by
them identifies the lazy, the corporate politician, and the incompetent.
We've seen in recent releases some violations of these principles, but
nothing like the torrent of pointless changes found in CS4.
I. COMPULSIVE RENAMING.
To verify what is 15 years old, I opened my version of
Photoshop 3 (1994). My favorite command, then as now, was Image:
Adjust>Curves.
Some versions later, I forget which, some rocket
scientist decided to change Adjust to AdjustMENT. Why this was thought to
be any improvement is unclear. The added value to the user was nil. It was
not particularly inconvenient, either, because most people understood that
Adjust and Adjustment were the same thing. Not all, mind you. I got several
questions from unsophisticated users who were trying to follow early
editions of PP and couldn't find curves. Plus, lots of books and
documentation had to be rewritten, and most Actions or scripts that
referenced the old name would not work when it was changed.
In CS, I think, some other brain surgeon decided the
term needed to be AdjustmentS. Same derisive comments apply. Why would
anyone care whether the thing is called Adjust or Adjustment or
Adjustments? Just pick one, stick with it, and don't hassle us with
pointless name changes. Many of these Adjustments or whatever they are
called were very fine commands in 1992 but quite pitiful by the standards
of what could be done with them today. If Adobe is so overstaffed that it
can assign people to make changes to this name and all the documentation
that goes with it, why can't they assign them to upgrade the Hue/Saturation
interface of Camera Raw (which is better than Photoshop's H/S) and add it
as an Adjust, or Adjustment, or Adjustments?
If this sort of silliness happens once in a while,
nobody is going to get too bothered. But here's the rundown on CS4:
*After six years of being called
"Shadow/Highlight", it was deemed necessary to change the name to
"Shadows/Highlights". As usual, no benefit whatever to the user,
but make-work for those preparing documentation or needing to update their
Actions. As with Adjust/Adjustment/Adjustments, it suggests a question. If
Adobe has so many people available with nothing better to do than rename
stuff and rewrite documentation, why can't they let them program
(Shadow/Shadows)/(Highlight/Highlights) to work on an adjustment layer?
*People have had to rotate images since the beginning
of time. The various subcommands that accomplish this are, in Photoshop 3,
given the sensible name Rotate. Some versions later, it was felt necessary
to rename it to Rotate Canvas. In Photoshop CS4 it is now Image Rotation.
Furthermore, its location has been significantly changed, in violation of
Rule #2 above. No benefit whatsoever to the user. And, unlike
Shadows/Highlights, this one has the potential for confusion. Don't think
so? Then consider the next one.
*Photoshop CS4 introduces a new correction command,
Image: Auto Tone. Being interested in color correction myself, I tried it
out on a random image, and the result was impressive. I immediately
assembled a suite of test images to find out exactly what it did. The
result? Auto Tone is the command that has been known for 20 years as Auto
Levels--but it isn't even in the same menu location that Auto Levels has
been for 20 years.
Auto Levels is referenced and recommended in every
textbook, including mine. Yes, it's primitive, but it has value. What's
wrong with leaving it with the name and location it's had since since
before some Photoshop professionals were born? Other than Karnak the
Magnificent, what user, looking for Auto Levels (under Image:
Adjust/Adjustment/Adjustments) will be able to divine that he should be
looking somewhere else for a command called Auto Tone?
If Adobe has so many people with a lot of time on their
hands, why can't they just leave the name and location alone, and instead
give Auto Levels Luminosity and Color sliders, which would greatly increase
the utility of the command?
II. HIDE AND GO SEEK.
Photoshop users should not be forced to hunt for
familiar routines. The moving, let alone the renaming, of Auto Levels,
should not have been permitted, and would not have been permitted by my
suggested rules.
We first saw this pattern in CS2. The Assign Profile
and Convert to Profile commands, after almost a decade under Image: Mode,
wer abruptly moved to the Edit: menu bar. No added value to the user. It
takes an unreasonably long time for users to adjust to such a move. If
Adobe has so many idle personnel that it can assign them to make this move
and deal with the documentation, then it certainly should have enough to
add the profile editing that has been so obviously needed in Photoshop
since 1998.
It gets worse in CS4. The addition of Auto Tone/Auto
Levels to the Image: menu forces down certain other items three steps down,
which is not unduly difficult to adjust to-- except that the rest of the
menu is randomly scrambled. Image: Rotate Image is gratuitously renamed,
but it's also moved up, above items that it previously fell below. So is
Image Size. Apply Image, which is one of the most commonly used commands,
goes almost all the way to the bottom of a lengthy menu, having spent the
last 20 years near the top. This is *not* easy to adjust to. If Adobe has
such a staff surplus that it can assign people to make such a move, it can
certainly fix Apply Image so that it works properly in LAB.
Shuffling long-established commands has less than no
benefit to the user. Any hypothetical gain in productivity in the future
would be outweighed a thousandfold by the loss of productivity in adjusting
to the change. Apply Image has been found above Rotate and Image Size for
15+ years. Since there is no change in functionality, the move would be
prohibited by my suggested rules.
III. THE UNKINDEST SHORTCUT OF ALL.
For 15+ years, the keyboard shortcut to access either
individual channels, or individual channel curves if a dialog is open, has
been Command-1 for the first channel (red, L, or cyan), Command-2 for the
second, (green, A, or magenta) etc. These are likely the most commonly used
shortcuts by retouchers. Being aware that the Photoshop team contemplated
changing them, at Photoshop World I attempted to count how many times I
used these shortcuts in front of an audience during my three presentations.
The answer: about a thousand times. I'd estimate that in my work, I use
them upwards of 250,000 times per year. That's around 5 million executions
of these keystrokes over my career.
This change is galling for several reasons, all of
which suggest that the person(s) implementing them have never made serious
use of the program. First, the bland suggestion that we should just
"relearn" the new keystrokes after performing the old ones
several million times. This is roughly like reversing the left- and
right-click buttons on the mouse and suggesting that users should
"just relearn".
Second, the "new" keystrokes are not
executable by anyone with hands smaller than those of a gorilla. For the
last 15 years, the single most common keyboard shortcut for CMYK retouchers
has been Command-4, to show the critical black channel. This has now been
changed to Command-6. It is physically painful to twist the wrist into this
position. Execute this shortcut tens of times per day--as retouchers
commonly do--and carpal tunnel syndrome would be the inevitable result.
Even RGB users now have to use Command-6s and Command-7s when alpha
channels are in use.
Third, for more than 15 years the shortcut to access
the first channel in Photoshop proper has been the same as for the curves
dialog either within or without an adjustment layer. In CS4, insanely, they
are now three separate shortcuts.
Fourth, there is no indication of an appreciation of
how important these shortcuts are. All the silly stuff discussed in Section
I and II is just that--silly stuff. Annoying and time- consuming to have to
adjust to, and irritating in the sense that Adobe chooses to work on
cosmetics when there is so much substance that *could* be improved upon.
It can, however, be lived with. The channel shortcuts
are different. They are too critical to production to lose. Shortcuts that
are physically too difficult to execute are the same as no shortcuts at
all. Losing these shortcuts is therefore a dealbreaker. It would be nearly
impossible for CS4 to include as many new features as would be necessary to
compensate for the loss. I don't know whether they could be changed through
the Edit: Keyboard Shortcuts menu, I suspect not. I have heard rumors that
in the shipping release there may be a mechanism whereby users can restore
the traditional shortcuts by means of a plugin. If so, that would be
welcome and would likely change some peoples' minds on whether to purchase
the update.
The fact remains, however, that Adobe was irresponsible
even to consider such a change. There can NEVER be a justification for
removing a feature as important as this one, unless it is so glaringly
obvious that no reasonable person could disagree.
The stated reason for changing these shortcuts falls
far short. An Adobe evangelist writes as follows: "And while we're on
the topic of keyboard shortcuts, we know that changing them can be painful,
but certain shortcuts 'had' to change in PSCS4. Some changes were made to
bring Photoshop in alignment with the other creative suite applications,
for example, Cmd (Mac / Ctrl (Win) + 1 sets the zoom level to 100% brings
PSCS4 into alignment with Illustrator, InDesign, and Flash)."
The above sentence is hard to parse because of the
presence of the quote marks around "had". The writer may have
been expressing disgust with the change. If so, I fully agree. If the
sentence is read without the quote marks, it is an insult to every
Photoshop user. Adobe didn't *have* to do anything, and shouldn't have.
Unifying command structure across Adobe applications regardless of how
"painful" it is may seem like a compelling argument to some
beancounter in the marketing department, but it is not relevant to the
existing user base. Using it as a justification for damaging changes in
longstanding features is not acceptable.
Remember, I am only suggesting placing off limits
things that have been unchanged for more than five years--and even then,
only if the change is for change's sake, without affecting capabilities.
The reasoning is this:
*If Adobe Pamplemousse has been doing things one way
for more than five years and Photoshop has not, then if somebody really
feels the need, Photoshop can be changed AFAIC.
*If Photoshop has been doing things one way for more
than five years and Adobe Oxbelch has not, then, if the move is felt to be
absolutely essential, Adobe Oxbelch should be changed to emulate Photoshop
and not vice versa.
*If Photoshop has been doing things one way for more
than five years and Adobe Snickerdoodle has been doing things a different
way for more than five years, then what dimwit thinks that there's a
problem that needs fixing?
If somebody truly feels that every feature needs to be
equalized across applications, then the appropriate action is to create two
sets: one to be called Adobe Standard, and one Traditional, or whatever. If
options can be added to InDesign for the benefit of those familiar with
Quark, certainly they can be added to Photoshop for the benefit of those
familiar with Photoshop.
In the second half, a discussion of the remake of the
adjustment layers interface.
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "Jeremy Schultz"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am (PDT)
Some responses to what Dan has said in Part I. I am in
relative agreement with him, though for whatever reason I?m not as bothered
by some of the changed names and menu items than he is. Yeah, it takes a
moment to realize what has changed and if I was head of Adobe I would have
scuttled such odd changes that really don?t help the user at all, but I?ve
been using CS4 for a couple months and those particular changes don?t seem
to bother me much. I haven?t yet hit a menu or name change that drives me
mad.
What?s much worse, and I consider something of a
travesty, are the changing of the keyboard shortcuts. Dan is
right‹handling the new keyboard shortcuts for channels and Curves are
great if you have six fingers. Moreover, the commands needed are different
depending on where you are in the interface. I still haven?t gotten used to
them and I am always hitting the wrong commands for what I want. I don?t
really get the change, even though I know it?s supposed to be for
consistency. It makes no sense to me though, because the opportunity for
consistency has passed‹these applications have been developed and
matured separately, and now to jam them all in the same mold in terms of
usability ends up ruining some very important learned behaviors for all
users. I too have heard that there will be a plug-in to restore these
keyboard commands (someone on this list said this) but my beta version does
not have it. Even if the shipping product does, how many people will have
the know-how and the urgency to dig up some obscure plug-in and install it
in the proper folder? It would have made a lot more sense if these commands
could have been changed in the Keyboard Shortcuts dialog box. But they?re
not, I?ve checked.
I?m looking forward to reading and commenting on Part
II.
Jeremy Schultz
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "Alex Kent"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:59 am (PDT)
i confirmed that there is a plugin to restore old
shortcuts to Photoshop CS4.
yes it was available for the beta (yours included,
presuming you had access to the adobe prerelease downloads), you just had
to download and look in the Optional Plugins set. for the final version it
may not be on the install dvd, which i think is a mistake, but it'll
certainly be available as a download from adobe.com.
i think some of the new shortcuts are awkward (and i'm
annoyed that there doesn't appear to be any way to keyboard select point on
a curve any more) but i do see why they've done it. making the keyboard
shortcuts more similar to the majority of other applications on the market
makes photoshop easier to use for new users. thus, it's a good thing.
for those of us with hardened muscle memory who simply
can't adjust, they offer the plugin.
it's a bit awkward to find, but even it's availability
introduces problems: having inconsistent keyboard shortcuts across
different installs of CS4 isn't going to help anyone.
alex kent.
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "Jeremy Schultz"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:41 am (PDT)
Thanks for the details Alex, I?ll have to keep looking
for this plug-in. I?m in the beta program but the particular build I?m
using now is actually a review copy given to me by Adobe PR.
It sounds like this plug-in is a trick to find, I hope
it is on the install DVD and easy to find. If it?s a download then there
will be a lot less people using it and, perhaps, a lot more annoyed users
who believe they?re stuck with the new commands.
Jeremy Schultz
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "merlot3000"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:14 am (PDT)
*I've just "upgraded" to the most recent
version of Microsoft Excel, running in native mode
on a powerful Intel Mac. It is somewhat disconcerting
to find that performance is worse
than in a five-year-old version running in emulation
mode on an old G4. That has never
happened with Photoshop.
For a pleasant surprise it is worth checking out,
buying, and then using the iWork suite from Apple. "Numbers" is a
replacement for Excel and if one wondered how a spreadsheet application can
be improved and easier to use, Numbers is it. Once I did that I started
using "Pages", a replacement for MS Word, and once again I found
it to be a replacement for Word but not only that it has enough
functionality in it for me to eliminate the need for something like
InDesign which I have avoided due to the fear of a learning curve/time
investment and also the high price tag. And yep, there is
"Keynote" as a replacement for Powerpoint and it does have the
expected ease of use and slickness expected of Apple. And the price tag?
USD 79.00.
David Barrack
___________________________________________________________________________
On CS4: Four Suggested Rules
Posted by: "Richard Chang"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:23 pm (PDT)
Dan:
It may be practical to consider that you, and the rest
of the folks who use Photoshop to make their livings, are not a growing
market. You're generally not buying software; instead you are opting for an
upgrade, and not upgrading for every version.
It is quite possible that Adobe is looking for more
market. Gee whiz, and features laden menus that don't get used, may be more
marketable than common sense. The new, young technofile may be more
inclined to accept the changed Photoshop, now and in future
"upgrades". As more users who don't make their livings with an
application come on board, there is less reason to consider client
sensitive software development.
It has been my opinion that Adobe is now the principal
arbiter of photography. We used to have Kodak, Fuji, Nikon & Canon,
Leica, Hasselblad and some other significant film based players who defined
what we considered professional in photography. Many of those companies
have been replaced by Adobe. The old guard ruled for almost 100 years.
Adobe is just getting started. I'm sure they'd suggest that you be patient.
Richard Chang
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules
Posted by: Michael Jahn
Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:00 pm (PDT)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Richard Chang wrote:
It has been my opinion that Adobe is now the principal
arbiter of
photography. We used to have Kodak, Fuji, Nikon &
Canon, Leica,
Hasselblad and some other significant film based
players who defined
what we considered professional in photography. Many of
those
companies have been replaced by Adobe. The old guard
ruled for
almost 100 years. Adobe is just getting started. I'm
sure they'd
suggest that you be patient.
I would agree - if you think this is bad, just wait.
Just log into Adobe Photoshop express.
https://www.photoshop.com/express/landing.html
That is the demographic Adobe wants to please enough to
get them to buy Photoshop for the first time, and Adobe stockholders will
be thrilled if that happens
I was horrified in 1989 when i heard that my typesetter
dumped Atex for Quark.
I looked at the H&J tools with horror (Hyphenation
and Justification) - these are the things that calculate how far words
should be from each other, the spaces between the letters, where a sentence
jumps to the next line and such...)
I was buffdled. I was deeply concerned. While there are
tools that come close in InDesign, anyone who ever set type will tell you
it is a toy compared to what we had with Atex, CCI, EIT or Penta systems.
And today, no one cares, less than .01% of the
population knows what kerning means (vs tracking) and gues what - we are
nowing headed that same direction with color. I laughed when I heard my
neice explain how she complained that CS3 was expensive (student pricing
was 349.00 for EVERYTHING) - I explained that the first Mac I purchased was
$30,000 (the Mac, the HUGE 17 inch SONY TRINITRON that weighed as much as
my CAR and all the applications and FONTS that i needed and the SIMM RAM -
and Quark version 1 Illustrator 88 - and no Photoshop version 1 yet, i was
stuck with SuperMac Pixel Paint - and we made film and ran it on press. it
was crap, it was hard, it took forever to send over localtalk...
It is MUCH better than it was then, and it was nice,
but now we need see if we can hold onto - and continue - with CS2 -- LOL!
--
Michael Jahn
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Parts I & II
Posted by: "Andrew Webb"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:00 pm (PDT)
John Nack has an interesting post on this very subject
today, includiing this snippet about the channel-switching command-1,2,3:
"We have, however, created a solution: you can
download a file containing a plug-in (Mac)/registry entries (Windows) that
remap the channel keys. That is, you give up using Cmd-~ to switch among
open documents, and you lose Cmd-1 for zooming to 100%, but tilde will go
back to selecting the composite channel and 1, 2, 3, etc. will go back to
selecting/targeting the first, second, third, etc. channels. The Mac
plug-in just needs to be dropped into your Photoshop plug-ins directory,
and on Windows you can enable/disable the behavior by double-clicking the
reg entries."
rest of the post is here:
<http:
//blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/10/shortcut_changes_in_cs4.html>
/andrew webb
___________________________________________________________________________
On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: "Dan Margulis"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:04 am (PDT)
IV. FIXING THINGS THAT AIN'T BROKE.
The Curves dialog existed in a single, simple form for
15 years. The ability to input numbers from the keyboard was added in 1998,
but the basic dialog didn't change. In Photoshop CS3 (2007), in violation
of my suggested rules, the curves dialog was redesigned without adding new
capabilities. It's prettier now, no doubt. In terms of effectiveness, it's
a downgrade.
Something designed as long ago as the curves dialog is
unlikely to be perfect, but that it survived as long as it did indicates
that there wasn't any serious problem with it either. Like many other
dialogs, some of its ramifications are not immediately evident to
non-expert users. Consequently, it's possible that even a programmer with
the best of intentions may inadvertently make things worse.
That's what happened. Instead of having one large and
one small curve option, we got the least common denominator: a single
medium size that is less useful than either. The saving and loading of
existing curves is more cumbersome. Plus, there are a couple of obvious
oversights. Having the curve itself be in the color of its channel rather
than the traditional black seems harmless enough, and it *is* harmless--in
RGB. In CMYK, the yellow curve is now nearly invisible.
Plus, in the course of incorporating a needless change
in how to choose the orientation of curves (with radio buttons to choose
whether we have a 0-100 or 0-255 scale, rather than the historical way of
clicking on the gradient below the curve grid) nobody thought to uncouple
the scale from the orientation, which would have been quite useful. Many
people wish to use a 0-100 scale with a darkness-to-the-left orientation
and many others want 0-255 with darkness to the right. Granted, some work
would have to be done with the Info palette at the same time, but still,
this would be the sort of improvement that justifies a redesign. Instead,
the dialog was redesigned in a way that was hard to learn, that gave us no
new capabilities, and in fact was worse than before, yet was used in
advertising material as a justification for people to buy CS3. I would
prefer, and I know a number of retouchers who feel the same way, that this
dialog be replaced in CS5 with the traditional one. If Adobe has so many
people without anything else constructive to do that it can assign them to
redo the curves dialog without adding anything of substance, they could
certainly have been assigned instead to add channel curves to Camera Raw,
which *would* be of substance.
Other list members have commented on the improved
overall interface when CS4 displays multiple images. These changes comply
with my rules, because they correct certain deficiencies that were
introduced in Photoshop CS3. One could also argue that being able to shift
between (and selectively close) multiple images via tabs is a new
capability and therefore justifies a change even in a longstanding
interface. However, for the sake of this discussion, it's best that we
assume that there is *no* new capability, just as, for the sake of
discussion, we will assume that the CS4 method is superior to anything seen
previously.
My suggested rules allow the CS4 changes--but they
would not have allowed what happened in CS3. That was a classic example of
make-work: redesign for the sake of redesign, drastically changing a
long-standing interface with no valid reason and no new capabilities. And,
like the CS3 curves dialog, the new way was worse than the 15-year-old way.
It took a lot of time to adjust to. It wasn't bad for people with a large
amount of monitor space, but for, say, Photoshop instructors, who often
have to work with what amounts to a 17-inch screen, it was a step downhill.
Adobe recognized this; the offending parts have been replaced in CS4.
Now, what was the cost of getting it right? CS4
displays and manipulates images much faster than any previous version. The
question is, how much more efficient is this new interface as such (not
just its speed and display quality; those things were going to happen
anyway), than the version found in CS2? A good guess would be several
seconds to a minute each working day. That has to be weighed against the
time investment not just of learning and adjusting to the CS4 interface,
but also of the considerable time wasted learning and then unlearning the
inferior CS3 method. CS3, after all, was the one in which the decision to
change things was taken. That the first try at improving something that
doesn't need fixing may be a failure is part of the cost of change, even if
the second try gets it right.
So, again accepting for the sake of argument that the
CS4 method of displaying images beats anything we've had in the past, are
we really better off overall than if they had just left the traditional
interface alone? My answer is no. Even conceding that there has been an
improvement, *all things considered* the user base would have been better
served if this part of CS2's interface had been retained. It will take 20
years or so for the added efficiency to make up for the time spent
adjusting to not one, but two new methods of doing things, one of which was
poor. And that's even ignoring the point made so many times before: if less
time was spent redesigning for the sake of redesign, then more time would
be available for something really useful, such as adding Lighten/Darken
sliders to filters, or allowing various kinds of masks to load
automatically when commands are invoked.
The most maddening example of this redesign for the
sake of redesign, however, is neither of the above examples. Adjustment
layers have been around since Photoshop 4 in 1996, and the interface has
been stable during that time. Now, without adding capabilities, the whole
thing is redone from scratch. The look of several adjustment dialogs has
been overhauled. A new adjustment (Vibrance, from Camera Raw) has been
added, and also the useful capability to adjust the attributes of layer
masks, including reversible blurring. But neither of these should affect
the overall interface.
The user has to relearn the entire adjustment layer
experience--in order to duplicate capabilities we already have. We now have
to cope with dialogs that don't match the non- adjustment dialogs, a new
way of opening and closing the dialogs, and new shortcuts. With that much
redesigning going on of a complicated interface, errors are practically
inevitable. For example, the new curves adjustment dialog makes it unduly
cumbersome to place a point by Command-clicking, whereas the basic
(non-adjustment layer) curves dialog operates traditionally. The valuable
Shift-Command-click to place a point in ALL channels is apparently gone in
the adjustment dialog, but lives on in the basic one.
Worse, any serious retoucher going to use both the
basic and the adjustment curves dialogs on a daily basis. Even forgetting
for a moment that they neither look nor act alike, even the things that one
would expect that they share are fouled up. Traditionally, if we want to
access the first curve (red, A, cyan), we did the simple and obvious
Command-1 in either basic or adjustment curves--the same Command-1 that
would access the channel itself if we wanted to look at it. Now, it's
Command-3 to show the channel. In the basic curves dialog, it's
Command-OPTION-3. But in the adjustment curves dialog, it's SHIFT-option-3.
It is common, in my experience, for programming teams to make errors in
judgment that cause reviewers to get angry. Then again, there are some
displays of such breathtaking incompetence that one can only shake one's
head in wonder, and think evil thoughts about the quality of the
developer's Human Resources department.
I've worked with the final beta version a fair amount,
but not enough to give a final conclusion as to each change. As indicated
above, it seems to me that the new image display interface (discounting, as
we should, the additional speed and display quality, which was going to
happen anyway) is better than the traditional way and much better than the
CS3 way. However, my tentative conclusion is that from a productivity POV
the new adjustment-layer method is significantly worse than what it
replaces and that most users would be better off if it were discarded in
CS5 and the former interface restored or at least made optional.
But that assessment is really beside the point, which
is that this ambitious project should never have been undertaken in the
first place. Even if it gave us marginally more productivity, it would take
a long, long time to make up for the time spent learning it. If Adobe has
people who can be devoted to making the adjustments interface prettier
without making it better, then it certainly has some who can be assigned to
update the adjustments themselves. Hue/Saturation, Color Balance, Channel
Mixer and Selective Color are bread-and-butter commands but they are all
very old. By 1996 standards they were all good, but today there are obvious
ways to make them more powerful. The purpose of Photoshop is to process
images quickly and effectively. Better commands help us do that. Prettier
interfaces do not.
V. IN DEFENSE OF GOOD INTENTIONS.
1) Dealing with criticism and suggestions from users is
a universal issue; some companies do it much better than others.
Historically, the response of the Photoshop engineering team to such
criticism and suggestions has been below average in comparison to other
software developers. In the last few years, though, and in the last couple
particularly, responsiveness IMHO has improved dramatically. On several
occasions, representatives of the Photoshop team have gone well beyond what
their job requires in trying to understand what people are complaining
about and in seeing whether there is a way to accommodate them. There are
two individuals in particular who should be singled out for their patience
and dedication. I do not wish to give them the kiss of death by mentioning
their names, nor do I wish to inadvertently shortchange anybody else. so
they will remain unidentified except to say that they have not been with
Adobe for an especially long time. I happen to know that these people (and
probably some others) worked hard on the QC of the new adjustments package
and did things that indicated they were listening seriously to user
feedback. While any company would do this to a certain extent, here it was
done to an *impressive* extent. Everybody should appreciate this effort,
and I certainly do.
2) From time to time software developers are guilty of
putting things in or taking them out of their programs with less than
exemplary motivations, such as incorporating spyware or features
deliberately designed to disable a competitor. The keyboard shortcut
changes are an example: they were changed as a marketing measure in blatant
disregard of the user base's needs. There was nothing of the kind with
respect to the adjustment layers change AFAIK. The people who planned it, I
believe, honestly thought that they were going to give users a better
experience.
3) Shortly after this is posted there will doubtless
appear a slew of denunciations stating that I am against all progress, hate
Adobe, am responsible for the war in Iraq, etc. I want to restate that
these comments are limited to significant alterations of long-standing
interfaces and commands without the addition of significant new
capabilities. Most software development does *not* fall into this category,
and I write this only because it is troubling that Photoshop appears to be
doing it more and more. Examples of what I am NOT talking about are these:
a) Bridge has many interface modifications in CS4. in
addition to having apparently, after two lemon releases, finally become
stable. No problem. It's a young feature and young features often need
improvements that weren't evident when they were first designed. When
Bridge stays constant for three successive versions, THEN it should be left
alone unless significant new features are added.
b) The Select: Color Range command *has* been constant
for a number of versions. However, significant new functionality is added
in CS4. At least minor changes to the interface are needed, but even if the
development team had decided to redesign it from scratch, that would be
fine with me.
c) Edit: Convert to Profile has also been constant for
several versions. New options are added in CS4, therefore new capabilities,
therefore the interface can change. There is also a more organized way of
choosing profiles. Whether this reorganization consititutes a new
capability is a question that need not be answered because the development
team sensibly allows us, as an option, to use the "old" Convert
to Profile dialog instead.
VI. SUMMARY.
Depending on how you count versions, Photoshop CS4 is
the dozenth or so major update of the program. When an application is that
mature, producing meaningful updates gets difficult. Few obviously stupid
things remain to be fixed; any "killer" new features were
probably introduced several versions ago; as new features must nevertheless
be added to justify upgrades, the application gets bigger, and bigger, and
bigger. When it does, it becomes harder and harder to debug, and more and
more likely to run slower, and more and more likely to have flaws when
released. Plus, the more successful a product has been, the more people
within the company want to horn in to influence its development. Yet in
spite of these obviously increased difficulties, management invariably
demands that upgrades (I use the term loosely) be produced on the same
schedule as ten years ago--if not faster.
With all these pressures, it is very understandable
that developers fall into the
horse-with-the-interface-rather-than-improve-the-product trap. It's easy,
it can be done on a deadline, and it's unlikely to introduce severe bugs
that might delay the release date. And, just as a retoucher who works an
image with a color cast starts to lose the ability to detect the cast
visually and needs to rely on the Info palette, the more time a software
designer spends looking at a new design, the easier it is to convince
himself that it's a Good Thing--which is why I recommend reference to the
four rules above.
So, I suggest that not just Photoshop, and not just
Adobe generally, but all software companies adopt them. If the company
itself won't do so, then the individuals doing the work should. Before
embarking on a cosmetic remake of something that has existed for a long
time, they should ask themselves: is this *really* in the best interest of
the users I am supposed to be serving? Admittedly, most of the time the
result will be an improvement, but sometimes, as we have seen, the old way
is deceptively good, so much so that the revision is a downgrade, as in the
cases of the CS3 curves dialog, the CS3 image display interface, and the
CS4 adjustment layer changes. And, even assuming there is a slight
improvement, will it be worth the effort for the user to spend the time
adjusting to it?
The real reason for reticence about redesign, however,
is this: what better things could I be developing for the product, if I
wasn't spending the time diddling with it?
That question is particularly germane to Photoshop, at
least in this century. I think everyone understands that when a product is
this mature, there will be an emphasis on adding features that can broaden
the user base and not just improve things for current users. That said,
from the standpoint of the traditional tasks that it is supposed to
address, Photoshop is currently a stagnant product and has been for several
versions. If the keyboard shortcut issue is addressed, I, like other users,
face the choice of whether to purchase CS4. If I do it, the main reasons
are technical: speed, better display, a Bridge that finally works, and the
ability to open raw files from more cameras. Those things are all good, of
course, but it would somehow feel a lot more appropriate if the main reason
for purchasing a new version of Photoshop was that it manipulated images
better.
Because improvement of existing Photoshop features has
basically ground to a halt in the last few versions, there is now a largish
backlog of things that might be done, many of which are mentioned higher
up. We've seen on our list and others, particularly Scott Kelby's blog,
lots of similar improvements being suggested. Not everybody's preference is
the same, amd not everybody can get the features they personally hope for.
One thing seems clear, though. If Adobe were to voluntarily ban itself from
jacking around with the interface when no significant capability is added,
we would all see a lot more of the features we're interested in.
We'd have to invest time in learning those new
features, for sure. That's too bad, because there is so much worthwhile
information out there that most of us are already pressed for time to study
stuff. Nevertheless, if Photoshop really offers something new and better,
most of us are willing to take the time to learn how to use it. Having to
spend a lot of a time relearning how to do something that we already know
how to do is a different story, and that, ultimately, is the story of
Photoshop CS4.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: "Jeremy Schultz"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:59 am (PDT)
Part II is also a good post, though I would take it one
further and include the Masks panel as something that is an interface
addition without much substance. A couple weeks ago, I wrote a ?first
impressions? story on CreativePro.com regarding my experiences with the
beta, and the Masks panel was something I called out for not offering many
new features for users, if any‹it?s basically a panel for accessing
features that already existed in Photoshop. There are a couple new features
such as nondestructive feathering of masks, but only a couple.
I am told by Adobe that the Adjustments panel is
something that users were wanting to have, but it seems to me like it?s
designed for beginners or intermediate users‹same with the Masks
panel. The Adjustments panel offers icons to access adjustment layers,
presets for adjustment layers, and immediate access to the sliders and such
to modify these adjustments. I personally have never needed these elements
all in one place, and I?ve not needed presets before and don?t expect
to‹every image is different and I apply unique settings to them, as
I?m sure we all do. Such ?canned? adjustments are useful if you?re
correcting in a hurry or if you?re new to Photoshop. I don?t understand why
these beginner features aren?t included just in the entry-level Photoshop
CS4 and not Photoshop Extended CS4, which is supposed to be for power
users.
I myself am holding off on judging CS4 because I?m
using a beta version that I don?t think is the final build. I should be
getting the final product in the next week or so. However, it sounds like
things are not going to be changed like I had hoped. I think some of these
developers should learn from the usability strategies necessary in good web
design‹products, whether they?re websites or apps like Photoshop,
can?t just ignore users? learned behaviors.
PS‹Dan commented a couple times on the improved
image handling and performance, and it is impressive. The application feels
faster and more fluid, which I like. But there?s one thing that sometimes
drives me crazy about it. If you?ve seen any demos of Photoshop CS4, one
trick that people like to show is how you can drag and ?toss? an image with
the Hand tool, and it will drift by. It looks very cool and I know people
ooh and ahh about it when they see it. But when you?re using CS4 in the
workplace, and drag the image to retouch a critical spot and instead you
watch the spot slide right out of your window‹consider then whether
this feature is one of those things that looks cool but isn?t particularly
useful.
Jeremy Schultz
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: "David Lawrence"
Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:59 am (PDT)
Dan,
I read carefully and with marked interest both of your
posts regarding the upcoming upgrade/downgrade of Adobe Photoshop. One
phrase so overwhelmed me that I yearn to use it repeatedly in many aspects
of my daily life.
"Breathtaking Incompetence!"
Thank you,
David
David L. Lawrence
Graphic Artist
PixelPurfect.com
Indianapolis, Indiana 46278
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: Digest Number 2873
Posted by: "Jeff Schewe"
Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:01 pm (PDT)
On 10/17/08 Dan Margulis wrote:
Instead of having one large and one small curve option,
we got the
least common denominator: a single medium size that is
less useful than
either.
Uh, Dan, you realize you CAN have two sizes of the
Curve dlog in the panel, right? The little icon on the lower left of the
dlog is a sizer for the panel. When in the large size, it has the exact
same grid size as the Curves "Adjustments" dlog...
The saving and loading of existing curves is more
cumbersome
Uh, as far as I can tell, the saving and loading of
curves is the same?via the fly out menu. Is this not the case you YOUR
version?
I've worked with the final beta version a fair amount,
but not enough to give
a final conclusion as to each change.
Maybe you need to burrow down on the changes a bit
more? A superficial run through of the differences may not actually offer
enough feedback to make an accurate assessment. Just a thought...
Regards,
Jeff Schewe
___________________________________________________________________________
.
REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4: Four
Suggested Rul
Posted by: "Jeff Schewe"
Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:28 pm (PDT)
Folks,
My apologies for having missed the Subject line when
replying to Dan's post: "Should have been On CS4: Four Suggested
Rules, Part II". I hate it when people forget to use the correct
Subject line in replies, and hate it even more when I do it myself...me
culpa! (sorry Dan!)
As somebody who has been using CS4 pretty solidly for
production since early summer (prior to that it was just testing) I'll have
to say that change for the sake of change is not particularly useful, but
the changes brought about with CS4 with the non-modal Adjustments panel (as
well as the non-destructive masking panel) actually do aid in a more
productive workflow–once you get over the fact that the usability is
indeed different. I don't particularly like changes in shotrcuts...but
while one can debate the merits of UI consistency, I've found actually
working with new things in a production environment (and not always
fighting the differences) is the best way to adapt (and adopt).
Again, sorry for screwing up the subject line...
Jeff Schewe
_________________________________________________________________________
REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4: Four
Suggested Rul
Posted by: "dbernaerdt"
Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:34 am (PDT)
Jeff,
Uh, Dan, you realize you CAN have two sizes of the
Curve dlog in
the panel, right? The little icon on the lower left of
the dlog is
a sizer for the panel. When in the large size, it has
the exact
same grid size as the Curves "Adjustments"
dlog...
Can you please clarify? In CS2, there was an icon in
the lower right corner of the Curves dialogue box that changed the overall
size of the box. Compact (useful when using the laptop) and expanded when
using a more reasonable sized display. I don't see similar functionality in
CS3 (Mac & Win, v10.0.1)
Uh, as far as I can tell, the saving and loading of
curves is the
same?via the fly out menu. Is this not the case you
YOUR version?
Much of my production is done on a Windows machine and
loading an existing curve was as easy as pressing "Alt + L" when
in the curves dialogue box. No mousing, just a quick shortcut. Now it
requires two clicks. Not a big deal if you're working on a few images/day,
but an inconvenience when dealing with dozens or hundreds/day.
Maybe you need to burrow down on the changes a bit
more? A superficial run
through of the differences may not actually offer
enough feedback to make an
accurate assessment. Just a thought...
I'm sure the majority of users barely noticed the
elimination of the "Save" and "Load" buttons, but it's
irritated me enough to keep CS2 around.
Darren Bernaerdt
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "Dan Margulis"
Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:26 am (PDT)
Jeremy writes,
Some responses to what Dan has said in Part I. I am in
relative agreement
with him, though for whatever reason I?m not as
bothered by some of the
changed names and menu items than he is. Yeah, it takes
a moment to realize
what has changed and if I was head of Adobe I would
have scuttled such odd
changes that really don?t help the user at all, but
I?ve been using CS4 for
a couple months and those particular changes don?t seem
to bother me much. I
haven?t yet hit a menu or name change that drives me
mad.
Just to be clear, they don't drive me mad and I am not
bothered particularly by them as such. I have no difficulty understanding
that what used to be known as Shadow/Highlight is now known as
Shadows/Highlights, although it is certainly annoying that I have to update
a lot of documentation to reflect the needless name change.
I raised the issue only because it is symptomatic of
what is wrong with these last few versions and has come to a head in CS4.
That is, like other software vendors before them, the Photoshop team has
fallen into the trap of continually redesigning the product without
actually improving it. The other, more serious changes should be seen as
what they were: attempting to justify an upgrade by diddling with the
interface rather than by actually adding functionality to the program. It
was for that reason that I proposed the sensible rule of freezing those
parts of the interface that are more than five years old UNLESS some
significant new capabilities--not just a pretty new look--are added.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: "John M. Henry"
Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:04 am (PDT)
A major factor is the self imposed deadline of 18
months for a each new version of CS. This mean no matter what you will have
new product out the door. No matter if it works, makes sense or is better.
Adobe needs the upgrade fees. All programs in suite have to be in the same
time line.
Dan they adopted your rules long ago, just in reverse.
The meeting goes like this; what can we do improve Photoshop? Short list of
user requests. Ok now we have to do more than that or who will buy it, so
get real what have we not changed in 3 or more versions?
Bingo! Explains it all.
John M. Henry
Mitchell Printing & Mailing, Inc.
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part I
Posted by: Michael Jahn
Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:04 am (PDT)
I agree with Dan that this is frustrating and seemingly
needless (sometimes). I am not sure what the team at Adobe might change
without actually adding new features to the TIFF or "Photoshop
Native" File Format Specifcation (which I "thought" would
eventually fit 'inside" the PDF file specification).
We have the notion of type and tools for type in
Photoshop - things you might actually see in a page layout application. As
CS4 moves to CS5, I would expect this all gets glommed more toward
InDesig-o-ILLO-Photo-Bat, where some tools that are 'shared' can live in
more or less the same toolbar or menu "location" - this might
explain why things seem to "move" from one version to the next,
as Adobe is listening to users who want a common standard interface accross
the suite.
I must say that this "now where did they put
it" thing occurs in my main axe, Adobe Acrobat - and while the
majority of users are not concerned about "prepress PDF" issues,
several items seem to get 'moved' without my really understanding why.
In one oddity, like in Acrobat 7 Professional, the
"Output Preview" tool can actually be accessed in two different
locations;
In Acrobat 7, under the Tools Menu, select Print
Production, cascade select Output Preview
also In Acrobat 7, under the Advanced Menu, select
Output Preview
It seems to have settled down now, in Acrobat 8, under
the Advanced Menu, select Output Preview
Disapointingly, it is not available in Acrobat 9 Reader
which was supposed to be an important feature that would enable Acrobat 9
to be our first "PDF/X Compliant" viewer.
So, I concur with Dan on this - I see several changes
that are in the catagory of "who really cares" (renaming an item)
to "now why on earth did they change a perfectly good tool"( CS4
adjustment layer changes) - and I will probably stick with the CS2 version
(again) as they have not given me anything that I can't live without (as I
am neither a Retoucher or Photograher, but someone who needs to build
visual aids to explain to software engineers what I need a tool to actually
'do')
Michael Jahn
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: 2873 / CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: "Alex Kent"
Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:26 am (PDT)
which version of PS are we talking about here ?
i understood this thread was about the changes between
CS3 and the recently released CS4.
as Jeff said, the new non-modal curves dialog in CS4
does allow two sizes. and, as it happens, CS3 only allowed one size of
Curves dialog (the larger 256px size).
here is a screen shot of the two palette sizes in CS4:
http://homepage.mac.com/alexkent/screenshots/cs4curves2sizes.jpg
with regard to how useful / useless this change is;
moving the shortcuts is annoying, but as has been reported there is a
solution in the form of a plugin. the Huge win that no one seems to notice
is that the adjustments dialog is non-modal. ever want to change an
adjustment layer's opacity or blending mode without closing and re-opening
the adjustment ? well now you can. this is just one example but there are
many workflow wins here.
alex kent.
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Dan Margulis"
Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:16 am (PDT)
Jeff Schewe writes,
Uh, Dan, you realize you CAN have two sizes of the
Curve dlog in the panel,
right?
I realize you can have it in the adjustment layer
dialog of CS4, yes, but AFAIK you can *not* have it in Photoshop CS3, which
is what I was discussing. Previous versions, you could have two sizes,
which is one of several reasons that most of the retouchers I hang around
with consider that the CS3 curves dialog is worse than what it replaced.
Uh, as far as I can tell, the saving and loading of
curves is the same–via
the fly out menu. Is this not the case you YOUR
version?
No. In my copy of CS3 there is a flyout menu that is
not the same as in previous versions. This "improvement" enabled
me to do in three steps what took me one in previous versions. See Darren's
similar complaint about the change.
Maybe you need to burrow down on the changes a bit
more? A superficial run
through of the differences may not actually offer
enough feedback to make an
accurate assessment. Just a thought...
Possibly so, but in return may I suggest that a
superficial read of a single paragraph and assuming that it's about CS4
without noticing the one before that says it's about CS3 may not offer
sufficient feedback either. But to review...
The reason I mentioned the CS3 changes in the curves
dialog was as a prelude to the discussion of the CS4 adjustment layer
changes, because the two are very similar. In each case, a section of the
interface that was more than ten years old and not doing anybody any harm
was redesigned with considerable effort but WITHOUT adding any new
functionality at all.
Consequently, nothing can be done with either that
couldn't be done with the previous interfaces--no change of any substance,
only cosmetic changes that the user has to relearn in order to get back to
where he was in the first place. Nevertheless, in each case the redesign is
used to justify the upgrade--that is, your friends offer us the same
product in a different package and say that it's now worth upgrading
because you will be more productive.
The conceptual difficulty with this
diddle-with-the-interface-but-don't-add-functionality approach is, first,
that while the redesign may in fact make the interface better, there's also
a fairly good chance it will make it *worse* than before. That clearly
happened with the curves dialog change in CS3, and IMHO it has also
happened with the adjustment layers changes in CS4. Second, even if the
change was for the better, any gains in productivity may be offset if it
takes the user too long to learn the new way.
But the REALLY big loss is in considering what better
might have been accomplished with the time spent dorking with the
interface. For example, in the time spent redesigning the curves dialog
somebody could instead have added real curves to Camera Raw, which would
significantly improve the product and not just make it look prettier.
In mentioning how many other companies have fallen into
this trap, I described the
jack-around-with-the-interface-without-adding-anything-of-substance
approach as being the mark of the lazy, the corporate politician, and the
incompetent. If your friends would like to identify themselves as *not*
belonging to one of these three groups, I'd suggest you try to talk them
into taking the pledge: we will not mess around with things that are 3+
versions old *unless* we are going to give the users something seriously
new in return.
If they do take that pledge, we'll get a better
Photoshop in CS5, not just a better-looking one.
But, returning to burrowing down to the actual changes
in the CS4 adjustment curves (as opposed to the changes in CS3) I did make
two specific statements that perhaps you are in a position to correct.
*Using the CS4 adjustment curve, I have been able to
figure out how to access the traditional Command-click shortcut that places
a point in the curve corresponding to the tonality of the image where the
cursor is currently. I have *not* been able to find the corresponding
Shift-Command-click that places a similar point in *each* channel. That's a
pretty critical omission, if indeed it is not there. Have you been able to
find it?
*I stated that in previous versions of Photoshop, if
you wanted to activate the (say) red channel, you would use a certain
keyboard shortcut. If you wanted to activate the red curve in the basic
(non-adjustment) curves dialog you would use the same shortcut. And if you
wanted to activate the red curve on an adjustment layer you would still use
the very same shortcut. Do you agree? If so, I also stated that in CS4,
which we are informed will allow us to work more efficiently, this single
shortcut is replaced by three different shortcuts--even to the point that
the adjustment curve, which looks like the basic curve, doesn't share the
same shortcut. Does it work this way in your version, too?
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Rick McCleary"
Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:00 am (PDT)
Dan Margulis writes,
*Using the CS4 adjustment curve, I have been able to
figure out how to access the
traditional Command-click shortcut that places a point
in the curve corresponding to
the tonality of the image where the cursor is
currently. I have *not* been able to find the
corresponding Shift-Command-click that places a similar
point in *each* channel.
That's a pretty critical omission, if indeed it is not
there. Have you been able to find it?
*I stated that in previous versions of Photoshop, if
you wanted to activate the (say) red
channel, you would use a certain keyboard shortcut. If
you wanted to activate the red
curve in the basic (non-adjustment) curves dialog you
would use the same shortcut.
And if you wanted to activate the red curve on an
adjustment layer you would still use the
very same shortcut. Do you agree? If so, I also stated
that in CS4, which we are informed
will allow us to work more efficiently, this single
shortcut is replaced by three different
shortcuts--even to the point that the adjustment curve,
which looks like the basic
curve, doesn't share the same shortcut. Does it work
this way in your version, too?
I am generally very pleased with most of the changes in
CS4. After a week of using them, I wondered how I ever got along without
the non-modal adjustment panels.
However, the change in how we navigate within the
curves dialog via keyboard shortcuts is a real problem. Yes, if forced to,
we could all "get used" to the keyboard shortcuts. But this
change is way more fundamental--and damaging--than moving a menu item. It's
like reconfiguring the pedals in a car by putting the accelerator on the
left, the brake on the right, and the clutch on the passenger's side.
I'm interested in the answers to Dan's questions quoted
above. I certainly hope there is a command-shift-click equivalent to place
a point on each curve. And Dan, you said you have discovered how to access
the standard command-click to place a point on the active channel. Care to
share how?
Rick McCleary
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Dan Margulis"
Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:44 pm (PDT)
Rick McCleary writes,
I'm interested in the answers to Dan's questions quoted
above. I certainly hope there is
a
command-shift-click equivalent to place a point on each
curve. And Dan, you said you
have discovered how to access the standard
command-click to place a point on the
active channel. Care to share how?
Here is how I understand the adjustment curves, based
on the final beta. It is important to realize that although the behavior of
the adjustment curves dialog is new, that of the *basic* curves dialog is
not. So we have to remember which dialog we're using, even though they
basically look the same. That is, if we have a curves adjustment open, it
behaves one way, but if we pop a curve onto its layer mask, it doesn't.
Presumably this adds efficiency to the workflow by keeping us awake, and
also improves our domestic relationships, since we will be so busy cursing
out Adobe every time we forget which curve dialog we're in that we won't
have time to be angry with our significant others.
GUIDE TO THE MOVING CIRCLE.
It is often necessary to estimate the range of a
certain object or area so that its contrast can be maximized via a curve.
Since the beginning of time, this has been done (with curves dialog open)
by clicking and holding while sweeping across said object or area. This
activates a moving circle that moves up and down the curve, reflecting the
values beneath the cursor. When finished, release the mouse and the circle
goes away.
This is still the way the basic curves dialog works,
but the adjustment curves dialog now works like so:
1) Move the mouse outside of the image and into the
dialog. In order to save us the effort of clicking and holding over a vague
area, we now have to navigate to a precisely defined one, to wit, a small
icon in the upper left of the adjustment dialog.
2) Click the mouse.
3) Return to the image and observe that the circle is
now visible, permanently, without the onerous necessity of holding the
mouse button down. Just mouse around the area you wish to measure, and the
curve indicates values as before.
4) When finished, move back to the curves dialog, find
the small icon again, and click again, and return to the image. Otherwise,
the moving circle will stay active and drive you nuts.
5) Remember that if the next curve you call up is of
the basic, nonadjustment variety, you have to go back to the old,
inefficient workflow of click-hold-move, without the valuable two trips to
the dialog.
GUIDE TO AUTOMATED PLACING OF POINTS.
Clicking a point into a channel curve by
Command-clicking the corresponding area of the image has been available
since the beginning of time. It is a critical part of curvewriting.
Shift-Command-click, to place a point in *each* channel, is used somewhat
less often, but is still vital in something like the Man from Mars Method,
or when attempting to color- balance an image with a serious cast.
This is still the way the basic curves dialog works,
but the adjustment curves dialog now works like so:
1) Move the mouse outside of the image and into the
dialog. In order to save us the effort of Shift-Command-clicking a vague
area, we now have to navigate to a precisely defined one, to wit, a small
icon in the upper left of the adjustment dialog.
2) Click the mouse. This gives Photoshop the vital
information that you would like Command-click to place a point in the
curve, as otherwise it might suppose you intended to use Command-click for
some other useful purpose, such as launching a missile in the direction of
San Jose.
3) Return to the image and observe that there is now a
distracting moving circle in the curves dialog.
4) Navigate to the place that you would have, in the
old, inefficient workflow, Command-clicked.
5) Command-click.
6) Move back to the curves dialog, find the small icon
again, and click again, and return to the image. Otherwise, the moving
circle will stay active and drive you nuts.
7) Remember that if the next curve you call up is of
the basic, nonadjustment variety, you have to go back to the old,
inefficient workflow of Command-click, without the valuable two trips to
the dialog, between which you have to Command-click anyway.
8) If you needed to SHIFT-Command-click because you
wanted to place a point in all channels, you are SOL, at least in my
version.
*********************************
Warning with respect to the last: for all I know the
missing Shift-Command-click is a bug in the final beta, that's why I asked
Jeff if he knew whether it is supposed to be there. We did receive a post
this morning that was rejected because no name was attached (reminder to
list members: we don't accept anonymous posts. Occasionally we accept posts
without signatures provided that there is a clear and legible first and
last name in the return address, but not if we have nothing to identify the
poster), saying that it DOES work. However, the poster was a PC user and I
use Macs, also there is some possibility that he was referring to the basic
curves and not the adjustment curves dialog. In the basic curves dialog, of
course, it does work.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "mdjager"
Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:20 am (PDT)
Rick McCleary writes,
I'm interested in the answers to Dan's questions quoted
above. I
certainly hope there is a command-shift-click
equivalent to
place a point on each curve. And Dan, you said you have
discovered how to
access the standard command-click to place a point on
the active
channel. Care to share how?
The above feature, or lack thereof, is enough for me to
pass on this 'improved' version of Photoshop. And that's a big deal for me
because I've never passed on a new release of Photoshop before!
Although in fairness to Adobe I think I understand what
makes them tick. The bottom line is sales, without which there would be no
Photoshop, or Adobe for that matter. And what drives sales is Marketing.
And what drives the people in marketing, people like me who buy their
products. The desire to find out what will prompt me to go to the store and
buy their latest version of Photoshop is their business, or rather their
investors business.
And maybe that's where the true problem lies. People
like me.
In past years I would eagerly anticipate each new
version of Photoshop. And when it arrived I would digest all the reviews
and news of the 'New and Improved' version with all the anticipation of a
five year-old on Christmas morning. The more 'neat-o' things they could
pack into the program the better! It never took any real prodding to
convince me that if I didn't get this new version I wouldn't possibly be
able to call myself a professional... even though I wasn't really a
professional anyway.
In the past, I myself didn't really know what was a
necessary function vs. fluff. I fell for all the marketing hype everytime.
And, at that time, if some marketing exec. from Adobe had asked my opinion
about what I wanted to see in future versions I would have replied, More
Stuff!
Then something funny happened.
As I became more serious about photography, and in
particular color correction (thanks Dan), I slowly became less and less
infatuated with all the 'stuff' included in Photoshop. My present toolset
has now become quite small in comparison to all the stuff that the program
actually offers.
I would now love it if Adobe would come out with a 'New
and Improved' version of Photoshop called Photoshop Basic. It would offer
Curves, Layers, Channels, USM, and maybe the pen tool. They could market it
to Non-Professionals and sell it for $199. This version would only have to
be upgraded... well, Never!
Ahh, but there in lies the problem. It wouldn't take
long and Adobe would cease to exist. Their remaining assests would be
bought by some other company who had a better understanding of marketing
and who would redesign the whole program and then do their absolute best to
get me to buy their New and Improved 'Microsoft Photoshop' version.
And then all our problems would be solved!
Murray DeJager
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Edward Troy"
Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:43 am (PDT)
I didn?t have the beta, but the shipping version does
seem to allow command click and shift-command click. Command alone gives
you a single point on the RGB curve, shift command gives a point on the
red, green, and blue, but not the RGB. Seems to be the same as CS3. Works
on both legacy and adjustments.
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: 2873 / CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: Jacob Rus
Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:20 am (PDT)
Alex Kent wrote:
the Huge win that no one seems to notice is that the
adjustments
dialog is non-modal. ever want to change an adjustment
layer's
opacity or blending mode without closing and re-opening
the
adjustment ? well now you can.
That is fantastic indeed. Just out of curiosity: if
it's now non-modal, can more than one such dialog be open at once? That
would be a bigger win still.
–Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Jeremy Schultz"
Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:25 am (PDT)
Murray wrote,
I would now love it if Adobe would come out with a 'New
and Improved'
version of Photoshop called Photoshop Basic. It would
offer Curves,
Layers, Channels, USM, and maybe the pen tool. They
could market it
to Non-Professionals and sell it for $199. This version
would only
have to be upgraded... well, Never!
There are two products already out there that come
close to this idea. Photoshop Elements is a cheap version of Photoshop and
as I recall it has all these features except maybe the Channels panel. I
just got the new version, I?ll have to check it out and report.
The other product is Photoshop (not Extended). I don?t
know why Adobe doesn?t do a better job of making PS and PS Extended more
differentiated. Photoshop could very well be pared down of features and
made into a lean, fast $200 app.
Jeremy Schultz
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "ricardo"
Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:25 pm (PDT)
Dan
After following your instructions below on the curves
adjustment layer, I found that the command-shift does work.
Here is my configuration:
Mac OS Leopard 10.5.5
2.8 / 8 core, 4GIG ram
3T HD
CS4 final public release.
Best
Ricardo Aguiar
___________________________________________________________________________
upgrading
Posted by: "RJay Hansen"
Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:06 am (PDT)
Here's a Macworld article that seems pertinent to the
current discussionabout upgrades:
http://tinyurl.com/6c8pdl
RJay
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: upgrading
Posted by: Michael Jahn
Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:03 pm (PDT)
Thanks RJay !
Wow - I loved this part;
"When I open up Photoshop 3.0, it's there and
ready to go in four seconds flat, and when I have opened CS2 my fingernails
will have grown a quarter inch before the app appears,"
--
Michael Jahn
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: upgrading
Posted by: "Russell Brown"
Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:13 pm (PDT)
Agreed!
Thanks RJay.
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "mdjager"
Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:03 pm (PDT)
Jeremy Schultz wrote:
There are two products already out there that come
close to this idea.
Photoshop Elements is a cheap version of Photoshop and
as I recall it
has all these features except maybe the Channels panel.
I just got
the new version, I?ll have to check it out and report.
Close, but no cigar! Without Channels, well that's like
saying Lightroom is all you really need.
Murray DeJager
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Russell Brown"
Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:13 pm (PDT)
HeHe! I read your post with interest, Murray! It seems
we have similar Life Experience when it comes to Photoshop!
My first version-skip was CS3 as I could see no benefit
in it for me. I posted recently how I was very disappointed with what I
could see in CS4 and that I would again skip a version, sticking with CS2.
Now, after reading Dan's very thorough posts (thanks again Dan!) I am even
more confident of my decision to wait for something better.
Actually, having missed CS3, until I read Dan's post I
was blissfully unaware of the little nasties that I was spared from in that
version. One of the most important things I've learned from reading Dan's
books is that pretty much everything is already there to do what is needed
for colour correction and the improvements that would actually be
beneficial are time and time again ignored.
I'm not going to waste money buying and time learning a
new version which offers no real benefit to me and as Dan has shown, will
actually make my work more difficult in many respects.
I did note earlier however, it does come in a very
pretty box! Maybe for a reduced cost, Adobe could send just the packaging
to me and I could proudly display it on my shelf and feel fashionable and
Very Important without the pain!
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "onno de jong"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:03 am (PDT)
Wasn't Intel support released with CS3? That was my
rationale for upgrading at the time.
the synergy of www.circularcreation.com/
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Jeff Suckow" 0
Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:03 am (PDT)
The major problem is the fact that the upgrade to the
raw module is tied to the upgrade to Photoshop. It's the only reason I
upgraded to CS3.
It's not that I care about the new the features of the
module, but I do upgrade my cameras often and the need to import directly
in Photoshop is important for the workflow.
I don't mind paying for the upgrade to RAW but I wish I
could use it with earlier versions of Photoshop CS or just pay to use a new
camera with the older modules.
Jeff Suckow
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Andrew Webb"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:15 am (PDT)
This is not correct. You can convert to DNG and open
the files in older versions of Camera Raw.
<http:
//www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3940>
Andrew Webb
Creative Director
Serious Retouching & Color
303.682.9119/303.819.0480
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "Russell Brown"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:15 am (PDT)
Hi Jeff,
Did you know that you can convert first to the DNG
format, the upgrades of which for new cameras are freely available, then
open the DNG files in ACR/Photoshop?
Is it possible for this to fit in with your workflow?
It may save you from further upgrades.
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: CS upgrade and raw module
Posted by: "Jeff Suckow"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:22 am (PDT)
Thanks Russ and Andrew.
It was the way I did it before upgrading to CS3.
I just preferred skipping the extra time for the
conversion from RAW to DNG (especially when I have many photos and time is
critical).
In my opinion, Adobe does not add new camera models to
older RAW modules as an extra means of pressure to upgrade.
Jeff Suckow
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: CS upgrade and raw module
Posted by: "Paul Marriner"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:32 pm (PDT)
Jeff, this may be of little interest, but you might
consider Lightroom. It offers <all?> the features of the latest ACR
but is usually cheaper (and less aggravating!) to upgrade than PS. It's
well supported for new camera models. Once you've made your "raw"
corrections in Lightroom, one can export to CS3 for additional diddling. In
a way it's like being able to purchase ACR separately (I'd really like to
be able to upgrade Bridge and ACR separately).
In my case, because I use the Creative Suite software,
and haven't been impressed with the general upgrade to all programs, I
intend to skip CS4. However, I'll still be able to use my upgraded
Lightroom with new cameras.
Paul Marriner
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: REWas-Digest Number 2873-Should have been On CS4:
Four Suggested
Posted by: "mdjager"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:13 pm (PDT)
Russell Brown" wrote:
I did note earlier however, it does come in a very
pretty box! Maybe
for a reduced cost, Adobe could send just the packaging
to me and I
could proudly display it on my shelf and feel
fashionable and Very
Important without the pain!
Hi Russ,
That kinda reminds me of when CS3 first came out, I
remember reading alot of posts from users that the icons Adobe came up with
to represent the programs were ugly! And for a while there it seemed like a
whole new industry was born just to provide alternatives that one could
download. So for a lot of users it would seem that just 'prettier' icons
would be reason enough to pay for an upgrade.
So all you really have to do is get a hold of the new
icons for your desktop and you're in business!
Murray DeJager
___________________________________________________________________________
Sticking with CS2, Intel Performance (was: well, a
whole bunch of cr
Posted by: "Pylant, Brian"
Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:15 am (PDT)
My first version-skip was CS3 as I could see no benefit
in it for me.
I posted recently how I was very disappointed with what
I could see in
CS4 and that I would again skip a version, sticking
with CS2
At home for my freelance work I have also stuck with
CS2, as CS3 has zero features that I need.
EXCEPT...
CS2 runs fine on my old 933 G4, but terribly on the
Intel-based iMac. If anyone has any tips for improving CS2 performance on
the Intel machines I'd love to hear about it. Please feel free to email me
off-list if you like, as this is now headed decidedly off-topic for the
list.
Thanks!
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
___________________________________________________________________________
.
On CS4: Four Suggested Rules, Part II
Posted by: "Davide Barranca"
Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:51 pm (PDT)
This has now beenchanged to Command-6. It is physically
painful to twist the wrist
into this position.Execute this shortcut tens of times
per day--as retouchers commonly
do--and carpal
tunnel syndrome would be the inevitable result
Well, it's maybe less common, but I usually look for
changes I made in a hue/saturation adj. layer scrolling all the colors, via
command+1 to 6. Now they become option+2 to 8, which is probably closer to
a Liszt piano song fingering than to a Photoshop shortcut - with the
immoral extra handicap that option is also farther than command...
Besides that, in CS3 Hue/Sat, when you pick no matter
what color (it doesn't work with the master channel), then you click in the
picture and, without releasing, you move around, then the "affected
color" sliders move as well, letting you know whether for instance
your greens become more close to cyans than to yellow. In CS4, AFAIK, that
is not possible - if you attempt to click and drag you're actually changing
the saturation of the picked hue.
Well... it's not possible in adjustment layers, if you
command+U a bitmap layer, the good old Hue/Sat appears and everything's
like before. Please note that in the old dialog there still is the little
hand-with-arrows (which is appealing for a lot of inexperienced users, as
I've seen), it's simply disabled until you click it - that's the way it
should be in every dialog in the new Adjustments panel IMHO.
Personally, I don't care too much about software
make-ups, even for the sake of themselves - but they should at least not
compromise functionality, and Adjustments panel is really worth the long
Dan's post.
By the way it seems we now have plenty of new things to
fill with the extra space of today 16:9 monitors - panels and palettes (CS4
counts 23 ones!)
Regards,
Davide Barranca
Bologna, Italy
Receive
Schedule
and
Pricing
updates.
If you let us know how to contact you, we will enter you into our monthly drawing for a free 2-day class (A $895 value).
- Get free video training
- Get free tips, tricks and shortcuts
- Get special sale pricing and free seminar invitations
Ledet Training 4100 Perimeter Park South Atlanta, GA 30341
work sales@ledet.com work administration@ledet.com work webmaster@ledet.com
P work 770.414.5007 P work 877.819.2665 F fax 770.414.5661
- Authorized Training Provider
Copyright 2021. Ledet Training. All Rights Reserved.
