Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Lust4Life on April 25, 2007, 03:22:54 pm
-
Given:
Mac G-5/2.7 dual proc
8GB RAM
6.5 MB drives internal
OS X with all updates
Have full CS2 and was running CS3 Beta.
Tuesday morning I decided to upgrade to the new CS3 full release from Beta version.
Well, that was a mistake!
I've spent all of yesterday and today trying to get the CS3 installation download to work. Spent hours on the phone with Adobe and the best they can come up with is that they are having a lot of problems with installs of upgrades from CS2 where CS3 beta had been installed.
They have had me remove ALL Adobe products (Lighroom, CS2, etc.) from my G5 and the install still did not work.
Now I'm trying to rebuild my machine back to the stage it was before I purchased the CS3 upgrade.
In short - if you don't have to have it today, give Adobe time to work out all of the bugs they currently can't resolve.
I'm pissed, and have lost two days of time I should have spent working on images!
Jack
-
I'm pissed, and have lost two days of time I should have spent working on images!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=114228\")
While I can appreciate that you are a bit south of pleased, I gotta ask though if you actually wnet about this whole thing the correct way? Being an alpha and beta tester for over 10 years I know that going from a beta to GM version of a software app can be, well, a pain. But Adobe did actually go out of their way to try to warn people that they should de-activate and properly un-install the beta before trying to install the GM. Did you 1) Read and understand the technotes for removing the beta and 2) follow the advice exactly?
The Mac instructions are [a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401502]HERE[/url], the Windows instructions for XP are HERE (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401492) and Vista HERE (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401501).
There's even a script for removing the beta...see: CS3Clean Script (http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs3clean.html).
So, did you do all this?
If you did, then I suspect your machine may already have been, uh, a bit screwed up. If you didn't do all this, then you simply didn't do you beta testing homework and I really can't feel too sorry. I suspect you feel "pissed" at yourself (or should) than being pissed at Adobe.
-
I install it without any problem,,I un-install the beta version in I was done in lets then 30 minutes
BlasR
-
Very nice post Schewe. I might guess not. You know what, I rushed ahead and I didn't un-install the Beta version and I had problems installing the real version of CS3. I had to do a search for "adobe" and I trashed acrobat, CS2 and the CS3 beta. After I trashed everything adobe and restarted it installed just fine. No calls to adobe and it didn't take for ever. I downloaded acrobat and the flash plugin to be safe and off I went.
Best of luck and I love CS3.
Ken
-
sounds like a nightmare....i bought CS3 the first day off the web, uninstalled the beta and installed the new software without any problems at all.....
there were several warnings on adobe.com and on several photosites about installing over the beta....
-
Un-installed CS3 beta and installed CS3 Retail on Mac Pro and MacBook all within an hour. I've read the thread on CS3 beta in this very forum, and followed the steps described in Adobe site.
Only bitching point? $199 for an upgrade.
Jae Moon
-
While I can appreciate that you are a bit south of pleased, I gotta ask though if you actually wnet about this whole thing the correct way? Being an alpha and beta tester for over 10 years I know that going from a beta to GM version of a software app can be, well, a pain. But Adobe did actually go out of their way to try to warn people that they should de-activate and properly un-install the beta before trying to install the GM. Did you 1) Read and understand the technotes for removing the beta and 2) follow the advice exactly?
The Mac instructions are HERE (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401502), the Windows instructions for XP are HERE (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401492) and Vista HERE (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401501).
There's even a script for removing the beta...see: CS3Clean Script (http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs3clean.html).
So, did you do all this?
If you did, then I suspect your machine may already have been, uh, a bit screwed up. If you didn't do all this, then you simply didn't do you beta testing homework and I really can't feel too sorry. I suspect you feel "pissed" at yourself (or should) than being pissed at Adobe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wish you were right, but, I developed software for 13 years on the Silicon Graphics platform and I've very familiar with the potential problems one can experience when "upgrading" code. Yes, I followed all of the Beta remove instructions, etc. And yes, we trashed all of the Adobe programs, rans script, etc. and still got exactly the same error. Again, I'm not the only one with the problem according to Adobe.
In talking with the CS folks at Adobe, this is a serious problem they are having with NUMEROUS installs. They currently don't have a fix for it but are working on one. Thus, my comment of be sure you need the upgrade - better to wait till they have their bugs resolved.
Issue is it installs Bridge, etc. but can't install the PS3 module. I'm told by Adobe that if it was just PS3 that consistantly didn't install it would be easier to resolve. But different users have had different modules fail to install and that's adding to the problem for Adobe.
I'll post an update when they get back to me with a fix.
Jack
-
But Adobe did actually go out of their way to try to warn people that they should de-activate and properly un-install the beta before trying to install the GM.
There's even a script for removing the beta...see: CS3Clean Script (http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs3clean.html).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, with all due respect Adobe has created a monumental screw-up. You have more experience in this business than I do, but I have NEVER EVER seen so much rigmarole and risk surrounding the removal and installation of two pieces of software. With sufficient time, planning and foresight it is unimagineable for people of that intelligence and experience level that they could not have most likely avoided most of the trouble customers are having by anticipating uninstall issues with the Beta before releasing it in the first place. Now they are playing catch-up because they failed to do this, so they've published several documents describing several whole processes. Before we even go there, the fact that all this stuff is needed tells you what I'm saying.
But then when you start reading those documents, the real risk dawns. If normal de-activation and uninstall doesn't work, then you need to either follow a large number of instructions to do it manually, or if you don't fancy that - risk your computer's life using their Clean Script Tool. Did you read Adobe's warning that accompanies their CleanScript Tool? I've just today been looking into the purchase of Acronis True Image 10 to mirror my hard-drive because of the extent of possible damage and back-up Adobe so dutifully warns us about in case we need to use this tool of theirs. (Well, mirroring one's HD is probably a good idea anyhow, but I didn't need Adobe's problems to trigger it for me.)
I'm sorry - beta/shmeta, this is thoroughly unacceptable, and in my case will not be repeated, because they have lost my confidence. I'm waiting another week or two to see how this evolves before I install my CS3 up-grade, but I shall not trust Adobe with Beta software again unless it comes with firm commitments to respect such basic useability as removing it without risk when finished.
-
I'm sorry - beta/shmeta, this is thoroughly unacceptable, and in my case will not be repeated, because they have lost my confidence. I'm waiting another week or two to see how this evolves before I install my CS3 up-grade, but I shall not trust Adobe with Beta software again unless it comes with firm commitments to respect such basic useability as removing it without risk when finished.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"I shall not trust Adobe with Beta software again"
Did you read what you just wrote? You downloaded and installed BETA-FRIGGIN' SOFTWARE, what did you expect? Have you ever beta tested software before?
I gotta tell you that in all my experience beta testing that CS3 was generally the most stable and easy to get rid of betas ever. Understand, I run on a Mac-and in the past they never MADE an un-installer. In the past we had to use either manual or scripted remove proceedures and that failed more often than not. Remember, as an internal tester I was removing betas at a rate that far exceeded the single public beta. I lost track of the total number of internal release build, but the final release build of 1480 tells you how many builds were made internally.
The only thing I think Adobe learned in this whole public preview/beta situation is that most people simply should never get pre-release software.
-
Hi Jeff - you didn't disappoint me - I knew exactly what was coming. You asked what I expect - as you know, I wasn't born yesterday either and I'll tell you. A company with the smarts of Adobe should know better. It's fine if they do this with a small community of seasoned beta testers who have the stomach and experience to deal with just about anything they will throw at them. When they decide to broadcast it to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the community, where the experience variance is HUGE, they need to anticipate such elementary precautionary issues as how to uninstall the software without risk and provide for it before they invite us to the party. They themselves think what they have produced is risky enough to issue dire warnings to their customers. This kind of thing should not be necessary and it should not happen regardless of whether it is a beta and especially when it is a broad public release. Basic functional safety should be assured in a beta product before they issue it to the general public. With that precaution I don't see any harm making pre-release software available. I certainly learned from it and enjoyed using it - until now!
-
Well said Mark. The issue is this was a PUBLIC beta. Most of us shmoes took it for granted that the uninstall or upgrade to v. 1.0 would be seemless. We've never beta tested before. We are completely naive about complications in using beta versions. I'm sure Adobe could have delayed the release a few days while they "beta tested" a method of uninstalling the beta version so as not to confuse the average user. BTW, I consider you to be quite sophisticated inthe use of a computer. So if you are having problems, what chance do most of us have?
-
Well said Mark. The issue is this was a PUBLIC beta. Most of us shmoes took it for granted that the uninstall or upgrade to v. 1.0 would be seemless. We've never beta tested before. We are completely naive about complications in using beta versions. I'm sure Adobe could have delayed the release a few days while they "beta tested" a method of uninstalling the beta version so as not to confuse the average user. BTW, I consider you to be quite sophisticated inthe use of a computer. So if you are having problems, what chance do most of us have?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken, exactly - except I have not myself experienced trouble yet, because after reading quite a bit about other peoples' trouble and seeing what Adobe posted on their website for dealing with it, eventhough I have the box sitting and waiting, I'm going step by step. First I shall purchase Acronis to mirror the HD. Then I'll wait a bit to see how the dust settles. That is the extent of the sophistication I know how to deploy under the circumstances! I can operate my computer and do some basic management with it well enough, but I'm not an O/S guru so I approach such issues with considerable caution and I suspect like many people don't particularly appreciate nasty surprises.
-
A company with the smarts of Adobe should know better. It's fine if they do this with a small community of seasoned beta testers who have the stomach and experience to deal with just about anything they will throw at them. When they decide to broadcast it to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the community, where the experience variance is HUGE, they need to anticipate such elementary precautionary issues as how to uninstall the software without risk and provide for it before they invite us to the party.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I don't know where you've been hanging out but the Adobe User to User forums have not been lighting up with many, many users having problems installing. Yes, there are some...it's not yet known if there is an real issue.
The biggest problem is that the Adobe Store released the downloads early...before QE got the removal scripts posted and the "Remove the beta warnings" so that on Mon the 16th and Tues the 17th, a lot of people (more on the Mac side than PC because Mac users didn't even know about the uninstaller) either tried to install over the beta of simply tossed it in the trash. That was indeed a rash of installer problems...but that was last week.
I have no idea what the OP's actual problem is...while he claims to have been a software developer, the phraseology is a bit odd...he says he followed the uninstall procedure and the scripts for removal but not until he wrote his followup post.
It's also unclear if he's trying to install Photoshop CS3, CS3 Extended or one of the Suites with CS3 included. He says he gets an error but doesn't say what the error is...
Clearly, he's had a nightmare...which is too bad. Most people have not.
-
I was hanging out where the folks with issues were complaining - was last week. OK, since then Adobe issued some advice and a fix, but they themselves warn me that the cure could be worse than the disease, so I need to buy some vaccine. It would be nice if they could design a *bullet-proof* uninstaller. Anyhow, Jeff , everyone will have to just write this one off to experience and hope that all the appropriate people will have learned from it.
Cheers,
Mark
-
......... It would be nice if they could design a *bullet-proof* uninstaller.
I don't think there's any such animal out there Mark
Uninstalling software always carries some risk.
I had the beta on four machines (Windows MCE, XP x64, Vista x32 and Vista x64) and had no problems uninstalling and then running the clean scripts.
I think Adobe's warnings are there for purely legal reasons for users who do not know how to follow fairly simple instructions. There is probably more risk of getting killed crossing the road - but then again we don't have warnings written on every kerb stone warning that you might be killed in attempting to cross the road
-
Carol, OK nothing is perfect - that's why I put it in "*". And I hope you are correct - it would be good. But I'm apprehensive. I started with PS6 some 7 years ago. As I migrated through PS7, CS and CS2 uninstalling previous versions was a non-issue and never accompanied by any warnings from Adobe of the kind we are seeing now (and of course none of those were Beta releases - this is a first to the general public). I also recall seeing advisories some time ago about damage to CS2 program files that can occur from uninstalling Beta CS3. When was the last time a software company advised you to back-up your whole hard-drive in order to safely uninstall an application? They know far more about the workings of the tools they design than we will ever know, so if they're now coming out with such warnings, I must believe it is more than legal *CYA*. But time will tell.
-
Let's put this in perpective. I had no problem transitioning from LightRoom beta to v.1.0. Why should there be so many problems with CS 3? Does it contain a worm or some propietary code that insinuates itself deeper into the software than just the application level?
-
Mark,
I have the Beta residing on my PC, but I generally use CS2. After reading the various horror stories about upgrading, I've decided to wait until you report on exactly what has worked for you, once you bite the bullet and do the upgrade. Whenever you do decide not to wait any longer, I hope you will share details of your experience.
I too have worked professionally with computers and software for close to 50 years, and the gyrations that Adobe has gone through with this public beta make me exceedingly nervous.
Eric
-
Well, I don't know where you've been hanging out but the Adobe User to User forums have not been lighting up with many, many users having problems installing. Yes, there are some...it's not yet known if there is an real issue.
The biggest problem is that the Adobe Store released the downloads early...before QE got the removal scripts posted and the "Remove the beta warnings" so that on Mon the 16th and Tues the 17th, a lot of people (more on the Mac side than PC because Mac users didn't even know about the uninstaller) either tried to install over the beta of simply tossed it in the trash. That was indeed a rash of installer problems...but that was last week.
I have no idea what the OP's actual problem is...while he claims to have been a software developer, the phraseology is a bit odd...he says he followed the uninstall procedure and the scripts for removal but not until he wrote his followup post.
It's also unclear if he's trying to install Photoshop CS3, CS3 Extended or one of the Suites with CS3 included. He says he gets an error but doesn't say what the error is...
Clearly, he's had a nightmare...which is too bad. Most people have not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114280\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I must admit to being disappointed in this thread.
I posted my initial comment to WARN others of a serious problem that enough folks are experiencing that Adobe support personal freely admit is serious and with no solution at this moment in time.
I was just advising of a real problem!
If you were lucky enough to avoid it, fine.
But not all escaped without harm.
Disappointed at some of the posts that followed my OP - thought this was a wiser group of folks and a person did not have to spend time defending what they are experiencing!
I spend most of my time shooting and not posting.
I've just been reminded why.
Jack
-
Jack, you should not be disappointed. I guarantee you are being heard - I for one am listening closely to as much experience as I can lay my eyes on, and I am dead-certain many others are too. But we must all recognize the fact that this is a public forum which benefits from the participation of many people with tremendously varied skill-sets, perspectives and experience.
Eric - I too have the Beta on my PC. I use it for ACR-4 and then revert to CS2 for the remainder of the processing. I am also waiting a bit. I don't have anywhere NEAR your experience with computers (I started using them in consumer-mode from the mid to late 1970s) so if you are nervous you can see why I would be. I hope Carol is right that Adobe is just being extremely pro-active with CYA, but it is so hard to know except by seeing other peoples' experience. If trouble dies down within a week or so, or if Adobe posts more re-assuring material, after I mirror my C-drive I shall upgrade and I'll share my experience, which I hope will be a non-event!
-
Thanks for the warnings, dude. Double checked everything before I did the install.
-
I must admit to being disappointed in this thread.
I posted my initial comment to WARN others of a serious problem that enough folks are experiencing that Adobe support personal freely admit is serious and with no solution at this moment in time.
I was just advising of a real problem!
If you were lucky enough to avoid it, fine.
But not all escaped without harm.
Disappointed at some of the posts that followed my OP - thought this was a wiser group of folks and a person did not have to spend time defending what they are experiencing!
I spend most of my time shooting and not posting.
I've just been reminded why.
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't be disappointed. This is good advice and I have heard many similar stories. If people got it installed without problems then good, but, it never hurts to know the pitfalls. This is the same as any piece of software, wait until the bugs are ironed out, look at Vista, Dell are now shipping new machines with XP again.
-
I was on edge a bit after hearing ugly stories, but followed the instructions on MacFixit.com (which go a little farther than Adobe's) for my MacBook Pro. It took about 45 minutes for the whole process. I kept waiting for a hitch in my Beta cleanup/CS3 Web Premium installation, but much to my delight, installation of the whole suite was totally seamless. I didn't even have to enter a serial number for the update.
Granted, it is easier to feel this way since I had no complications, but I have no regrets about installing the beta version. The public beta did have a minor price to pay in having a more complicated uninstall, but I appreciate having much better speed and new features for four months.
-
An update:
It is now Thursday morning. It's been a week and two days since the installation failure.
I've been checking with Adobe every other day on status and they assure me that the problem is at their highest level of attention.
Told that there is still no fix and that "I'm not alone with this problem".
Their last suggestion is that I reformat my Mac hard drive and try a fresh install of all software, starting with CS3. This is the only way around the problem as of this moment per Adobe.
Nice. Won't that be fun!
Jack
-
Mark,
I have the Beta residing on my PC, but I generally use CS2. After reading the various horror stories about upgrading, I've decided to wait until you report on exactly what has worked for you, once you bite the bullet and do the upgrade. Whenever you do decide not to wait any longer, I hope you will share details of your experience.
I too have worked professionally with computers and software for close to 50 years, and the gyrations that Adobe has gone through with this public beta make me exceedingly nervous.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Eric. Well, I had to bite the bullet yesterday because the BETA expired and for Camera Raw 4 alone the up-grade is worthwhile, so I phoned Adobe about the fact that they advise customers to de-activate the Beta license key before installing the commercial release version, however once the Beta expires so does ones access to the de-activation command. They told me not worry about it - just do what I would usually do - uninstall the Beta with Add/Remove Programs, and install CS3 normally. They told me that especially because I am on a Windows O/S I would likely have no problems - most of the issues were on Macs. They assured me if I had an activation issue I could call back and they would give me a code.
So I did what they advised. The uninstall worked successfully. The new install worked successfully. When the activation screen appeared for new CS3 it had pivked-up the serial number of the Beta version, so I simply replaced that with the new serial number for the fresh install. The activation was accepted and the program is up and running. Adobe was right - no problems. When I opened Bridge 3 it picked up the cache in the various image folders just fine. When I opened CS3 it respected my previous desktop settings. (I did not delete these preferences contrary to advice from Jack Flesher - but I may live to regret that - I don't know yet ) . I've had no difficulty configuring Camera Raw 4 for my preferences and establishing them as a new Camera Raw default which the program is respecting.
All custom shortcuts need to be re-entered manually, because not all the free (unused) keyboard combinations have remained free bewtweem CS2 and CS3. I have not yet transfered plug-ins and actions. That happens (I hope) today.
Bottom line: SO FAR, SO GOOD.
-
Mark DS
I have a Mac G5(PPC) and an HP B9180. Do you have any information about this configuration being supported by CS 3? I have been holding off purchasing the upgrade and doing all my printing through CS 2 with the HP plug-in.
Thanks
Ken
-
Hi Eric. Well, I had to bite the bullet yesterday because the BETA expired and for Camera Raw 4 alone the up-grade is worthwhile, so I phoned Adobe about the fact that they advise customers to de-activate the Beta license key before installing the commercial release version, however once the Beta expires so does ones access to the de-activation command. They told me not worry about it - just do what I would usually do - uninstall the Beta with Add/Remove Programs, and install CS3 normally. They told me that especially because I am on a Windows O/S I would likely have no problems - most of the issues were on Macs. They assured me if I had an activation issue I could call back and they would give me a code.
So I did what they advised. The uninstall worked successfully. The new install worked successfully. When the activation screen appeared for new CS3 it had pivked-up the serial number of the Beta version, so I simply replaced that with the new serial number for the fresh install. The activation was accepted and the program is up and running. Adobe was right - no problems. When I opened Bridge 3 it picked up the cache in the various image folders just fine. When I opened CS3 it respected my previous desktop settings. (I did not delete these preferences contrary to advice from Jack Flesher - but I may live to regret that - I don't know yet ) . I've had no difficulty configuring Camera Raw 4 for my preferences and establishing them as a new Camera Raw default which the program is respecting.
All custom shortcuts need to be re-entered manually, because not all the free (unused) keyboard combinations have remained free bewtweem CS2 and CS3. I have not yet transfered plug-ins and actions. That happens (I hope) today.
Bottom line: SO FAR, SO GOOD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the report, Mark. I think I'll uninstall my beta now, but I'll give you another couple of weeks for the dust to settle before I go ahead with CS3. I'll be curious about how smoothly it goes transferring plugins and actions, as I have a ton of both.
I hope it goes smoothly (partly, of course, for my sake )
Eric
-
Mark DS
I have a Mac G5(PPC) and an HP B9180. Do you have any information about this configuration being supported by CS 3? I have been holding off purchasing the upgrade and doing all my printing through CS 2 with the HP plug-in.
Thanks
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no information about this at all. I have read (perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere) that some users have had problems with print centering and maintenance of printer settings, but I haven't tried that yet - and I use an Epson 4800 on Windows - so two different animals and no experience with the up-grade on these functions. I've been using Camera Raw 4 for conversion and CS2 for everything else. That will continue until I have CS3 fully outfitted and working the way I like it. The only thought I can contribute is that even if you do buy the Upgrade, uninstall the Beta (BUT NOT USING ADOBE's CleanScript Tool) and install CS3, you will retain a fully functional CS2. This gives you the best of both worlds over the transition period until you are certain that all the features of CS2 you need are fully functional in CS3.
-
Thanks for the report, Mark. I think I'll uninstall my beta now, but I'll give you another couple of weeks for the dust to settle before I go ahead with CS3. I'll be curious about how smoothly it goes transferring plugins and actions, as I have a ton of both.
I hope it goes smoothly (partly, of course, for my sake )
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, I expect to know how all this works out within a day or two, and I'll post the experience. Needless to say, I'm hoping for the best too.
-
With some trepidation, based on the above posts, decided to download CS3 (the beta had run out yesterday). I was in the middle of processing a shoot when the beta ran out and I have gotten so used to PS3 that I did not want to go back to PS2. Following the Adobe uninstall directions, it went flawless! I was frankly surprised because I have, in general, really bad computer gremlin experience and had had a fair amount of issues with both CS2 and CS3 beta on this computer. Maybe, for a change because of the above experiences, I actually read and followed instructions for a change or Adobe has tweaked some things in the meantime?
-
Maybe, for a change because of the above experiences, I actually read and followed instructions for a change or Adobe has tweaked some things in the meantime?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No...nothing has been changed since the original release version of the removal scripts were posted. The trick was you actually read and followed the instructions-which worked. That's the way it's worked for most people...
-
Eric, I expect to know how all this works out within a day or two, and I'll post the experience. Needless to say, I'm hoping for the best too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Further to the above quoted message, I am pleased to say that I have now installed my plug-ins, actions and shortcuts, and it is all performing normally. There was a report that PK Sharpener only works when the Background Layer is selected. This is not my experience. It works no matter which Layer is selected.
I have not yet tried printing from CS3. I am anxious to test whether or not the Print with Preview settings are sticky (they should be, but some have reported they are not). I hope to be able to say something about that tomorrow or Monday.
I have experienced a glitch with Bridge CS3. I have about 1800 images sorted by colour label in Bridge CS2. Unfortunately, when the same files are imported to Bridge CS3, that labelling and sorting is not recognized. So rather than do it all over again, I continue working from Bridge CS2. Perhaps there is some preference or setting in Bridge CS3 I don't have correctly specified, or perhaps there are aspects of the folder cache for CS2 that CS3 just doesn't recognize. Any one who can shed light on that - I would appreciate it.
-
I have not yet tried printing from CS3. I am anxious to test whether or not the Print with Preview settings are sticky (they should be, but some have reported they are not). I hope to be able to say something about that tomorrow or Monday.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't think Print Settings have ever been "sticky" since it's actual file metadata that is saved in files. That's why opening an image and changing print dialog settings will make the file "dirty" meaning wanting to get saved...even though the only changes in the file are print settings...
-
I have experienced a glitch with Bridge CS3. I have about 1800 images sorted by colour label in Bridge CS2. Unfortunately, when the same files are imported to Bridge CS3, that labelling and sorting is not recognized. So rather than do it all over again, I continue working from Bridge CS2. Perhaps there is some preference or setting in Bridge CS3 I don't have correctly specified, or perhaps there are aspects of the folder cache for CS2 that CS3 just doesn't recognize. Any one who can shed light on that - I would appreciate it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since Bridge CS3 is an entirely new app, it can't read CS2's built in cache...so, unless you have your Bridge settings to write the cache to the folder when possible, there's no way for Bridge CS3 to pick it up. In Bridge CS2 try exporting the cache to the folder then open in Bridge CS3 and see if that works...
-
Don't think Print Settings have ever been "sticky" since it's actual file metadata that is saved in files. That's why opening an image and changing print dialog settings will make the file "dirty" meaning wanting to get saved...even though the only changes in the file are print settings...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
Until I see for myself on this system what's happening or not happening, not much point speculating, but just to say that at this moment in time, my previous experience with Print with Preview settings is that they don't change unless I change them regardless of the file. (Stuff like Let Photoshop Determine Colors, the Profile for the paper I'm using, Rendering Intent and BPC - those are the keys). They stick until they are changed, and then they stick again until they are changed the next time. At least this is the behaviour on my computer with CS2. I am given to understand that with CS3 from print to print these very settings revert to an Adobe default, rather than keeping what the user last entered. So what I'm doing next once I fire-up the 4800 is to see whether or not this behaviour really replicates in a Windows XP Pro SP2 environment. As some readers expressed an interest, I'll report back with real results once I've tested it.
-
Since Bridge CS3 is an entirely new app, it can't read CS2's built in cache...so, unless you have your Bridge settings to write the cache to the folder when possible, there's no way for Bridge CS3 to pick it up. In Bridge CS2 try exporting the cache to the folder then open in Bridge CS3 and see if that works...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
OK, this issue is *largely* resolved. It works - but differently from CS2. Here's the deal: because I am using distributed caching in each image folder Bridge 3 is indeed reading that cache created by Bridge 2 as I open any folder in Bridge 3. HOWEVER, instead of sorting all the labelled images in priority and the non-labelled ones behind, it does the reverse. I wasn't expecting this. So when I opened a folder of 382 images and looked accross the horizontal thumbnail strip at the bottom of the window, which shows 8 images at a time, there were no labels. I didn't think to scroll through to the end - just said to myself Oh My God NO LABELS. Now, based on what you said, I decided I should back-step and trace everything through bit by bit, scroll through the Preferences and the whole image folder, and sure enough all the labelled images are sitting there labelled at the end of the pack. What a relief! I wish I could get them to automatically collect at the beginning of the pack like they did in Bridge 2, but that is a far lesser issue than what I orginally thought I saw happening. They will collect at the front of the line if you select to sort by Label and in Descending Order of file number, but not in Ascending Order, so it appears you can't have a combination of images with file numbers in ascending order with the labelled ones at the front of the line. Now if you know a way of achieving that - other than manually - please let me know. Otherwise, I have to conclude it was better in Bridge 2 for this item.
-
I am given to understand that with CS3 from print to print these very settings revert to an Adobe default, rather than keeping what the user last entered. So what I'm doing next once I fire-up the 4800 is to see whether or not this behaviour really replicates in a Windows XP Pro SP2 environment. As some readers expressed an interest, I'll report back with real results once I've tested it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
My experience with CS3 is that the color management settings, paper profiles, etc. DO stick. Settings in the printer driver, such as paper size/orientation, printing resolution, ICM off, etc. are all lost after you make a print.
These settings would stick in CS2 throughout a printing session -- until Photoshop was closed. With CS3 I have to reset the printer driver for EVERY print -- even if I immediately want to make another copy of the file I've just printed.
I'm printing with Epson printers (3800 and R1800), on Windows XP. I've heard that this is a Windows-only problem, and I'm interested to hear about your experience.
Rick
-
Mark,
My experience with CS3 is that the color management settings, paper profiles, etc. DO stick. Settings in the printer driver, such as paper size/orientation, printing resolution, ICM off, etc. are all lost after you make a print.
These settings would stick in CS2 throughout a printing session -- until Photoshop was closed. With CS3 I have to reset the printer driver for EVERY print -- even if I immediately want to make another copy of the file I've just printed.
I'm printing with Epson printers (3800 and R1800), on Windows XP. I've heard that this is a Windows-only problem, and I'm interested to hear about your experience.
Rick
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rick, this is indeed VERY strange. One wonders how the Epson driver can be affected by Photoshop - they are separate pieces of software doing different things - well, maybe there's a way. I'm using Windows XP also, but my printer is a 4800. So we'll see how that fares. Perhaps it's a 3800 issue rather than a CS3 issue, but that would also seem strange insofar as the Epson Driver is quite similar from one of these professional models to the next. I know the devil is in the details of these things so I suppose anything is possible. Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up on where the problem is lodged from your experience. For sure, once I print from this program I'll share my findings. The worst that can happen is that I'll go back to printing from CS2 until the issue is fixed.
One thing from a previous post I need to correct - PK Capture Sharpen does not need to begin with the Background Layer selected, but I notice that Output Sharpen does. This is a new phenominon, which I asssume the folks at Pixel Genius will be examining, now that several have remarked on it.
-
Rick, this is indeed VERY strange. One wonders how the Epson driver can be affected by Photoshop - they are separate pieces of software doing different things -
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
I should have described the problem more accurately. After making a print, the printer driver returns to default settings. In my case, it returns me to my default printer, a monochrome laser. I then have to reselect the Epson, which has also reverted to default (8.5x11, Premium Luster, High Speed, etc...).
I'll have to try setting one of the Epsons as the default printer, to see what happens.
Rick
-
Mark,
I should have described the problem more accurately. After making a print, the printer driver returns to default settings. In my case, it returns me to my default printer, a monochrome laser. I then have to reselect the Epson, which has also reverted to default (8.5x11, Premium Luster, High Speed, etc...).
I'll have to try setting one of the Epsons as the default printer, to see what happens.
Rick
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the clarification Rick. It begins to sound like a configuration issue that may be specific to your situation; anyhow, I'll plunge into some printing most likely tomorrow and see what happens. I'm also on WINXP-SP2.
-
After making a print, the printer driver returns to default settings. In my case, it returns me to my default printer, a monochrome laser.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW: The new version works as it always has for me and remembers the last printer and settings.
-
FWIW: The new version works as it always has for me and remembers the last printer and settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you using a Mac? This seems to be Windows-specific.
Rick
-
Further to post #38 in this thread I have now finished testing the Print module in Photoshop CS3 using Windows XP Pro SP2, and I regret to report that it is thoroughly defective - and for my purposes unusable. I have two printers - an HP business inkjet for non-photographic printing, and an Epson 4800 for photographic printing. The HP is the default printer because it gets used more routinely.
(1) Each time I bring up a new image to print, it defaults to the HP printer rather than keeping the Epson 4800 active as long as Photoshop is kept open. With CS2, once the Epson 4800 was selected for the first print, that printer remained selected until Photoshop was shut down. This is logical. CS3 does not respect this logical convention, creating a major interference with batch printing.
(2) Otherwise, all one's colour management and Epson driver settings are retained as one had specified them from image to image and from one Photoshop session to another, except for the orientation of the paper.
(3) The Photoshop CS3 print command cannot automatically center a print no matter what I do with it. The problem is very severe if in the Epson driver one has "Centered" selected in the Paper tab. I turned this feature off in the Epson driver, and that improved but did not rectify the centering problem in the CS3 Print window. (In CS2 it is not necessary to disable "Centered" - in fact to get centered prints one selects it - as one would expect, while at the same time Photoshop is managing colors.) By turning "Centered" off in the Epson driver using CS3, the left and right borders are approximately equal, but the top and bottom ones are not, whether one is printing Landscape or Portrait. To equalize the top and bottom borders, it is necessary to deselect Center in the CS3 Print window, and manually tweak the "top" amount of inches until it looks centered in the preview window. This of course is completely unsatisfactory for an efficient workflow and represents a major reduction of application functionality compared with CS2.
It would appear to me that Adobe was trying to improve the management of print settings by centralizing all the necessary adjustments in one window, as one finds in some RIPs, however regardless of the good intentions, my evidence suggests that this effort was botched, inadequately tested before release, and goes down the same road as many other good intentions, for those who know the expression.
(4) What makes matters even worse, is that once my image is "processed" through the CS3 Print module, some instructions stick to it that prevent me from being able to get a centered print in CS2 as well. Hence, anyone using the CS3 Print Module at least for an Epson 4800 printer on a Windows XP O/S needs to be aware of the risk that running images through this module will cause permanent impairment of automatic print centering for all such images. To be sure this is clearly understood, let me clarify, that as long as an image has not been contaminated by the Photoshop CS3 Print module, I can open it in CS2 and print it properly centered, automatically in the usual way I did before CS3 ever appeared on my computer. As soon as I process the image through the CS3 Print module, this functionality evaporates in both CS3 and CS2. Therefore until this problem is remedied in CS3, the only safe way to retain automated printing functionality is to close the images once adjusted in CS3, and re-open them in CS2 for printing.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that insofar as other users similarly equipped (Epson driver and Windows XP) experience the same issues, PSCS3 was released prematurely with inadequate testing in respect of this very important function. It is now incumbent on Adobe to repair both these defects (retaining the selected printer through a Photoshop session, and automatic accurate print centering) as soon as they possibly can. It is indeed hard to understand how such sophisticated companies with their minions of testers and QC people produce these screw-ups, but there we have it.
-
Mark DS
It sounds like you and many early purchasers of CS 3 have been turned into "gamma" testers. The experiences described on this thread have frozen my decision to stay "as is" with CS 2 and just play with the CS 3 until it expires. Then I'm worried how I get the latter fully off my iMac G5
Ken
-
What happens if you set the Epson 4800 to be the default?
-
Mark DS
It sounds like you and many early purchasers of CS 3 have been turned into "gamma" testers. The experiences described on this thread have frozen my decision to stay "as is" with CS 2 and just play with the CS 3 until it expires. Then I'm worried how I get the latter fully off my iMac G5
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ken,
Quite frankly, I don't regret buying and installing CS3 regardless of this mess with printing, because there is a viable work-around as I suggested - don't use it. Go back to CS2 for printing. But the rest of CS3 is a great piece of work, and I had no issues (on Windows) un-installing the Beta and installing the commercial release - as I reported earlier. What I like most about CS3 is the new Camera Raw. It is a huge leap forward relative to the version in CS2. As for your Beta CS3, it is expired. In principle you should no longer be able to get into it - as of May 2nd.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Mark
In which case I'll dump the beta. I have to wait for the new HP plug-in for the B9180 anyways. As for ACR 4, there's always LR.
Ken
-
What happens if you set the Epson 4800 to be the default?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, I didn't try that for two reasons: (a) it would be an impractical set-up for me, and I fully expect it would solve the "Default Printer" issue in CS3, because it would be the Default printer and the behaviour of the Print module as it presently stands seems to be that it always defaults to the default printer. So it would solve one operational problem for printing photographs in a way that I don't find practical relative to other things I do, and shouldn't have to live with. Next time I fire-up the printer I can test it and let you know, but I would be very surprised if the answer were otherwise.
I also doubt very much it would do anything at all for the print centering issue. That would logically seem to be a completely different algorithm, but again, next session I'll give it a whirl on an expendable image with the 4800 as default.
-
Mark
In which case I'll dump the beta. I have to wait for the new HP plug-in for the B9180 anyways. As for ACR 4, there's always LR.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken, that's true - the LR Develop module nd ACR 4 are essentially the same thing. But if you want to do stuff that LR doesn't do, then you still need to export the images to PS. I guess you could then re-import them to LR for printing after soft-proofing them in CS3, because LR doesn't have a soft-proof feature - yet.
By the way, how to you like your B9180?
-
I also doubt very much it would do anything at all for the print centering issue. That would logically seem to be a completely different algorithm, but again, next session I'll give it a whirl on an expendable image with the 4800 as default.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, print centering has been a longstanding issue for Epsons on Macs...the way around that for Mac has always been to creat a custom paper size with all four margins set equal. The default for the 4800 is (I think) left/right .13, top 1.3 and bottom .56. So, I create custom page sizes so that all 4 margins are set to .56. (actually, I set all four to be 1" cause I prefer to always have at least a 1" border).
This has been a long standing issue because for the purposes of paper grabbing, Epsons have always had uneven margins. I think the default for the 3800 however was changed so that all four margins are equal.
As far as the "Default" printer issue...one wonders if it isn't a situation where CS3 finally has it right? Arguably, one sets a default print for a purpose, no? So that apps will default to a specific printer? One could argue that CS2's behavior was actually a bug not a feature.
-
As far as the "Default" printer issue...one wonders if it isn't a situation where CS3 finally has it right? Arguably, one sets a default print for a purpose, no? So that apps will default to a specific printer? One could argue that CS2's behavior was actually a bug not a feature.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are so many ways to respond to this...
I better just say "Wow!"
Rick
-
Well...what is the ppurpose of "Default" if not to be DEFAULT? Ya know?
Is it better or worse? Don't know...but it is different, I agree. And different, it seems isn't always better to everybody.
-
Jeff,
I'm not beholden to any Corporation so I can call the shots as I see them, and that's what I am doing.
(1) I am familiar with the print centering problem for Epson/Mac. Just because print centering was a MESS between Epson and Apple on the Mac is no reason why it should also be a mess between CS3 and Windows when it works perfectly well with CS2 and Windows, where the margins delivered by the Epson driver are fine. Adobe simply "f.cked-up" on this and they should fix it.
(2) As for the default printer business, CS2 had it right. Once you call up an application and select a printer, the application should retain that printer until you close the application, not only until you finish making one photograph with the application - otherwise it makes nonsense of the program's automation features and the workflow efficiency Adobe has been striving to improve. The application - until this version - was smart enough to know that until you close it, you will use the same printer to make more prints one after another so it retained the correct printer. Of course, once you close the application and re-open it - you must select the non-default printer, but thenceforth in the same session that selection should stick, and until CS3 it did. This is so elementary that it shouldn't bear a moment's worth of argument. Again, Adobe simply "f.cked-up" on this and they should fix it.
-
Both of your answers are non-answers...
Did you try creating a custom paper size with 4 equal margins?
While you CLAIM that CS2 on Win was "correct" the question is, was it? If the paper reported unequal margins (as it does on Mac) and Photoshop is set to center in the printable area, shouldn't the image be offset by the difference in the printer margin?
And, as to the default issue, again, while that's the way it was...you don't answer the question of isn't that what a default is supposed to do? Be the friggin' default?
"I'm not beholden to any Corporation so I can call the shots as I see them, and that's what I am doing. "
Ah, there it is...disregard any answer from me that you don't like because you presume that I'm beholding? Thought you knew me better than that bud? I guess I know where YOU stand, huh?
So, just to be clear, you claim the default and center issue are bugs, correct? Therefore you think CS3 is unusable for printing?
Well, ok, you got 30 days to get your money back...or, you can try what I suggest and see if it works?
I think what you are seeing is a fundimental change where in CS3, it behaves like a combination of the old "Print" command plus the old "Print with Preview" command...as there is no longer any options, the current Print command (and it's issues) seems to be now blended with application options that you don't seem to like. The question is, can you work around them?
-
OK. I set my R1800 as the default printer. Here's the behavior:
I set up the printer with my usual settings for a sheet of 13x19 Enhanced Matte, high speed off, icm off, etc. Made the print, which BTW, centered perfectly. I haven't had the centering issues on the R1800, but I haven't fired up the 3800 yet.
After the print was finished, I selected File/Print again (for the same file). Photoshop remembered the printer settings. I closed the file and opened a different one. The printer was remembered (I had set it as default), but none of the printer settings were remembered. Settings reverted to "plain paper", 8.5 x 11, etc.
So, for the default printer, CS3 will remember settings for the current file. After the file is closed, it reverts to default settings for the default printer.
If the printer is NOT the default printer, CS3 will lose all settings and revert to the system default printer after the print is made.
I'll try to test the 3800 soon, and report back about centering, etc.
Rick
-
While you CLAIM that CS2 on Win was "correct" the question is, was it? If the paper reported unequal margins (as it does on Mac) and Photoshop is set to center in the printable area, shouldn't the image be offset by the difference in the printer margin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Though you're replying to Mark here, I have to ask: How does it behave on the Mac?
A few messages ago, Colorwave (a Mac user) told me that the new version remembers the settings just like CS2. If so, why didn't they fix the "bug" in the Mac version?
Given your response to this issue, and the deafening silence from any Adobe reps on the Photoshop Windows user to user forum (where they have been responding to other issues), I suspect that Adobe has no intention to do anything about this.
I guess I have a couple of weeks to decide if this is a deal breaker for me. I print from Photoshop a lot, and this is VERY disappointing.
Rick
-
Both of your answers are non-answers...
Did you try creating a custom paper size with 4 equal margins?
While you CLAIM that CS2 on Win was "correct" the question is, was it? If the paper reported unequal margins (as it does on Mac) and Photoshop is set to center in the printable area, shouldn't the image be offset by the difference in the printer margin?
And, as to the default issue, again, while that's the way it was...you don't answer the question of isn't that what a default is supposed to do? Be the friggin' default?
"I'm not beholden to any Corporation so I can call the shots as I see them, and that's what I am doing. "
Ah, there it is...disregard any answer from me that you don't like because you presume that I'm beholding? Thought you knew me better than that bud? I guess I know where YOU stand, huh?
So, just to be clear, you claim the default and center issue are bugs, correct? Therefore you think CS3 is unusable for printing?
Well, ok, you got 30 days to get your money back...or, you can try what I suggest and see if it works?
I think what you are seeing is a fundimental change where in CS3, it behaves like a combination of the old "Print" command plus the old "Print with Preview" command...as there is no longer any options, the current Print command (and it's issues) seems to be now blended with application options that you don't seem to like. The question is, can you work around them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
Both of my answers ARE answers - sensible and logical answers based on experience and common sense.
There should be no need for workarounds to something that worked the way it should for at least the past eight years. Yes they changed the interface to centralize Print and Print with Preview functions in one place. On the face it, a sensible idea. But they didn't get it right. Until Adobe fixes it, I'll print from CS2. That's the most efficient work-around there is in this circumstance. No need to futz around with measurements print by print. In CS2 it just works.
Why are you so defensive about my "beholden" opener? Read my words. I didn't say YOU were beholden to anyone. I just said that I'M not, so no-one will mistake any statements I make as "attitude" either positive or negative viz a viz the company. Anyhow, let's just move beyond that and stick with the issues.
And the issues are that these two aspects of CS3 are STEPS BACKWARD, illogical, inefficient performance. You seem to suggest they may have done all that on purpose as part of program redesign; I think that regardless of whether or not they did it on purpose it SUCKS, and if we were to take a poll amongst the victims of this change I'll put money, payable during your next visit to Toronto, on who will win it. :-)
Will I ask for my money back? Of course not. Let's keep a certain reasonable perspective on all this. As I mentioned in this thread, this is a great application. It has a few problems. The problems can be fixed, and they will be fixed.
-
And the issues are that these two aspects of CS3 are STEPS BACKWARD, illogical, inefficient performance. You seem to suggest they may have done all that on purpose as part of program redesign; I think that regardless of whether or not they did it on purpose it SUCKS, and if we were to take a poll amongst the victims of this change I'll put money, payable during your next visit to Toronto, on who will win it. :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not saying anything other that 1) the print centering issue is, I believe a function of the standard Epson page size & margins being unequal that perhaps, on Win was a "bug or feature" that fell on the positive side for Win users in the past where it fell against Mac users...
...and 2) that arguably, if a printer is designated as "DEFAULT" that an application should respect the default designation-which on the Mac, it does in Photoshop CS3-whatever printer is set as default shows up by default in the Print command of CS3.
Which-even if _YOU_ don't like it, seems to be "correct behavior".
And to be honest, there _IS_ a bug in Mac OS X 10.4.x and Epson's drivers, that REQUIRES that the printer I want to print to be set as the "default" printer to avoid ColorSync from artificially (and incorrectly) taging an image with a profile. So, since I had already got into the habit of setting whatever printer I was printing to as default, this issue simply doesn't aggravate me the way it seems to piss you guys off. And I might point out that the default printer bug is an OS X/Epson print driver issue, not an Adobe issue.
Why are you so defensive about my "beholden" opener? Read my words. I didn't say YOU were beholden to anyone. I just said that I'M not, so no-one will mistake any statements I make as "attitude" either positive or negative viz a viz the company. Anyhow, let's just move beyond that and stick with the issues.
Yeah, right...your were what, "just saying"?
Sounded like you were saying that _YOU_ didn't have any "beholden" status, unlike other posters in the thread...which means who exactly in this thread DOES have a "beholden" status....Rick? Lust4Life, BlasR, kenscott30, pss, Jae_Moon, Kenneth Sky, Carol, EricM, DarkPenguin, ARD, Colorwave, Kirk Gittings? So who among those who have posted to this thread did you want to separate yourself from? Cause the way you said it sure sounds like you don't want to be confused with somebody else...
I'm just saying...
-
A few messages ago, Colorwave (a Mac user) told me that the new version remembers the settings just like CS2. If so, why didn't they fix the "bug" in the Mac version?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems every time I go into the "Print" dlog in CS3 on 10.4.9 that the printer defaults to the default printer on Mac...if I go into Printer Setup Utility and change the default, that's the printer that comes up by default in Photoshop CS3's "Print" dlog...which, sorry to say (for you guys) seems to be "expected behavior"...ya know, cause I set the printer to DEFAULT!
See post above as to WHY I set printers to default...
Sorry, this simply doesn't seem to be a hill to die on...as far as the print centering issue, I'm STILL waiting for Mark to answer the question regarding margins in Epson print drivers and page setup...will Photoshop CS3 print in the center if your page setup has 4 equal margins? If not, I agree, that's a bug. If is does, it falls under the heading of "changed behavior" between CS2 and CS3.
-
I had an issue with Photoshop CS (not CS2 or CS3) with my newly acquired Epson 7600 a few years ago. The printer had a tendency to stop printing before it was supposed to, cutting off a few inches of the image but not the paper, on really large prints like 24x36".
Now that was a real problem, causing a lot of wastage of ink and paper and a lot of stuffing around re-installing Photoshop and re-installing the Epson drivers.
The odd thing was, the first print after each re-installation of PS was just fine, but subsequent prints developed the same problem.
Anticipating that Epson would lay the blame for this on Adobe and Adobe would lay the blame on Epson, I decided not to waste any more time on this issue and bought Qimage for $60. I've never looked back.
Qimage must be one of the best value programs around for printing. I could have spent $60 on phone calls, not to mention the value of my time, if I'd insisted on printing from Photoshop CS with my 7600.
-
I had an issue with Photoshop CS (not CS2 or CS3) with my newly acquired Epson 7600 a few years ago. The printer had a tendency to stop printing before it was supposed to, cutting off a few inches of the image but not the paper, on really large prints like 24x36".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, well that WAS a com problem with the Epson drivers and spool files...and yes, Q Image bypasses the com from app to driver...was this via Ethernet BTW?
And, to further the discussion a bit, I can tell you that both Mac and Win now behave the same in that the OS set default printer by default will always show up in the "Print" dialog as the default printer. Switching the default printer to another printer causes Photoshop CS3 to default to THAT printer...which is, arguably, technically correct behavior-which does have the upside that whatever your printer default is set to, you can be assured that that printer will be the selected printer in the drop down and that printer will also be the default printer set in Page Setup-which on the Mac used to be a real problem.
So, while the drop down menus of printer and page setup are as per defaults, the rest of the "Print" delog DOES save out when you select done...things such as CM settings, position, scaling, etc are saved in the file and these settings can also be recorded in an action.
Different than CS2? Yes...better or worse? I think the argument can be made that the current CS3 behavior os "correct".
Still don't know about the print centering...
-
Yeah, well that WAS a com problem with the Epson drivers and spool files...and yes, Q Image bypasses the com from app to driver...was this via Ethernet BTW?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now that you mention it, I might have had an ethernet connection to another computer in place at the time, but the images I printed would have resided on the same computer as Photoshop CS.
The reason I mention this is that Qimage would seem to be an ideal work-around for Mark. He could have his most used, business type printer as the default for use from CS3 and his Epson 4800 as the default within the Qimage program.
This arrangement (I suspect) would not only solve his problem but would provide additional functionality for his fine art printing; a win/win situation at minimal cost.
-
Still don't know about the print centering...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems like if one sets (for the 4800) the Paper config to Maximum and select Centered, then the print will have 4 equal margins in the Win Epson dlog as well as in the Print dlog. I haven't actually PRINTED to the 4800 from the PC yet cause at the moment, the 4800 isn't connected to the network.
If you set the Printable area to Standard without the centered in the print driver, you see the unequal margins with more at the bottom and less on the sides and top...is that what you see Mark?
For some reason I can't see where, in the Win Epson 4800 driver (ver 5.53) to set page margins...it is there in the Mac Page Setup. In the Win Page Setup, the margins are greyed out...hum.
-
I'm not saying anything other that 1) the print centering issue is, I believe a function of the standard Epson page size & margins being unequal that perhaps, on Win was a "bug or feature" that fell on the positive side for Win users in the past where it fell against Mac users...
...and 2) that arguably, if a printer is designated as "DEFAULT" that an application should respect the default designation-which on the Mac, it does in Photoshop CS3-whatever printer is set as default shows up by default in the Print command of CS3.
Which-even if _YOU_ don't like it, seems to be "correct behavior".
And to be honest, there _IS_ a bug in Mac OS X 10.4.x and Epson's drivers, that REQUIRES that the printer I want to print to be set as the "default" printer to avoid ColorSync from artificially (and incorrectly) taging an image with a profile. So, since I had already got into the habit of setting whatever printer I was printing to as default, this issue simply doesn't aggravate me the way it seems to piss you guys off. And I might point out that the default printer bug is an OS X/Epson print driver issue, not an Adobe issue.
Yeah, right...your were what, "just saying"?
Sounded like you were saying that _YOU_ didn't have any "beholden" status, unlike other posters in the thread...which means who exactly in this thread DOES have a "beholden" status....Rick? Lust4Life, BlasR, kenscott30, pss, Jae_Moon, Kenneth Sky, Carol, EricM, DarkPenguin, ARD, Colorwave, Kirk Gittings? So who among those who have posted to this thread did you want to separate yourself from? Cause the way you said it sure sounds like you don't want to be confused with somebody else...
I'm just saying...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff:
(a) Beholden: I was not speaking in reference to any one in this thread. I was positioning myself period. If you wish to feel targeted be my guest but that was not the intention. As I said before, let us move beyond that and stick with the real issues.
Default printer status: Regardless of the etiology of the problem, it is DUMB programming to require users to reset the printer after each print. I have used two printers - one office, one photographic since I first started using Photoshop in 1999 with PS6 and an Epson 2000P. Since then I graduated up to CS3, through an Epson 4000 and now a 4800. As long as Photoshop was kept open it was NEVER necessary to reset the printer after each print even without selecting the photo printer as the default and shouldn't be required now, period. I don't give a sweet damn whether it's called a bug, correct behaviour or incorrect behaviour, it's just STUPID. OK, I can work around it by setting Epson as the default printer every time I wish to print photographs. Then set the HP back to the default for the rest of time that I'm doing other things. This is a needless nuissance which shouldn't be necessary. It's regress not progress.
[c] Print centering: I already told you in post 43 that it is possible to manually adjust the margins to equality in the Printer dialogue box. It is a chore because you need to know the size of the equal margin for each print (I size to suit the picture - I don't force-fit images into standard sizes), so for each print I need to subtract the image dimensions from the paper dimensions, divide by two and put each of the two dimension's measurements in the two boxes under the unchecked "Centered" section for this to work correctly, because Centered, contrary to what it says isn't Centered. Again, I'm not interested in the semantics of whether this is a bug, or correct, or incorrect. It is more work than it should be. Something that says centered should center the image. In CS2 the image is centered if the Epson driver says "Centered" - in Windows. If Epson and Mac got this wrong for Mac that has nothing to do with Adobe as you say, but the CS3/Windows trouble has everything to do with Adobe because in Windows this only went askew with CS3 - not for the 8 years before CS3 that I have been centering prints with Epson printers, Windows operating systems and Epson drivers through ALL their incarnations. A very high percentage of the paying clientele for Photoshop CS3 would be on Epson printers - many of them Pro model printers, and roughly 40~50% of the imaging community is now on Windows. So it would behove Adobe to make sure when they issue a new software up-grade that what worked properly "forever" in the past continues to work properly for that clientele in the future. If it means preserving this functionality through their own programming fine, if it means collaborating with Epson to make sure it works as it used to work, that is fine too. But it needs to be done. The present situation is completely impractical.
-
Seems like if one sets (for the 4800) the Paper config to Maximum and select Centered, then the print will have 4 equal margins in the Win Epson dlog as well as in the Print dlog. I haven't actually PRINTED to the 4800 from the PC yet cause at the moment, the 4800 isn't connected to the network.
If you set the Printable area to Standard without the centered in the print driver, you see the unequal margins with more at the bottom and less on the sides and top...is that what you see Mark?
For some reason I can't see where, in the Win Epson 4800 driver (ver 5.53) to set page margins...it is there in the Mac Page Setup. In the Win Page Setup, the margins are greyed out...hum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
OK I went into it all again. Here is the situation for CS3/Windows XP/Epson 4800 native driver:
Page Set-Up under the File menu in Photoshop: you can't center anything in Page set-up - as you say - the numbers are greyed out. They are determined elsewhere.
The Epson Driver: you have a choice in the Paper tab of using either Centered or not. There is no fine-tuning of margins in the Epson Driver. If you use Centered, up to but not including CS3 it did that. If you didn't use Centered in the Epson driver the positioning of the page was determined in Photoshop in Print with Preview.
In the Epson Driver Paper tab: it doesn't matter whether you select the maximum or the standard printing area, the problem remains the same. I tried that. It does matter whether or not you choose "Centered" in the Epson Driver. If you want centered prints in CS2 you leave it active, and in CS3, as I said in Post 43, you must disable it. Disabling it helps improve the centering in Photoshop "Print" a great deal, but not entirely. The left and right margins are OK, but the top and bottom ones are not - be it portrait or landscape orientation. These need to be tweaked manually in the Photoshop Printer window one image at a time by keeping "Centered" unchecked in both this window and the Epson driver and in Photoshop "Print" manually inserting correct values in the "Top" and "Left" boxes under the Centered option. Now here's the rub: unless you do that, while the print will look quite well-centered in the Photoshop Print Window, it does not print that way.
I hope the foregoing clarifies for you exactly what is happening. I suggest that you will get a better handle on this issue first hand if you fire-up your 4800 on your PC and take it all for a thorough test drive. Then, please let us know your findings. If you find a practical way of automatically centering a print with Windows XP/Epson 4800/CS3 you will be doing many people a substantial favour.
-
Now that you mention it, I might have had an ethernet connection to another computer in place at the time, but the images I printed would have resided on the same computer as Photoshop CS.
The reason I mention this is that Qimage would seem to be an ideal work-around for Mark. He could have his most used, business type printer as the default for use from CS3 and his Epson 4800 as the default within the Qimage program.
This arrangement (I suspect) would not only solve his problem but would provide additional functionality for his fine art printing; a win/win situation at minimal cost.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Ray - I've heard very good things about QImage, as well as its very reasonable price. This may be something to look into if Adobe doesn't implement an efficient solution for all those people concerned with the problems.
-
Yeah, well that WAS a com problem with the Epson drivers and spool files...and yes, Q Image bypasses the com from app to driver...was this via Ethernet BTW?
And, to further the discussion a bit, I can tell you that both Mac and Win now behave the same in that the OS set default printer by default will always show up in the "Print" dialog as the default printer. Switching the default printer to another printer causes Photoshop CS3 to default to THAT printer...which is, arguably, technically correct behavior-which does have the upside that whatever your printer default is set to, you can be assured that that printer will be the selected printer in the drop down and that printer will also be the default printer set in Page Setup-which on the Mac used to be a real problem.
So, while the drop down menus of printer and page setup are as per defaults, the rest of the "Print" delog DOES save out when you select done...things such as CM settings, position, scaling, etc are saved in the file and these settings can also be recorded in an action.
Different than CS2? Yes...better or worse? I think the argument can be made that the current CS3 behavior os "correct".
Still don't know about the print centering...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
It is normal behaviour based on the past eight years' experience, and common sense, that if the non-Epson printer is the default, when you launch your first print in Photoshop, you need to select the Epson printer. Once selected, it should stay selected until you quit Photoshop, not only until you finish the first print. As I said before in regard to this item, I'm not going to prolong a debate about what is correct or not correct; I'm focused on the regression from practical operability in the past to impractical operability in the present.
-
[c] Print centering: I already told you in post 43 that it is possible to manually adjust the margins to equality in the Printer dialogue box.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I followed up by asking whether you had tried setting the 4800 Print Driver settings to Maximum/Centered AND selected Centered in Photoshop's Print dlog? Have you?
I don't have my 4800 up and connected to my network but I do have a 3800 hardwired to the PC...I'll see what happens on the 3800 & CS3.
And my, may I add that your panties sure seem like they're in a bunch?
:~)
-
Well, I can confirm that with the Epson 3800 on Win, XP SP/2 and Photoshop CS3 that if, in the Photoshop Print dlog, I select "Centered" it prints in the center...at least to an accuracy equal to a ruler...I haven't got a micrometer out yet...
In the 3800 driver Page settings there is no "Centered" radio button nor a Standard or Maximum settings...all there is is a drop down for Paper Source, (with a Borderless check box), Paper Size drop down (with a user defined option but with no paper margins), a Copies settings and and Orientation settings with Landscape, Portrait and 180 setting.
No Centered option in the driver anywhere...
Getting the 4800 up and running ias gonna take a bit...sorry.
P.S. Yes, setting the default printer to the 3800 allows it to show up as the pre-selected printer in the CS3 dlog. And yes, the non-print driver settings (CM, etc) are sticky per image...
-
I followed up by asking whether you had tried setting the 4800 Print Driver settings to Maximum/Centered AND selected Centered in Photoshop's Print dlog? Have you?
I don't have my 4800 up and connected to my network but I do have a 3800 hardwired to the PC...I'll see what happens on the 3800 & CS3.
And my, may I add that your panties sure seem like they're in a bunch?
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
We're crossing messages. Yes, my " "panties" are in a bunch" because I dislike all this confusion when all I want to do is get a f..cken print in the middle of a piece of paper like I did for the past eight years until today. Time is too valuable for all this needless confusion. When a $700 program operating with a $2400 printer and a $5000 computer says the print will be centered it damn well better be centered, otherwise it will tend to "put my "panties" in a bunch". [But the pain is cerebral - not where you are alluding to (:-)]
Back to real business:
In messages 43 and 65 I mentioned that I've tried all this every which way, and I indicated the results. To answer again your specific question - my findings today indicate that you should not double-manage centering between the Photoshop Print dialogue and the Epson Driver dialogue. I got the best results today by [a] NOT selecting Centered in the Epson Driver selecting either standard or maximum print area - that makes no difference, and [c] Not selecting Centered in Photoshop because it doesn't do what it says eventhough it looks that way, but rather [d] manually entering the correct margin sizes for top and left. It is after midnight here now, so I'm going to hang-off and re-try all of this again tomorrow morning once I have the printer back-on. I'll let you know whether all this replicates as stated.
-
I'm focused on the regression from practical operability in the past to impractical operability in the present.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that argument cuts both ways...I have 6 printers...there are times (usually) that I will print only to a single printer and I'll be printing a bunch of same sized prints. It could be argued that CS2's behavior was more convenient for this in that Photoshop, as an app, would bypass the "default" printer and continue printing to the alternative printer selected...one could also argue that if you are going to be spending a lot of time printing to only one printer, that it makes sense to set THAT printer as default.
That could go either way...
Now, occasionally, when printing a show I'll be printing to both my 7800 (set up with Matte ink) and my 9800 (set up with Photo K) depending on what paper I'm printing to...in this case, the old sticky by Photoshop CS2 behavior was a pain because I would ALWAY have to re-select, manually each time I printed. In this case, I had to do that by actually manually selecting the printer...in CS3 that hasn't changed but now I can to that from the Photoshop CS3 print dlog, not the OS level-well, ok, with the 10.4.x bug I STILL have to go back and change the default printer on Mac but that's not Photoshop's fault.
So, in the grand scheme of things, the current behavior really doesn't seem to be a major problem.
I have emailed the engineer primarily responsible for the CS3 Print dlog to ask some questions...we'll see what (or if) he says anything regarding behaviors.
-
Well, I can confirm that with the Epson 3800 on Win, XP SP/2 and Photoshop CS3 that if, in the Photoshop Print dlog, I select "Centered" it prints in the center...at least to an accuracy equal to a ruler...I haven't got a micrometer out yet...
In the 3800 driver Page settings there is no "Centered" radio button nor a Standard or Maximum settings...all there is is a drop down for Paper Source, (with a Borderless check box), Paper Size drop down (with a user defined option but with no paper margins), a Copies settings and and Orientation settings with Landscape, Portrait and 180 setting.
No Centered option in the driver anywhere...
Getting the 4800 up and running ias gonna take a bit...sorry.
P.S. Yes, setting the default printer to the 3800 allows it to show up as the pre-selected printer in the CS3 dlog. And yes, the non-print driver settings (CM, etc) are sticky per image...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
This is interesting - seems from your evidence that there is a distinct difference of behaviour between the 3800 and the 4800 and the printer drivers are different. This could perhaps suggest that CS3 for Windows was designed around the 3800 driver but not the 4800 driver, which I believe is also similar to the 7800/9800 driver. As mentioned, I'll do further testing in the morning and report back. I know activating a 4800 can be a drag if you haven't used it for a while - but don't worry about declogging it etc. You don't need to print. All you need to do is turn the machine on and in the Main tab select "Preview". When you click Print, it will spool the file to the printer and pull up the Epson Preview, which shows faithfully where the image sits on the paper.
-
..........
So, in the grand scheme of things, the current behavior really doesn't seem to be a major problem.
I have emailed the engineer primarily responsible for the CS3 Print dlog to ask some questions...we'll see what (or if) he says anything regarding behaviors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, unless we find some combination of settings that systematically centers the pictures correctly (OK I'm not talking micro-milimeters) it is a big time-waster when one's images don't have uniform dimensions, which for me is normal - unless I revert to CS2 for printing, which "faute de mieux" may be the easiest fix.
I am very pleased - and thank you very much - for contacting the appropriate person in Adobe for discussion of this issue. Let us hope he/she responds and can help.
-
I know activating a 4800 can be a drag if you haven't used it for a while - but don't worry about declogging it etc. You don't need to print.
Well, I have this thing about turning a printer on and then NOT printing...so I had to do a power clean and go through the normal gyrations of trying to get a friggin' printer up on my network-I can print using Epson AppleTalk pretty easy but getting a reserved address working on my DHCP server is a b!tch and using EpsonNet config on Win ain't easy either...
So, you want the good news or the bad news? I'm using Epson Win 5.5.3 driver over my Ethernet network. From the Photoshop CS3 Print dlog, I select the "Default" printer (yeah, ok, the 4800 is now the Default). In the Page Setup I select advanced, save setup under Mode: Custom and I've saved out a setting that is Luster paper, 1440, highspeed, Printer Color Management is off. Under Paper I've selected 8.5 x 11. Portrait under orientation and under Printable area Standard and Maximum are greyed out but I do select "Centered" in the setting.
In the CS3 Print dlog, I see both the top and bottom margins the same...I select Center then select Scale to fit media, then I hit print. A dlog comes up with my installed printers and the 4800 is highlighted. I click on Preferences to make sure the settings are correct...I notice that the Mode is NOT set to my custom settings, so I select from the dropdown...I click on the paper settings and yes, those are all as I set including the Centered button selected...I click ok, then click Print...it prints and then I measure both the top/bottom margins.
Top margin: 17/32nds (.53125)
Bottom margin: 18/32nds (.5625)
But. ..when I measure the entire page, the cut length is just a bit shy of 11" exactly. I don't have an accurate foot ruler (I was using a mic to measure the margins) but it looks to be about 1/32nds shy of 11 inches.
So, is +- 1/32 considered "Centered"?
Just for yucks, I printed the same image from Photoshop CS2....same printer, same settings, ie: Centered in the print driver and centered in the CS2 Print with Preview and also selecting Scale to Fit...results?
Top margin: 17/32nds (.53125)
Bottom margin: 18/32nds (.5625)
(seriously, same margin measurements)
So, the good news is I can print centered (pretty much if +- 1/32nds" counts) from Photoshop CS3 to _MY_ 4800. The bad news is that you don't seem to be able to.
Your milage may vary (apparently is is).
It's now 2:00AM Central and I'm outta here.
(ya see the lengths I'm willin' to go through for you guys....jeeesh and the crap I get)
:~)
P.S. BTW, just to confirm the Firmware on my 4800 is the current A01868 posted on 12/07/06
-
Hi Jeff,
I see from the time of morning you posted these results you went at it with great gusto and determination, and may have resolved it. Half-past midnight I decided to let it all hang-over till this morning and have another go at it today. In principle I should be able to replicate your results, so I shall follow your recipe and see what happens. I'll let you know. Meanwhile a great many thanks for taking the time and trouble to research it into the wee hours of the morning.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Anyone having an issue with Bridge failing to load and crashing their system? After a few days of everything working fine bridge began fail to load. After a reinstall, everytime I try to start Bridge it crashes the system. This is on my PC, XP. mac Book Pro works fine.
-
Anyone having an issue with Bridge failing to load and crashing their system? After a few days of everything working fine bridge began fail to load. After a reinstall, everytime I try to start Bridge it crashes the system. This is on my PC, XP. mac Book Pro works fine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116152\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes - partly. I'm using XP Professional SP2 on a Dell Precision 690 Workstation. Yesterday I had two episodes of Brige 3 failing to load. Then when I tried to load Bridge 2 immediately thereafter, it failed to load as well. Neither instances caused my computer to freeze or crash. Bridges simply failed to respond. At first I thought there was an interference with the shortcuts working, so I went straight to the Program File itself, clicked on the "exe", and that didn't help. I solved the problem by restarting the computer in each instance. When I see this happening, it means that something I'm doing with the computer between Bridge sessions is causing Bridge to not respond. Lot's of luck finding out what - it would mean a careful tracking of operations one by one, attempting to restart Bridge after each operation to find the offending operation. Life is too short for that, but it would probably help Adobe fix the issue if someone did it. By the way, this NEVER happened to me before installing CS3.
-
By the way, this NEVER happened to me before installing CS3.
Me too. Up to this I was impressed with the improvements to Bridge.
-
By the way, this NEVER happened to me before installing CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Boy, you guys sure have short memories...
When Photoshop CS2 shipped with Bridge 1.0.0 it was unusable, routinely crashed, lack stated functionality and basically sucked. It wasn't until Bridge 1.01 update was released (within the same quarter that CS2 shipped) that Bridge became usable and it wasn't until Bridge 1.0.4 until it was really stable.
I suspect that there will be an update for Bridge CS3 fairly soon...
-
Anyone having an issue with Bridge failing to load and crashing their system? After a few days of everything working fine bridge began fail to load. After a reinstall, everytime I try to start Bridge it crashes the system. This is on my PC, XP. mac Book Pro works fine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116152\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On my PC with dual Xeon processors and XP Pro, Bridge did work fine, but today I noted it failed to load from Photoshop or by itself. I attempted to repair the installation, and the installer could not continue since it detected Bridge already running. However Bridge was not open, nor did it appear in the tray. Task manager revealed that it was indeed running and I then halted the program. Then a repair was not needed and things are currently working properly.
Bill
PS I spoke too soon the problem just recurred when I attempted to start Bridge from the desktop, but responded to the the same solution.
-
Hi Jeff,
I see from the time of morning you posted these results you went at it with great gusto and determination, and may have resolved it. Half-past midnight I decided to let it all hang-over till this morning and have another go at it today. In principle I should be able to replicate your results, so I shall follow your recipe and see what happens. I'll let you know. Meanwhile a great many thanks for taking the time and trouble to research it into the wee hours of the morning.
Cheers,
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
OK, better later than never. I have now finished testing all this as completely as I can. In setting up a logical experimentation matrix, one tables the possible combinations of events that will trigger a result, try each one of them, and measure the result. That is what I have done. I hasten to add one could argue this is something Adobe should done also and advised their customers accordingly, but let us set the corporate performance issue on the shelf and stay focused on outcomes.
Now, given the variables at play in the exercise, you can have Centering ("C" hereafter) On or Off in Photoshop (PS hereafter), On or Off in the Epson Driver (Epson hereafter) and for either of those in Epson you can select Standard or Maximum coverage. That gives you 2x2x2 = 8 possible combinations. To insure no scew-ups in test implementation I laid them all out in an Excel Spreadsheet, where each combination is separately identified in a matrix and the associated outcome described. I shall try attaching the matrix using this Board's attachment function. I have never done this before, so I don't know whether it will convey. So for insurance and clarity here are the options and results for each option:
(1) PS C on; Epson C on; standard; WAY OFF both dimensions
(2) PS C on; Epson C on; maximum; 1 mm OFF one dimension
(3) PS C on; Epson C off; standard; 10 mm OFF one dimension
(4) PS C on; Epson C off; maximum; 1 mm OFF one dimension
(5) PS C off; Epson C on; standard; WAY OFF both dimensions
(6) PS C off; Epson C on; maximum; 1 mm OFF one dimension
(7) PS C off; Epson C off; standard; 10 mm OFF one dimension
(8) PS C off; Epson C off; Maximum; 1 mm OFF one dimension
These results indicate two useful findings:
[a] results 1, 3, 5 and 7 are not useable.
all results with "maximum" selected are useable.
The one suspicious outcome in this list is (8), where you can have C off in both places and still get a centered result as long as Epson has maximum selected. One wonders whether this happens due to the order in which the test is implemented and what sticks from one test to the next. So I sent the file away, brought it back and immediately implemented Option (8) - same outcome. To triple check this, I called-up a completely fresh, untouched raw image, processed it as I normally would and sent it to print selecting the Option (8) settings. The print still came out with the same good result. So the bottom lines seem to be as suggested in [a] and above. If with further work I see reason to amend these conclusions I shall inform the community accordingly.
I should mention as well that the default printer annoyance remains. One can trade this annoyance for the annoyance of changing the default printer back and forth, but I maintain Adobe should fix this so that the Epson printer remains on tap in Photoshop until Photoshop is closed, like it does with CS2. In CS2, the printer selection sticks for Photoshop, but if I open any other application for which the default printer is the HP, of course the HP comes-up. That is how all this should behave.
I also believe that it behoves Adobe to issue a technical note to their Windows/Epson equipped customers notifying them that are workable and non workable combinations of options between CS3 and the Epson driver. In fact, they should do or commission to be done what I have done with a range of printer drivers and tell people what works with which driver. If this is only a Windows issue they need only do it for Windows, but if Macs are also affected, they should do both. Or, at the very least they should tell their customers of the need for the kind of systematic testing such as I have done in order to succeed with print centering. As of now, none of this is in any of their documentation that I have seen, and I have the fat white program manual. The only material remotely relevant on printing is between pages 532 and 535 where none of this is discussed. By the way, this is the best program manual they have ever produced for Photoshop. Recommended.
-
I also believe that it behoves Adobe to issue a technical note to their Windows/Epson equipped customers notifying them that are workable and non workable combinations of options between CS3 and the Epson driver. In fact, they should do or commission to be done what I have done with a range of printer drivers and tell people what works with which driver. If this is only a Windows issue they need only do it for Windows, but if Macs are also affected, they should do both. Or, at the very least they should tell their customers of the need for the kind of systematic testing such as I have done in order to succeed with print centering. As of now, none of this is in any of their documentation that I have seen, and I have the fat white program manual. The only material remotely relevant on printing is between pages 532 and 535 where none of this is discussed. By the way, this is the best program manual they have ever produced for Photoshop. Recommended.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=116182\")
With the release such a massive update as CS3, I suspect that the folks at Adobe will have the hands full for a while, but fortunately forum members both here and in the Adobe forums can also help out.
Another problem with CS3 is with Acrobat 8. When printing to a Postscript driver it prints red background. This has been known to Adobe since 2/14/2007 and there are a couple of workarounds suggested ([a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/go/kb400692]knowledge base[/url]). I tried one workaround (using the PCL driver), only to have nonsense characters appear in the output. Back to reader 7.0 for me.
BTW, did a manual come with your copy of CS3?. I have only PDF docs and online help.
Bill
-
Boy, you guys sure have short memories...
When Photoshop CS2 shipped with Bridge 1.0.0 it was unusable, routinely crashed, lack stated functionality and basically sucked. It wasn't until Bridge 1.01 update was released (within the same quarter that CS2 shipped) that Bridge became usable and it wasn't until Bridge 1.0.4 until it was really stable.
I suspect that there will be an update for Bridge CS3 fairly soon...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, my memory isn't short - I know there were all kinds of complaints about Bridge, but I installed it with CS2 as soon as they shipped and the only issue I ever had with it was slow speed; I attributed that to a combination of the application and my previous computer (Dell 8200), which had RDRAM and a narrow pipeline - but it did not freeze or crash either itself or the O/S.
-
With the release such a massive update as CS3, I suspect that the folks at Adobe will have the hands full for a while, but fortunately forum members both here and in the Adobe forums can also help out.
Another problem with CS3 is with Acrobat 8. When printing to a Postscript driver it prints red background. This has been known to Adobe since 2/14/2007 and there are a couple of workarounds suggested (knowledge base (http://www.adobe.com/go/kb400692)). I tried one workaround (using the PCL driver), only to have nonsense characters appear in the output. Back to reader 7.0 for me.
BTW, did a manual come with your copy of CS3?. I have only PDF docs and online help.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bill,
Can't help on the Acrobat stuff - I have zero experience combining the two applications. As for the manual yes - the best one Adobe ever produced for Photoshop. An 823 page white brick. It ships separately from the application. When ordering my up-grade if I remember correctly it was an option that one pays extra for - but I'm not certain. Best is to check the Adobe website. Anyhow, it's really a worthwhile manual to have - very results oriented - you want this, do that. Good style.
-
I have now finished testing all this as completely as I can.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh huh. . .what is your driver version? How is your printer connected? What is the printer firmware #?
Ya see, you STILL have more work to do...
:~)
As I noted in my report, at least via the Ethernet driver I can't alter or change the Standard or Maximum settings in the paper tab. I'm only able to change the Centered check box. The others are greyed out.
As far as your Maximum finding, yes, this is as expected since I told you that by default the 4800 (and 7/9800) drivers have unequal margins. Top, left & right of .13" and the bottom of .56". So, at "Standard" you have the situation where the bottom margin DOES produce an offset. In the past (and on my config) selecting Centered in the driver SHOULD produce a centered image on the paper. On the Mac, we never had a "Centered" option in the driver, hense the requirement for creating custom margins in Page Setup.
BTW, did you measure your overall paper length? Is it undercut? I often find EPson papers to be just a tiny bit short (particularly watercolor papers). 3RD party papers seem to be all over the map.
I should mention as well that the default printer annoyance remains. One can trade this annoyance for the annoyance of changing the default printer back and forth, but I maintain Adobe should fix this so that the Epson printer remains on tap in Photoshop until Photoshop is closed, like it does with CS2.
This is what Dave said...
"On Win CS2, PS saved the current printer "application wide". On Mac, it depended on what your setting was for "Selected Printer in Print Dialog" in the Print & Fax System Preference. If you had a printer selected in there, your "last used" printer in PS would be different from the one you'd end up printing to (or you'd have to change it in the OS print dialog) and things could go wrong.
In CS3, we're transitioning to a "per-document settings" model, rather than "application wide", so on Windows, it picks up the printer from the system default. On Mac, it still picks up the printer from the OS preference."
With regards to printer margins, he said:
"There is a change from CS2 in how the margins were handled. In CS2 we automatically "minimized" the margins (we would basically try and slam the margins to 0). On printers like the Epson 2200, this meant we would get symmetric borders. In CS3 we do not do this margin minimization, but rather use the printer's default margins. In the 2200 this means that the user needs to click the "Centered" and/or "Minimize Margins" check boxes in the printer's "Page Layout" properties panel to get truly centered prints.
(The reason for this is that on Vista, the margins are, from an application's point of view, a read-only field, and simply slamming them to 0 as we did in CS2 causes problems.)"
So, the changes required for Photoshop CS3 were not just designed to piss people off...things change often because the HAVE to.
-
Uh huh. . .what is your driver version? How is your printer connected? What is the printer firmware #?
Ya see, you STILL have more work to do...
:~)
As I noted in my report, at least via the Ethernet driver I can't alter or change the Standard or Maximum settings in the paper tab. I'm only able to change the Centered check box. The others are greyed out.
As far as your Maximum finding, yes, this is as expected since I told you that by default the 4800 (and 7/9800) drivers have unequal margins. Top, left & right of .13" and the bottom of .56". So, at "Standard" you have the situation where the bottom margin DOES produce an offset. In the past (and on my config) selecting Centered in the driver SHOULD produce a centered image on the paper. On the Mac, we never had a "Centered" option in the driver, hense the requirement for creating custom margins in Page Setup.
BTW, did you measure your overall paper length? Is it undercut? I often find EPson papers to be just a tiny bit short (particularly watercolor papers). 3RD party papers seem to be all over the map.
This is what Dave said...
"On Win CS2, PS saved the current printer "application wide". On Mac, it depended on what your setting was for "Selected Printer in Print Dialog" in the Print & Fax System Preference. If you had a printer selected in there, your "last used" printer in PS would be different from the one you'd end up printing to (or you'd have to change it in the OS print dialog) and things could go wrong.
In CS3, we're transitioning to a "per-document settings" model, rather than "application wide", so on Windows, it picks up the printer from the system default. On Mac, it still picks up the printer from the OS preference."
With regards to printer margins, he said:
"There is a change from CS2 in how the margins were handled. In CS2 we automatically "minimized" the margins (we would basically try and slam the margins to 0). On printers like the Epson 2200, this meant we would get symmetric borders. In CS3 we do not do this margin minimization, but rather use the printer's default margins. In the 2200 this means that the user needs to click the "Centered" and/or "Minimize Margins" check boxes in the printer's "Page Layout" properties panel to get truly centered prints.
(The reason for this is that on Vista, the margins are, from an application's point of view, a read-only field, and simply slamming them to 0 as we did in CS2 causes problems.)"
So, the changes required for Photoshop CS3 were not just designed to piss people off...things change often because the HAVE to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
As far as the tests go, not sure what work I have still to do apart from seeing whether further experience confirms my results and to answer your questions. My driver version is 5.51. My firmware version is the one before last. Epson Pro-Graphics confirmed to me that given my set-up no functionality changes, so it is completely neutral whether I up-grade them or not. My philosophy about up-grading as you may expect from me - is quite simply not to bother unless it is to fix something important or to provide significant additional functionality.
My printer is connected with a USB cable to a USB2 port in the computer. Nothing fancy.
I would like to think that smart software and firmware should know about the unequal printable page dimensions and build-in the compensation accordingly. These dimensions have been standard Epson fare for as long back as I can remember and have almost never caused a problem in the past - at least on the succession of Windows O/S's I've been using. There was one episode when Epson issued a faulty up-grade of a 4000 driver which failed to center with matte paper - strange bug, which they fixed.
I usually print with Epson Enhanced Matte. The latest sheet I used this morning making these tests measures bang-on 8.5 * 11 inches, using a stainless steel ruler called "Bates National Rule" made by the Bates Mfg. Co, in Hackettstown N.J. 07840 U.S.A. Now does it get better than that? (OK, this ruler isn't certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but for my purposes..............)
Thanks for getting the feedback from Dave.
As for their transitioning to "per document settings" from "application wide settings" - this makes it clear that it wasn't an accident, it was by design. I wish it were an accident, because then they would fix it. I retain my opinion that this is regression, but that's just me and who am I.
On the issue of the printer margins, he doesn't mention the X800 series or the O/S's concerned, so I'm not sure how to interpret that material. Anyhow, this may be becoming a moot point insofar as your work and mine have both indicated that there are functionally effective workarounds. Still, I think Adobe should issue a Tech Note as I suggested previously. Their documentation is poor on this, to put it mildly.
As for changing things to piss people off, of course this is a strawman - no-one in their right mind would expect them to want to do that. And of course, one needs to respect the fact they are frying more than one fish at a time when they're designing software hence it must get more complicated as options multiply. But I am confident they have the technical smarts to cater for these things and still preserve the outcome functionality that was good in the immediate previous version, perhaps in a different way, but good functionality nonetheless. I look forward to a a program up-date and material from Adobe that I hope would address some of this stuff. Meanwhile, I'll use CS2 for printing and Lightroom/CS3 for everything else. Keeps life easy.
-
I would like to think that smart software and firmware should know about the unequal printable page dimensions and build-in the compensation accordingly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Dave indicated that they used to "try" slam the printable margins to 0 but that's a complication that an app might not really want to do since an app must be essentially, printer and OS agnoistic.
OS's are constantly evolving as are drinter drivers-hense the 3800 is different than the 4800 regarding Standard and Maximum. Adobe has no direct control over printer manufacturers nor OS developers-they only have influence.
There are 3 main printer players and 2 main OS's. If you look at Mac & Win print driver API's and guidlines, you'll see what is required for one may actually be forbidden by the other (drop down menus required by Mac, tabs required by Win). As an OS transitions-and Vista is a big transition in many respects over XP (in so far are the print pipeline) the print drivers are constantly in a state of flux. So, an application that must remain agnostic really can't get into the trenches and start mucking about. Ya know?
Meanwhile, I'll use CS2 for printing and Lightroom/CS3 for everything else. Keeps life easy.
Hey, whatever works, ya know?
But there ARE aspects of printing from CS3 that ARE better than CS2-even if YOU don't like them. I tend to be more willing (and used to) adapting and adopting than trying to fight upstream. I guess I wouldn't make it as a salmon...(I'm more of a big tuna).
:~)
-
As for changing things to piss people off, of course this is a strawman - no-one in their right mind would expect them to want to do that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, well you say that, but you don't know these guys. I would _NOT_ put it past somebody like Mark Hamburg or Chris Cox (less so Thomas) to slip something in knowing full well it would piss of a subset of users and then take a certain perverse pleasure in that knowledge. I have however heard even Thomas giggle about things...
I would say that everything the Photoshop and Lightroom engineers do, they honestly think is for the betterment of the application. They are dedicated that way. But they aren't above changing something "gleefully"...
:~)
-
Boy, you guys sure have short memories...
When Photoshop CS2 shipped with Bridge 1.0.0 it was unusable, routinely crashed, lack stated functionality and basically sucked. It wasn't until Bridge 1.01 update was released (within the same quarter that CS2 shipped) that Bridge became usable and it wasn't until Bridge 1.0.4 until it was really stable.
I suspect that there will be an update for Bridge CS3 fairly soon...
The Jeff.
No, actually I usually wait to upgrade until the bugs are fixed. This time though, Beta CS3 already had its hooks in me and I jumped the gun. D___, what's that about learning your lessons?
-
But there ARE aspects of printing from CS3 that ARE better than CS2-even if YOU don't like them. I tend to be more willing (and used to) adapting and adopting than trying to fight upstream. I guess I wouldn't make it as a salmon...(I'm more of a big tuna).
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, I like to pride myself on being an earlier adapter of all kinds of stuff. I'm not afraid of that - I believe in progress and I don't fight up-stream unless I sense something better got extinguished. What I'm also sensing these days is that hardware and software is being pushed to market perhaps a bit prematurely, and with a slightly gentler pace some of the issues that could have been anticipated would have been anticipated. But that's an opinion. And I wouldn't for a moment vote to roll the clock back. We're on a roll in a great imaging revolution thanks to all the people we know about and others we don't.
Now, you say there are aspects of printing from CS3 that are better than CS2. Are you talking about things that make the technical quality of the print better, or the features of the interface? If the former I'm interested - please amplify. As for the latter, if I can cobble together an Action that does what I can do now on CS2 I'll use it.
-
Now, you say there are aspects of printing from CS3 that are better than CS2. Are you talking about things that make the technical quality of the print better, or the features of the interface?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like the fact that I can choose the printer in the CS3 dlog (can't in CS2) and the copies. I like the fact that the dlog displays the image resolution PPI. Those are usability issues. As far as I know, there's no difference in what CS3 is SENDING to the printer so, no, there's no technical advantage (or disadvantage) to CS3 over CS2.
What irks you doesn't bother me a bit...so I have no problems printing from CS3, thus MY life is simpler...although I do tend to print more out of Lightroom (cause I have new toys to play with)
:~)
-
Thanks Jeff. This has been a very useful dialogue. I think we've cut through the issues as best we can for the time being, as a result of which there is greater clarity about the implications of CS3/Windows/Epson for printing than there was before we started the discussion and the testing. I am going to mess around creating an action to see how much I can achieve the degree of automation printing from CS3 as I have from CS2. Meanwhile I hope Adobe has been "listening" to all this stuff. It may be helpful to them too, and what helps them has the potential of helping us.
-
But there ARE aspects of printing from CS3 that ARE better than CS2-even if YOU don't like them. I tend to be more willing (and used to) adapting and adopting than trying to fight upstream. I guess I wouldn't make it as a salmon...(I'm more of a big tuna).
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes there are. I like that the print preview is now color-managed, and I like the new Print interface, which would have made printing a lot simpler for me -- if the other changes hadn't been made.
And thanks, Jeff, for spending so much time on this.
Rick
-
Way, way back on May 3 I wrote:
Thanks for the report, Mark. I think I'll uninstall my beta now, but I'll give you another couple of weeks for the dust to settle before I go ahead with CS3. I'll be curious about how smoothly it goes transferring plugins and actions, as I have a ton of both.
I hope it goes smoothly (partly, of course, for my sake )
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... and since then, WOW! I'm sure glad I waited.
Thank you Mark and Jeff for pursuing these issues so persistently. I can wait a while more on CS3, since I don't need ACR4 (I'm happy right now with DXO). I also expect to stay with Win XP a while longer (just because I'm used to most of its quirks). But I'll want to deal with CS3 pretty soon, and Vista eventually (like it or not), so I expect I'll work Qimage into my workflow.
Thanks to Jeff I understand better why Adobe couldn't handle the centering better. But as for "per document settings" versus "application wide settings", I'm with Mark on what I would rather see. I just wish that choice could be built into the preferences somehow so each of us could have it work the way we want.
-
No, actually I usually wait to upgrade until the bugs are fixed. This time though, Beta CS3 already had its hooks in me and I jumped the gun. D___, what's that about learning your lessons?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you had the beta on your system beforehand, did you just uninstall the beta and then install the shipping version - or did you also run the Clean Script for your OS after uninstalling??
-
If you had the beta on your system beforehand, did you just uninstall the beta and then install the shipping version - or did you also run the Clean Script for your OS after uninstalling??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Carol, are you on Windows or Mac? Adobe Tech Support advised me that there have been almost no uninstall issues with Windows, and almost all the problems have been on Mac OSX. They also told me NOT to run the CleanScript unless it becomes necessary. Just do a normal removal of the program and then Install CS3 commercial version. They told me most of the time this is all that is needed. Now, you can no longer access the de-activate function for the Beta because access to the program has expired. This is not a problem either. When you reach the point of activating the new install, make sure to insert the license key for the new install - i.e. if the serial number for the Beta pops-up in the activation screen, over-write it with the new serial number. CleanScript is reserved for problems and not the first thing you would do.
-
Way, way back on May 3 I wrote:
... and since then, WOW! I'm sure glad I waited.
Thank you Mark and Jeff for pursuing these issues so persistently.
Thanks to Jeff I understand better why Adobe couldn't handle the centering better. But as for "per document settings" versus "application wide settings", I'm with Mark on what I would rather see. I just wish that choice could be built into the preferences somehow so each of us could have it work the way we want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, you are welcome.
Thanks to Jeff's enquiry with Adobe, I understand better why Adobe did what they did about the centering. Whether or not they could do more about it I think remains to be seen. I agree with Jeff's view that the application must be agnostic in the sense of handling the variety of drivers and O/S configurations that now exist. I would like to believe, however, with more time and effort, Adobe could produce refinements to the interface that can cope with this variety in a user-friendly way, or publish advisories on the combinations of settings between Photoshop and the various drivers which "center as advertised".
-
The question not being addressed here is: Why does print centering work as expected in CS2 but not CS3?
In CS2, click center image in printable area, and click center printable area in Epson driver. This works.
-
The question not being addressed here is: Why does print centering work as expected in CS2 but not CS3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doode. . .didn't you bother to read the back and forth between Mark & I?
Bottom line, select Maximum in the page setup and Centered in CS3 Print dlog.
-
The question not being addressed here is: Why does print centering work as expected in CS2 but not CS3?
In CS2, click center image in printable area, and click center printable area in Epson driver. This works.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, that question was addressed by Jeff's source from Adobe in message #85:
"There is a change from CS2 in how the margins were handled. In CS2 we automatically "minimized" the margins (we would basically try and slam the margins to 0). On printers like the Epson 2200, this meant we would get symmetric borders. In CS3 we do not do this margin minimization, but rather use the printer's default margins. In the 2200 this means that the user needs to click the "Centered" and/or "Minimize Margins" check boxes in the printer's "Page Layout" properties panel to get truly centered prints.
(The reason for this is that on Vista, the margins are, from an application's point of view, a read-only field, and simply slamming them to 0 as we did in CS2 causes problems.)"
Rick
-
But as for "per document settings" versus "application wide settings", I'm with Mark on what I would rather see. I just wish that choice could be built into the preferences somehow so each of us could have it work the way we want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, no...if you look at the way Lightroom handles presets you'll see the way per doc will go. Being able to save a variety of settings based on printer, paper and CM would be very useful and tagging an image with print settings and save will also be useful particularly if one could save multiple presets.
You may not always know or understand _WHY_ the Photoshop engineers do something...but they don't do _ANYTHING_ without good reason and in the vast majority of cases, they are right-that's my experience anyway.
Sometimes it upsets some people...they understand that. But for the benefit of the totality of Photoshop and its user base, sometimes they have to do something that makes things just a little more difficult (or different)...generally when they do that they are even more motivated to do something else that's really nice for users. Kinda spreading around both the pain & pleasure.
The Photoshop engineering culture (and now by extension Lightroom) is really tough for people outside of Adobe to understand...heck, it's sometimes hard even for Adobe to understand. Michael has met a lot of the engineers including spending a lot of time with Thomas Knoll and interviewing Mark Hamburg. Most people simply don't comprehend just how fanatical they are about making what they work on the absolutely best they can. The only think I can compare it to is the drive for excellence and competitive nature of pro athletes. Michael Jordan, back when he was on the Bulls had a clause in his contract that unlike most athletes allowed him to play basketball anytime and anywhere and the Bull paid for the insurance to allow that. It was called the "for the love of the game" clause.
And while you may not believe it (anybody who HAS met any of these guys will) they do this stuff, day in and day out, for the love of the game. And...they are the super stars of digital imaging. You should see the people who apply to become an engineer at Adobe. They are the brightest and best because they want to work on Photoshop. Some of them can be a little, uh, uncivilized (or should I say un-socialized) and they can be curt and even rude at times...they don't mean anything by it. But the Photoshop engineers really do eat, drink and even poop Photoshop.
You should meet some of their wives...I have a deal with Ann Hamburg (Mark's wife)...If I come over to the house for a visit or dinner, the deal is, fully one half (1/2) of the conversation MUST be about ANYTHING other than Photoshop (or now Lightroom) or I don't get invited back. Fortunately, she only keeps track of the %'s in a "general way". I'm still welcome...
:~)
-
If you had the beta on your system beforehand, did you just uninstall the beta and then install the shipping version - or did you also run the Clean Script for your OS after uninstalling??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Check my earlier postings from May3rd. No, I did a clean install which worked perfectly for a few days, got me through a couple of jobs before Bridge started screwing up royally this morning.
-
Check my earlier postings from May3rd. No, I did a clean install which worked perfectly for a few days, got me through a couple of jobs before Bridge started screwing up royally this morning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk, not sure what this tells Carol. I just went back to your May 3 post. You say you "followed the instructions" and it all went well - fine. Specifically which ones? Did you or did you not use the CleanScript tool? Are you on Windows or Mac? You also say your computer was giving you problems with both CS2 and CS3 Beta. If that's the case it would seem the problems you started facing this morning (not clear what they are - you didn't specify) may have more to do with your computer, not with Photoshop. What do you think?
-
Actually, no...if you look at the way Lightroom handles presets you'll see the way per doc will go. Being able to save a variety of settings based on printer, paper and CM would be very useful and tagging an image with print settings and save will also be useful particularly if one could save multiple presets.
That sounds like a very useful approach. When we have multiple presets, I'm willing to put some effort into changing my workflow.
You may not always know or understand _WHY_ the Photoshop engineers do something...but they don't do _ANYTHING_ without good reason and in the vast majority of cases, they are right-that's my experience anyway.
Sometimes it upsets some people...they understand that. But for the benefit of the totality of Photoshop and its user base, sometimes they have to do something that makes things just a little more difficult (or different)...generally when they do that they are even more motivated to do something else that's really nice for users. Kinda spreading around both the pain & pleasure.
The Photoshop engineering culture (and now by extension Lightroom) is really tough for people outside of Adobe to understand...heck, it's sometimes hard even for Adobe to understand. Michael has met a lot of the engineers including spending a lot of time with Thomas Knoll and interviewing Mark Hamburg. Most people simply don't comprehend just how fanatical they are about making what they work on the absolutely best they can. The only think I can compare it to is the drive for excellence and competitive nature of pro athletes. Michael Jordan, back when he was on the Bulls had a clause in his contract that unlike most athletes allowed him to play basketball anytime and anywhere and the Bull paid for the insurance to allow that. It was called the "for the love of the game" clause.
And while you may not believe it (anybody who HAS met any of these guys will) they do this stuff, day in and day out, for the love of the game. And...they are the super stars of digital imaging. You should see the people who apply to become an engineer at Adobe. They are the brightest and best because they want to work on Photoshop. Some of them can be a little, uh, uncivilized (or should I say un-socialized) and they can be curt and even rude at times...they don't mean anything by it. But the Photoshop engineers really do eat, drink and even poop Photoshop.
You should meet some of their wives...I have a deal with Ann Hamburg (Mark's wife)...If I come over to the house for a visit or dinner, the deal is, fully one half (1/2) of the conversation MUST be about ANYTHING other than Photoshop (or now Lightroom) or I don't get invited back. Fortunately, she only keeps track of the %'s in a "general way". I'm still welcome...
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seeing Bruce Frasier in action at a workshop gave me a little taste of what these guys must be like. I am indeed impressed with what they are able to do. Since PS6 I have been astonished that PS has always seemed to be much more stable than the underlying OS (in my case, varieties of Windows). It sounds as if that is still true with CS3 and Vista ("read-only margin settings," indeed! )
Again, thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this project.
Eric
-
Ok Mark, I'm on my way to Chicago so I need to make this quick.
My answers were confusing I grant you. This is spread over two threads. Sorry. I have both PC and MacBook Pro. Previously Bridge CS2 sucked, crashed slow etc, but on a different PC. New PC with XP, Bridge CS3 worked fine but painfully slow at generating thumbnails etc.-generally accepted problems on PCs.
Remove Beta-I used script on MBP no problem. I followed instruction on both to the letter. Problem is on PC. It worked perfectly for three days, PS still works perfectly. LR works perfectly. Up to 2am last night fine, screaming fast. This morning Bridge won't load. I reinstall and now PC crashes every time I try to load Bridge. Everything else works fine including PS. Reinstalled a couple of times from download-doesn't help. I am not only person having problems with this. As Jeff and Digitaldog have commented.
-
Ok Mark, I'm on my way to Chicago so I need to make this quick.
My answers were confusing I grant you. This is spread over two threads. Sorry. I have both PC and MacBook Pro. Previously Bridge CS2 sucked, crashed slow etc, but on a different PC. New PC with XP, Bridge CS3 worked fine but painfully slow at generating thumbnails etc.-generally accepted problems on PCs.
Remove Beta-I used script on MBP no problem. I followed instruction on both to the letter. Problem is on PC. It worked perfectly for three days, PS still works perfectly. LR works perfectly. Up to 2am last night fine, screaming fast. This morning Bridge won't load. I reinstall and now PC crashes every time I try to load Bridge. Everything else works fine including PS. Reinstalled a couple of times from download-doesn't help. I am not only person having problems with this. As Jeff and Digitaldog have commented.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk - not sure how "generally accepted" a problem Bridge thumbnail generation is on a PC. On my PC it works pretty darn fast. I'm using an Intel Core Duo Xeon 5160 (3 GHz processor) with 4 GB of RAM (only 2 really work because of the 32-bit OS constraint) in a Dell Precision 690 Workstation. I've also had the no-start problem with Bridge, but it came back after rebooting the computer. As I was saying previously, it seems there is something in there that doesn't like some other application or function of the O/S, but God only knows how much work to sleuth it. Meanwhile continuing to use the latest version of Bridge for CS2 is both fast and safe. This is something I hope the folks at Adobe are looking into. Sorry it has given you such pain.
-
re: center print CS3
On my Epson 4000 (driver v 5.52), Print Area MAXIMUM is only available if Plain Paper is selected. Not available for any art paper.
-
re: center print CS3
On my Epson 4000 (driver v 5.52), Print Area MAXIMUM is only available if Plain Paper is selected. Not available for any art paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul this is strange because I once owned a 4000 and at that time the driver clearly allowed one to select Maximum using Enhanced Matte paper (and others). Perhaps you should call Epson and ask them if they have a previous version for the 4000 which supports Maximum print area for use in CS3 with photo papers, or indeed whether they are planning to produce revised drivers that work-around the new complications with CS3.
-
Ok Mark, I'm on my way to Chicago so I need to make this quick.
Remove Beta-I used script on MBP no problem. I followed instruction on both to the letter. Problem is on PC. It worked perfectly for three days, PS still works perfectly. LR works perfectly. Up to 2am last night fine, screaming fast. This morning Bridge won't load. I reinstall and now PC crashes every time I try to load Bridge. Everything else works fine including PS. Reinstalled a couple of times from download-doesn't help. I am not only person having problems with this. As Jeff and Digitaldog have commented.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not having the problem of painfully slow generation of thumbnails on my PC system Kirk (Intel Core Duo E6700 2.67Ghz/4Gb RAM/Windows XP x64 Pro). They appear virtually instananeously when Thumbnails are set to 'Convert to HQ when previewed' and are no slouch when set to 'HQ' - coming in at roughly 2.5 to 3 per sec.
As this is a new PC which hasn't had the beta on, it obviously cannot be remnants of the beta causing problems. Does this crash occur if you load Bridge on its own?? Do you have any other applications running at the same time (MS Word/Excel etc)?? There have apparently been a few reports that MS Word interferes with launching Bridge, but I haven't seen this on my system (but then I'm using a much older version of Office).
Have you tried the Adobe User 2 User Forums where some of the engineers sometimes visit??
-
There have apparently been a few reports that MS Word interferes with launching Bridge, but I haven't seen this on my system (but then I'm using a much older version of Office).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thinking this may be the gem of knowledge that de-mystifies the launch issue, I'm on Office 2003 Professional Edition, so I am now launching MSWord to see whether it prevents Bridge from launching. Nope - Bridge launched. So I still don't know why it periodically fails to launch.
-
I'm not having the problem of painfully slow generation of thumbnails on my PC system Kirk (Intel Core Duo E6700 2.67Ghz/4Gb RAM/Windows XP x64 Pro).
I was talking about slow loads on Bridge CS2 not Bridge CS3. BCS3 was screaming right up to meltdown. Cannot get it to load even after numerous reinstalls. Did not try just installing Bridge. Nothing else was running.
I am in Chicago for awhile at SAIC doing final critics and do not have access to the PC with Bridge problems.
-
There seems to be an issue using MSFT's Intellamouse 6.1 driver that is causing all sorts of CS3 problems on Win. Rolling back to driver 5.5 (or whatever was before 6) resolves the issue. Adobe & MSFT are aware and working in it.
-
There seems to be an issue using MSFT's Intellamouse 6.1 driver that is causing all sorts of CS3 problems on Win. Rolling back to driver 5.5 (or whatever was before 6) resolves the issue. Adobe & MSFT are aware and working in it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Jeff,
While that could be part of the problem, it may not be all. I say this because I don't use an MSFT Intellamouse (those mice aren't intelligent enough for me ). I'm using a Kensington Pro Optical Track Ball with its own software/driver and I have had a couple of instances where Bridge simply refused to load unless I restarted the computer. [Not impossible, perhaps this driver has something in common with the MSFT driver - yet another angle]. Anyhow, I thought this may be of interest if you are in a position to pass it along to those you may know of working on this issue. Could mean one also needs to look further for the causes.
-
Bridge CS3 departs from Bridge CS2 in how it organizes thumbnails. If you use colour labels for sorting images and you label some images but not others, in CS2 by default (and there was no user option) if you select to sort by label, all the labelled thumbnails come first, and the non-labelled ones follow. In CS3 (at least on my WinXP computer) it is the reverse and I have failed to find an option for changing it. I think this kind of a regression, because, for example, one of the key reasons to label certain images is to prioritize them viz a viz the remainder, so one wonders why the prioritized ones should follow the non-selected one. Sounds trivial, but with a folder containing many images, not too many of which are selected, it means scrolling through the unwanted to get to the wanted. Maybe the solution in Bridge CS3 is to label the trash and leave the good stuff unmarked! But if you have multi-purpose labelling conventions, that wouldn't cut it.
-
Bridge CS3 departs from Bridge CS2 in how it organizes thumbnails. If you use colour labels for sorting images and you label some images but not others, in CS2 by default (and there was no user option) if you select to sort by label, all the labelled thumbnails come first, and the non-labelled ones follow. In CS3 (at least on my WinXP computer) it is the reverse and I have failed to find an option for changing it. I think this kind of a regression, because, for example, one of the key reasons to label certain images is to prioritize them viz a viz the remainder, so one wonders why the prioritized ones should follow the non-selected one. Sounds trivial, but with a folder containing many images, not too many of which are selected, it means scrolling through the unwanted to get to the wanted. Maybe the solution in Bridge CS3 is to label the trash and leave the good stuff unmarked! But if you have multi-purpose labelling conventions, that wouldn't cut it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
On the Mac at the top of the View>Sort By drop down, you can select "Ascending Order" or "Descending Order". DO places the labled images first, ahead of the unlabled. Perhaps in Windows that menu item is not the same?
Regards,
Ed
-
Mark,
On the Mac at the top of the View>Sort By drop down, you can select "Ascending Order" or "Descending Order". DO places the labled images first, ahead of the unlabled. Perhaps in Windows that menu item is not the same?
Regards,
Ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ed, yes same on Windows and I had tried that too, but because I process files in mainly in order of capture for a couple of reasons, I prefer Labels first with Ascending order, like worked in Bridge CS2.
-
There seems to be an issue using MSFT's Intellamouse 6.1 driver that is causing all sorts of CS3 problems on Win. Rolling back to driver 5.5 (or whatever was before 6) resolves the issue. Adobe & MSFT are aware and working in it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What are the 'issues' it causes?
Bridge not loading? Bridge still running in the background after you close it? Bridge crashing? Bridge running preventing PKS from running smoothly? The memory leaks?
Wish I could say I had an Intellimouse
-
Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? Isn't the learning curve with any version of Photoshop steep enough without having to go through this nonsense just to get a successful installation of what is, after all, a very expensive product. I think you'd take a very dim view if you bought a new fridge and then were told you'd have to re-wire the house because the machine had a bug. Adobe should get real - consumers have rights and the fundamental right is that the produce works, first, last and always. We photographers are a forgiving lot.
When Adobe issued a free edition of Lightroom to previous Raw Shooter Premium users, we had another fiasco involving endless, fruitless calls to Adobe Customer Support et al. Two Adobe nightmares within a few months of each other is two too many. Apart from that, Lightroom is slow, and the sliders and both LR and CS3 seem very sluggish. In fact, everything seems sluggish and my hardware is as up to date as the next man's. My version of Bridge crashes quite often, my prints seem to have radically disimproved in both applications and I am now thinking of re-installing CS2 and using it exclusively.
Not a happy Adobe camper!
Seamus Finn
-
Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? Isn't the learning curve with any version of Photoshop steep enough without having to go through this nonsense just to get a successful installation of what is, after all, a very expensive product. I think you'd take a very dim view if you bought a new fridge and then were told you'd have to re-wire the house because the machine had a bug. Adobe should get real - consumers have rights and the fundamental right is that the produce works, first, last and always. We photographers are a forgiving lot.
When Adobe issued a free edition of Lightroom to previous Raw Shooter Premium users, we had another fiasco involving endless, fruitless calls to Adobe Customer Support et al. Two Adobe nightmares within a few months of each other is two too many. Apart from that, Lightroom is slow, and the sliders and both LR and CS3 seem very sluggish. In fact, everything seems sluggish and my hardware is as up to date as the next man's. My version of Bridge crashes quite often, my prints seem to have radically disimproved in both applications and I am now thinking of re-installing CS2 and using it exclusively.
Not a happy Adobe camper!
Seamus Finn
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seamus, as I made clear way-up in this thread, and lest anyone reading this forget or misundestand what I said, I write from a purely independent consumer perspective without regard to any software or hardware vendor, so I call a spade a spade, but that's from my own experience - readers will know that's all I usually discuss - and other peoples' experience and insight can and often does differ. That's the spice of life and so be it.
So with that disclaimer out of the way, I'll make a few observations on what you are saying:
(1) I'm using Windows XP on a Dell Precision 690 workstation with a 3 GHz Core Duo Xeon 5160, 32 bit mode and therefore 2GB of operational RAM. The two HDs working for Photoshop are 10,000 RPM units. I'm not having speed problems with Lightroom or Bridge, or CS3. I have both CS2 and CS3 in active use. I'd say CS2 Bridge loads a bit faster than CS3 Bridge, but CS3 Bridge is a different animal - it has capabilities that CS2 Bridge doesn't have. Maybe that extended functionality has a price in terms of slightly - and I mean slightly - longer load-up time. Anyhow for perspective, not a deal-breaker on my set-up.
(2) My installation of CS3 was seemless without "rewiring the fridge" simply by following the instructions Adobe issued. I too was very concerned about the prospects of having to use their CleanScript tool with all the CYA warnings they supplied with it, so I called Adobe first to discuss it - my phone call - and I'm no-one special to them - was answered rapidly, the discussion was professional and to the point - they told me not to worry about it and what to do if I ran into problems. I did it, there were no problems. End of story - for me.
(3) My version of Bridge CS3 does not crash. I've had a couple of instances when it failed to load. This is a known issue and I can only assume Adobe is working on it. But once it loads, it works. I don't like the way it sorts thumbnails so I'm still using Bridge CS2, but CS3 has features for which I'll also use it. I like the way the cache and the programming insure that whatever you do in the one is conveyed in the other. This is smart and convenient.
(4) Using CS3 so far has been "eventless" - again no rewiring of the fridge - not even the toaster - except for two issues relating to the Print module, which has already consumed pages of dialogue and some useful outcome in this thread.
(5) When I observe the recent raft of major printer and software releases, I can't help thinking that there is a general tendancy in the industry to release things to the market a bit prematurely and let the customers finalize the testing through experience. Again, it is a matter of judgment how much of this consumers should be expected to tolerate. You'll get a whole range. Some people are quite willing to grin and bear it while the bugs are fixed because they want the new features as fast as possible. Others are more conservative and want a fairly seemless operating experience even if it takes longer to reach them. I find myself somewhere in-between. One needs to distinguish between major issues and minor issues, deal-breakers from non-deal breakers and work through or around accordingly.
(6) Sometimes, it must be the case that not everything in software design is win-win except after a long period of development time. What I mean by that, for example, is that nifty new features we all like could come at the expense of more complexity that causes say, unexpected instances of incompatibility with something else (remember each of the 100s of millions of computers out there is somehow a unique environment) or slightly slower operating efficiency.
So bottom line: I think you're over-reacting some, but I also think there is merit to the view that aspects of basic functionality (especially things that worked well before) should be thoroughly protected and carefully verified as such pre-release - except of course to the extent that sometimes there are simply these trade-offs when better judgment says release now and improve later.
-
Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? Isn't the learning curve with any version of Photoshop steep enough without having to go through this nonsense just to get a successful installation of what is, after all, a very expensive product. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely! I refuse to be intimidated by such issues. Computers always have mystifying issues due to their complexity. One has to preserve one's sanity and just roll with the issues or work around them.
I got a free first issue of Lightroom because I was a registered user of RSP which Adobe took over, but I don't need it and don't use it.
I downloaded the beta version of CS3 because I was interested in the new stitching capabilities of Photomerge. It's a big improvement over CS2, but I don't need it. Autopano Pro is better.
I still use RSP when I want to give a RAW conversion a certain 'punch' and vibrancy. I know ACR in CS3 now boasts a 'vibrancy' slider, but it's quite tame compared with RSP.
I think we may be suffering from a surfeit of goodies here.
-
Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Seamus. I'm glad one visual artist had the ability to "see" and speak the truth.
As much as I enjoyed Schewe's Hallmark rendition of his Adobe-family experience, all I know is Adobe has my money and Michael Jordan was notorious for NOT tipping the service personnel who waited on his every need. For me, there's something repulsive about a gifted, wealthy man who behaves so cheaply and so greedily.
To simplify everything (which is my preferred workflow), I guess nothing is perfect. I certainly don't want to go back to dirty-lab/darkroom days and retouching middlemen. Having total control of my art, from capture to print, justifies the painful learning curve (for me). At least the left side of my brain is getting a stronger workout. I worry that it will eventually beat the shit out of my right side and then I'll have to dress like a nerd and be rude (or morph into a Schewe look-a-like).
I don't "beta" or "test" anything and I wait one year from official launch dates before I upgrade. So, in my world, Adobe rocks!
-
Absolutely! I refuse to be intimidated by such issues. Computers always have mystifying issues due to their complexity. One has to preserve one's sanity and just roll with the issues or work around them.
I got a free first issue of Lightroom because I was a registered user of RSP which Adobe took over, but I don't need it and don't use it.
I downloaded the beta version of CS3 because I was interested in the new stitching capabilities of Photomerge. It's a big improvement over CS2, but I don't need it. Autopano Pro is better.
I still use RSP when I want to give a RAW conversion a certain 'punch' and vibrancy. I know ACR in CS3 now boasts a 'vibrancy' slider, but it's quite tame compared with RSP.
I think we may be suffering from a surfeit of goodies here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi all,
The point I'm trying to make, probably badly, is that photography is our first love, and technology comes a poor second. Having emerged from the traditional darkroom after many years into the blinding light, I wouldn't be without Photoshop etc for any money and look forward to each upgrade with great anticipation. It's a wonderful tool enabling us to do things we could never achieve with chemicals. My only complaint is that when a product is shipped, it should be so thoroughly tested, reliable and bug-free that we shouldn't need to go poking into its inards trying to use programming and other high-tech skills that most photographers do not possess nor have any wish to do so.
When, for instance, Bridge inexplicably crashes, I have neither the time , the patience nor the knowledge to find out why - yet I have no choice. What follows is a complete waste of time devoted in a hit and miss fashion trying to solve the problem - time spend on the web looking for people with similar problems who may have an answer, time we all could use working more productively on making good prints and enjoying our hobby, or more seriously, serving our clients. It's fine for photographers with a deep knowledge of the technology involved, but I suspect the vast majority of us have only a rudimentary awareness of how complex applications actually work. That's why we have to rely on forums like this where, in fairness, a vast amount of information is presented - but it takes time to unearth and implement it.
My experience is that since 'going digital' a few years ago, I find myself spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to solve purely technical problems than I do working on pictures. And please, don't anybody reply asking why I don't shut up and buzz off back into the darkroom where I came from. We have reached the point of no return - it ain't an option.
Now that I have that off my chest, I have to to back to Lightroom and find why it suddenly can't find the database it's being using ever since the day I installed it. More wasted time, more high blood pressure and more scouring the web looking for clues. Nobody ever said it would be easy, but nobody ever said it would be such a pain in the ass either!
Regards to all,
Seamus Finn
-
You certainly don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car and, if you've just purchased a new one, let's hope it's years before you need to hire Midas. Many car owners do take the time to figure out what's going on under their hoods and often save hundreds of dollars when maintenance is needed. I'm not one of them.
Upgrades are about money and it's important for companies who "develop" to keep their bank accounts flush. Adobe hasn't much competition but they haven't lost their focus on growth, either. We Photoshop users/lovers are at their mercy.
Beta versions are for feedback. A necessary final step because no software company can think of everything. If you're not tech savvy, you should avoid anything beta or Version 1. One must accept the nature of this beast and temper your need to be first in line. For me, there are easier and more fun areas of my life where I can be au courant.
Yes, it's expensive, but I keep a Mac/Photoshop techie handy. I have limited desire to learn, teach, or write about tech. My sex life suffers enough from the joys of shooting. (Don't touch that!) My heart goes out to Photoshop users in the hinterlands.
Thank goodness for the internet and forums like these. Most of us are in the same digital boat, trying to do it all because now it's possible. I sincerely appreciate the smarter folks who feel our collective pain and are willing to share their brilliance in an effort to help. A big kiss to Jeff Schewe et al.
-
Referring to the discussion of print centering in the above, I received a private email from a Forum member using WINXP and an Epson 9800 telling me that the fix of selecting "Maximum" in the Paper tab of the Epson driver did not work satisfactorily, because when printed this way in CS3 the image came out looking "cropped" or "enlarged" by about an eighth of an inch. I assume the print size was large but he did not specify.
Therefore I considered it necessary to verify whether the fix that emerged from the work Jeff and I did - mine reported in post 81 - had this side effect on my set-up, WINXP with an Epson 4800. I snapped a shot of my bookshelves, so I could see very closely from the subject matter whether there would be any difference of material printed, and I ran two letter-size prints (coverage of 9 inches by 5.988 inches from a Canon 1Ds file at native resolution redimensioned but not resampled) as follows:
[a] print from CS3 with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Maximum and
print from CS2 in the usual way with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Standard.
I am pleased to observe that both prints are centered, identical with each other and identical with the image shown in Photoshop on the monitor.
It does appear to be the case however that the fix in Post 81 may not work uniformly well with every version of the Epson driver within the pre-3800 X800 series printers.
-
I have now given-up printing with Photoshop CS3, because I cannot automate the Print Module given the consummate foolishness of its changed operational features from CS2, in regard to Printer Default behaviour and print centering.
In CS2 I have an Action which resizes the image to 360 PPI, applies PK Inkjet Output Sharpener at 360 PPI, commands Print using the Epson Driver settings that I made my default and spools the file to the printer; thereupon, the Epson Preview comes up (my default for a final check, but this can be by-passed) and I click print. This whole sequence takes about 7~9 seconds for a file in the range of 90~150 MB. The default paper orientation is Portrait. As long as I am printing in Portrait mode I can let this Action run without interruption. If I know I am next printing a Landscape, I place a stop-point in the Action beside the Print command before launching the Action, which allows me to change the paper orientation to Landscape in the Epson driver. This works reliably with a few quick short-cuts and always centers the print.
Well, I tried re-creating this Action to work with CS3. Complete disaster and no workaround.
Whether or not the Epson is selected as the default printer, unless Maximum is selected in the Paper tab of the Epson driver by getting to it through the Page Set-Up of the Photoshop Print Dialogue, the print will not be centered; however the stop-point in the Action beside Print in CS3 does not pull-up the Photoshop Print Dialogue allowing one to do this; rather, it bypasses that dialogue and pulls up the Windows Print Dialogue for the Default printer. This allows one to enter the driver preferences and select Maximum in the Paper Tab, but selecting Maximum that way will NOT center the print. As well, Maximum paper coverage in the Epson driver does not appear to be a reliably sticky setting. It can revert to Standard after printing even if one created the Epson driver default setting for paper coverage to be on Maximum, especially if one makes a change of orientation between Portrait and Landscape. Therefore with a perfectly straightforward print Action of the kind I created, one can never be guaranteed a centered print with an Epson 4800 in Windows XP using Adobe Photoshop CS3.
I shall continue using CS2 for printing, where everything works so smoothly and sensibly I can almost print with my eyes shut. If one bright day I wake up to see that Adobe has cleaned-up its kaka in the Print module, I'll print in CS3. Adobe can clean it up by: (1) reverting to an application-based printer default behaviour so the printer selection once chosen stays the same until the application is shut (this only makes sense for the more usual situation in which one would be printing file after file from the same application to the same printer) and (2) cleaning-up the mess with centering prints for Epson drivers on Windows operating systems. I have serious trouble believing Adobe software engineers can’t find a way to do it, regardless of whatever operating system changes occurred between Windows and Vista. They have the brains - all they need is the time, effort and perhaps some collaboration with Microsoft.
-
I shall continue using CS2 for printing, where everything works so smoothly and sensibly I can almost print with my eyes shut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is why I use Lightroom...while I can't print with my eyes shut, it's a lot easier and less prone to user error.
given the consummate foolishness
Jeeeesh bud, I gave you the reasons sent by the engineer in charge...sure seemed like a well reasoned and thoughtful result of OS system requirements, no "foolishness" involved that I can see.
You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but it's pretty darn impossible to please all the people all of the time.
:~)
-
Which is why I use Lightroom...while I can't print with my eyes shut, it's a lot easier and less prone to user error.
Jeeeesh bud, I gave you the reasons sent by the engineer in charge...sure seemed like a well reasoned and thoughtful result of OS system requirements, no "foolishness" involved that I can see.
You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but it's pretty darn impossible to please all the people all of the time.
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, I'd print from Lightroom if it were possible to softproof from Lightroom. It's just extra steps doing the final work-ups in CS3, then sending the files back to Lightroom for printing. Opening them from Bridge to CS2 for printing really doesn't cause any errors and works well. But I may try it in Lightroom anyhow. Thanks for the suggestion.
I read what the engineer told you and I don't dispute he has a point - for now. But I also think they can move beyond that. Those guys are good and they're dedicated, etc, but managerial judgment and the fact that time is money on both the expenditure and income side of the ledger probably plays a role in outcomes as well.
To me, something is foolish if it worked well before and got wrecked in the process of trying to make it "better". It's not a matter of how many people get pleased or not pleased. Some things make obvious good sense and others just don't. This stuff doesn't and I think it's time to simply recognize it. I didn't hear complaints about how CS2 handled printing, but there's a fair bit about issues with CS3, and it's not just people resisting change or being too lazy to find workarounds. Speaking for myself, I've spent much more time experimenting with this stuff than should have been necessary, expecting if I could get it working well in CS3 I'd be just as happy to delete CS2; however after all is said and done I'm still reverting to non-CS3 printing solutions. This is the first time I've experienced such screw-ups since up-grading from Elements to 6, from 6 to 7 from 7 to CS and from CS to CS2.
-
This is the first time I've experienced such screw-ups since up-grading from Elements to 6, from 6 to 7 from 7 to CS and from CS to CS2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.
As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.
But NONE of this legitimately comes under the heading of Adobe being engaged in "consummate foolishness".
As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.
Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.
This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
-
Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.
*grumble*
As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.
Yes, that's been a bunch of fun. I've saved my PSDs to a network drive and printed them from my Windows PC with CS2 as a matter of course.
As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.
Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.
This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
Thanks for that tip, this may actually solve my woes.
-
Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.
As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.
But NONE of this legitimately comes under the heading of Adobe being engaged in "consummate foolishness".
As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.
Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.
This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, fine - there have been serious issues of software compatibility between Apple and Adobe; however, regardless of whether we're talking Apple or Microsoft I'm not interested in the lowest common denominator of operational systems' integrity as a benchmark for perceiving and correcting the issues now at hand. Consumers are not well-served by the lack of adequate co-ordination and programming to provide for maintaining pre-existing core functionalities from one version of software to the next as the developers make "progress". Centering prints seemlessly is a core functionality. As I mentioned above, I'm not disputing Dave's advice that Vista has caused them a problem. I would just like to believe they have the smarts, given the will, time and effort, to get it resolved in a more satisfactory way.
Thanks for taking the trouble to lay out the workflow for using Lightroom as a substitute print module. As I read it over, though, I'm strongly tempted to believe that using my Action in CS2 which involves pressing F3 and then about 8 seconds later pressing PRINT is much less labour-intensive. However, I shall retain your suggestion on-hand in case of need.
-
Consumers are not well-served by the lack of adequate co-ordination and programming to provide for maintaining pre-existing core functionalities from one version of software to the next as the developers make "progress". Centering prints seemlessly is a core functionality.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do™?
Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?
You folks seem hellbent on blaming everything on big, bad Adobe when in fact, not only do you have to share the blame accurately among all participants, it would actually be useful to place the blame directly on the correct party. Wonder why the newest Epson driver for the 3800 has-wait for it-equal margins all the way around?
Back in the early days, Epson NEEDED to have more gripper space at the bottom of the page. That requirement went away when they redeigned the grippers for being able to do borderless printing...but it seems nobody told the guys writting the driver that they no longer needed more page matin at the bottom. Now, with the 3800 driver, by default, centering the image in the Photoshop print driver does what? Centers the print....(you can thank me for pointing out that littel gem to Epson)
And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do™.
Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?
:~)
-
serious issues of software compatibility between Apple and Adobe
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ya see...that completely lets Epson off the hook...and that's wrong...the real conflict is between Apple/Epson and MSFT/Epson with Adobe caught in the middle trying to do the Right Thing™
-
Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do™?
Yes, apparently, coding two different behind-the-scenes behaviours is the right thing to do.
This is one of the fundamental headaches for those who wish to do cross-platform development; you may have to have different code for different platforms.
I know it sounds awful, but programmers have to live with it.
Oracle went to a pretty big step, and implemented their own virtualization layer (I'm pretty certain that's not the name they use, although they called it their "Oracle OS" rather jokingly) to help in this process.
Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?
Yes, the print driver is certainly one of the players here.
And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do™.
It could have been configurable.
Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?
(http://blog.zugschlus.de/uploads/bug-feature.jpg)
-
Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do™?
Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?
You folks seem hellbent on blaming everything on big, bad Adobe when in fact, not only do you have to share the blame accurately among all participants, it would actually be useful to place the blame directly on the correct party. Wonder why the newest Epson driver for the 3800 has-wait for it-equal margins all the way around?
Back in the early days, Epson NEEDED to have more gripper space at the bottom of the page. That requirement went away when they redeigned the grippers for being able to do borderless printing...but it seems nobody told the guys writting the driver that they no longer needed more page matin at the bottom. Now, with the 3800 driver, by default, centering the image in the Photoshop print driver does what? Centers the print....(you can thank me for pointing out that littel gem to Epson)
And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do™.
Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(1) Yes - user-selectable options for the Print Module as a function of the user's operating system - that could well be a suitable approach under the circumstances.
(2) Discussing this whole thing in terms of "whose fault" is not going to progress the issue. Nor is an issue of being hell-bent on bashing Adobe. I've made it abundently clear that I have a huge amount of respect for Adobe and I'm not trying to personalize issues be it at the level of individuals or companies. When I say a behaviour is foolish I'm talking about the results - what the application does - not the people who created it. So let us get off that tangent once and for all.
(3) I've also mentioned before that I don't particularly care whether the behaviour is called a bug or an educated decision. Whatever it is, it is a problem and the problem should be solved.
(4) I agree there are at least three commercial parties involved in this: Adobe, Microsoft and Epson. The nodal point and the main point of contact with the user where it all comes together however is within Photoshop, so indeed yes you have a point - Adobe is the meat in the sandwich - and all the more reason why they need to put the extra effort into getting it resolved - as I mentioned above - collaboratively with others concerned as needed.
(5) Apart from all the stuff above which is largely about centering prints, the default printer business is another issue, and I just happen to think Adobe made an error of judgment on that one, with their change of philsophy from an application to a per document criterion, as you previously explained it. We can agree to disagree on that. True it is not difficult to change the default printer to the Epson every time I go to print, but I multi-task and use the other one as well, so each time I want to print something else while photos are printing, I would need to remember to select what is now the non-default printer. It's a PITA. The CS2 way, once the Epson is selected for printing it stays there as long as Photoshop is open, while the default printer is available for everything else without having to select anything, and without having to constantly remember to switcvh defaults back and forth. So in CS2 I had the best of both worlds with no effort. I liked that and I'm sorry to lose it in CS3.
-
Ya see...that completely lets Epson off the hook...and that's wrong...the real conflict is between Apple/Epson and MSFT/Epson with Adobe caught in the middle trying to do the Right Thing™
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've never questioned their commitment to try to do the right thing, but sometimes things can turn out to be not so right, and more often than not with the kind of ingenuity they have, such issues should be fixable. I agree with you that Epson is a party at the table, but that does not dismiss Adobe from going the extra mile to help insure that previous functionality somehow gets preserved. If the responsibility for fixing these things should be shared between three parties, so be it - just let them get it done, and I would argue that Adobe has a primary interest in coordinating it.
-
(4) I agree there are at least three commercial parties involved in this: Adobe, Microsoft and Epson. The nodal point and the main point of contact with the user where it all comes together however is within Photoshop, so indeed yes you have a point - Adobe is the meat in the sandwich - and all the more reason why they need to put the extra effort into getting it resolved - as I mentioned above - collaboratively with others concerned as needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, four...you forget (or don't care) that both Adobe and Epson have to deal with cross=platform issues which complicate the whole structure.
Look, I think (I know) Print With Preview _WAS_ an Adobe attempt at bypassing the issue and trying to solve the problem for users (in fact, I know it was cause I was involved with the first iteration of PWP working with Chris Cox because Chris was pissed at Epson/Apple/MSFT) and it blew up in their faces because they were arguably violating the OS APIs...Print with Preview is gone now-it's a combo dlog that is part Adobe and part OS/Print driver.
I'm pretty sure that Adobe caught flack for doing that in the past and in Vista, the printable margins are read only, set by the driver. An application can't bypass them. Which is also why, I think, Epson had to FIX the unequal page margin issue which they did for the 3800. So, let's all get on Epson's back to see if they will address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...
There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.
Discussing this whole thing in terms of "whose fault" is not going to progress the issue
See, that's where you are wrong...in order to bring about change, you need to know who is, at the root, responsible...blaming Adobe isn't useful and expecting Adobe to "fix" something that is neither their fault nor their responsibility is fruitless.
Ironically, Photoshop is now platform agnostic with regards to the print centering. So now finally, maybe you Win users will get off your butts and help us Mac users resolve the issue?
:~)
Yeah, well, maybe not huh?
-
Actually, four...you forget (or don't care) that both Adobe and Epson have to deal with cross=platform issues which complicate the whole structure.
Look, I think (I know) Print With Preview _WAS_ an Adobe attempt at bypassing the issue and trying to solve the problem for users (in fact, I know it was cause I was involved with the first iteration of PWP working with Chris Cox because Chris was pissed at Epson/Apple/MSFT) and it blew up in their faces because they were arguably violating the OS APIs...Print with Preview is gone now-it's a combo dlog that is part Adobe and part OS/Print driver.
I'm pretty sure that Adobe caught flack for doing that in the past and in Vista, the printable margins are read only, set by the driver. An application can't bypass them. Which is also why, I think, Epson had to FIX the unequal page margin issue which they did for the 3800. So, let's all get on Epson's back to see if they will address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...
There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.
See, that's where you are wrong...in order to bring about change, you need to know who is, at the root, responsible...blaming Adobe isn't useful and expecting Adobe to "fix" something that is neither their fault nor their responsibility is fruitless.
Ironically, Photoshop is now platform agnostic with regards to the print centering. So now finally, maybe you Win users will get off your butts and help us Mac users resolve the issue?
:~)
Yeah, well, maybe not huh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do care, but I forgot - OK Apple Computer belongs to the party.
Jeff, please get it out of your head that I'm into some kind of blame game. If some of my wording misleads you into thinking that way, I regret it because that is not the intention. The intention is to identify problems and get them fixed.
I focus most on Adobe not because I have anything against Adobe - I don't - as I've said time and again, I have tremendous respect for them. They are a big part of my daily life. I spend many hours a day in Photoshop and marvel at it.
I focus on Adobe because Photoshop is our "point of entree" into the problem. Photoshop has a square radio-button in the Print dialogue that says "Center Image". So I check-mark it expecting a centered image (reasonable expectation - no?) and lo-and-behold out comes a mess. I try to create an elementary Photoshop Action to automate a workaround solution which I spent hours trying to develop and it fails.
So who do I turn to? Photoshop is the nodal point bringing together three elements needed to center a print: Photoshop itself, the o/s (be it OSX or WIN) and the Epson driver. If Photoshop has a button that pretends to center prints I would like to see that function evolve from pretence to reality. As I've said before, it may require more programming, it may well require cooperative work with Epson and Microsoft and Apple, but SOMEONE needs to take charge of doing this, and Adobe is the logical party to coordinate it for the reason I'm stating here. It's not a hostile suggestion, it's a suggestion to effectively do things to solve the problem. Epson, Microsoft and Apple will listen to them before they listen to me, because I'm one insignificant consumer in Toronto and they are a multi-billion dollar corpoation that helps put a good part of their bread on the table, and they need a solution to keep their customers satisfied. Yes, no harm writing all of them, but I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.
I do believe Adobe could have done more work on this before releasing CS3 - but that is their corporate judgment call, and they certainly could have provided documentation about the fact that this is new and could cause stated differences of performance relative to CS2, along with workarounds. They did neither, but that is now the proverbial water under bridge and we need to be forward-looking about solutions. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to explain the whys and wherefores of this problem, but we should not be satisfied to stop there.
I'm not the technical guru that you are in these matters, but as I said before I would like to believe that this issue is solvable in a much more satisfactory manner than has been achieved to this point in time. Looking forward.
-
I focus on Adobe because Photoshop is our "point of entree" into the problem. Photoshop has a square radio-button in the Print dialogue that says "Center Image". So I check-mark it expecting a centered image (reasonable expectation - no?) and lo-and-behold out comes a mess.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, it's YOUR definition of "Center Image" that is at fault...Photoshop is indeed centering the image in the printable area...which for the 4800, unless set to Maximum, IS off center. Photoshop CS2 hacked the margin settings, CS3 doesn't...for reason the print feature engineer mentioned...
If you _DO_ have 4 equal margins set by the printer, Photoshop DOES print in the center of the paper, not just the printable area. The 3800 comes to mind. Seems Epson got that right (just in time for Vista too, huh?)
I would like to believe that this issue is solvable in a much more satisfactory manner than has been achieved to this point in time. Looking forward.
Ain't gonna happen from the application...it'll have to happen from the OS/print driver...
Jeff, please get it out of your head that I'm into some kind of blame game.
I am...cause unless we can identify the guilty party, we can't get it fixed...
-
Ah, it's YOUR definition of "Center Image" that is at fault...Photoshop is indeed centering the image in the printable area...which for the 4800, unless set to Maximum, IS off center. Photoshop CS2 hacked the margin settings, CS3 doesn't...for reason the print feature engineer mentioned...
If you _DO_ have 4 equal margins set by the printer, Photoshop DOES print in the center of the paper, not just the printable area. The 3800 comes to mind. Seems Epson got that right (just in time for Vista too, huh?)
Ain't gonna happen from the application...it'll have to happen from the OS/print driver...
I am...cause unless we can identify the guilty party, we can't get it fixed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, "MY" definition of "Center Image" is the usual results-based idea that most people would expect: A centered image is a printed rectilinear object that sits on a piece of paper such that it is equidistant from the left and right edges and from the top and bottom edges of said piece of paper. Let us not confuse the definition with the reason why it comes out centered with one combination of hardware, firmware and softrware but not the others.
OK, you a have a perception about where the problem will get solved. But first someone needs to be mobilized to get the right parties to do the needful, and I still believe Adobe is a natural for that role regardless of where the solutions will emerge from. It could well end-up being multi-pronged if anyone is willing to do anything in the first place. From that perspective we don't need to provide the analytics - umpteen engineers in those companies can do that; but we DO need to strongly urge them to FIX IT so that "Center Image" will be handy and workable not only for the minority using Epson 3800s on Vista, but by now the far larger numbers using WINXP and all the other X800 professional printers.
-
re: Win XP Pro, Epson 4000, driver v5.52, letter size paper
Save paper, turn on [Print Preview] in the Epson driver. The preview is not color managed (really bad), but it shows you the true location of the image with respect to the paper. And, you can turn on [Printable Area] to see outline of printable area as defined by the Epson driver. Cancel print to get out without actually printing.
Do this and you will see that CS3 will center image in printable area in Portrait mode. NOT LANDSCAPE. CS2 handles this just fine.
CS3 has print problems. The most bazaar is building a SINGLE print routine for an unproven operating system while abandoning a print routine that works on the most successful operating system in the world. People talk about "slamming margins" as if that's a bad thing. There is nothing being "slammed." Software does not care a wit about poetic descriptions. What works is a 'good thing' by definition.. all software is a kludge somewhere.
XP has had it’s problems. Yes. But trust me, global multi-nationals are in no rush to VISTA. For obvious reasons.
ps: You can not Maximize margins in this driver when using art papers. Only works with "plain paper". Don't believe me, you can try it or read it in Epson user docs. No worky with art paper.
-
re: Win XP Pro, Epson 4000, driver v5.52, letter size paper
Save paper, turn on [Print Preview] in the Epson driver. The preview is not color managed (really bad), but it shows you the true location of the image with respect to the paper. And, you can turn on [Printable Area] to see outline of printable area as defined by the Epson driver. Cancel print to get out without actually printing.
Do this and you will see that CS3 will center image in printable area in Portrait mode. NOT LANDSCAPE. CS2 handles this just fine.
CS3 has print problems. The most bazaar is building a SINGLE print routine for an unproven operating system while abandoning a print routine that worked on the most successful operating system in the world. People talk about "slaming margins" as if that's a bad thing. What works is a 'good thing' by definition.. kludge or not.
XP has had it’s problems. Yes. But trust me, global multi-nationals are in no rush to VISTA. For obvious reasons.
ps: You can not Maximize margins in this driver when using art papers. Only works with "plain paper". Don't believe me, you can try it or read it in Epson user docs. No worky with art paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul, as long as Photoshop is colour-managed with Soft Proofing enabled I'm not sure why we need the Epson Preview to be color-managed - we can't edit images in the Preview. It does show placement and margin sizes, which is all that is needed from it.
The remainder of the behaviour you are describing is not quite the same for driver 5.51 used in a 4800. For example, Maximize is available for the matte papers, and as long as it is selected, CS3 will center the image in both Portrait and Landscape mode, but it must be verified image by image and set through the Page Set-Up route in the Photoshop Print dialogue to work properly.
So it is clear that to get a new concept of Printer Management centering prints in a manner that is not only cross-O/S, but also cross Epson driver-version. several variants of Print Module algorithms would need to be developed - say a set of user-selectable sub-moodules. To do this, these firms would need to cooperate on who does what to make it all coherent and properly operational. and that needs a coordinator.
It is indeed interesting that Dell found it commercially important to start re-equipping new computers with Windows XP. Not clear to me whether this is just consumer wariness about anything new coming out of Microsoft, or because of poor operating experience/bugs with Vista.
-
The world has a *huge* investment in XP compatible software. Over time we’ve learned how to make it work, AND have done an enormous amount of work using XP. Do a few googles and read about the swamp that is VISTA. I work for a high tech multi-national, offices around the planet. Our IT people say the best VISTA tip they know is “Don’t Upgrade” ......................... yet.
-
address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...
There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can understand the centering issue being caused by a change in Vista's API. But I don't see how letting Photoshop remember a printer would violate any APIs. In fact, Dave the engineer mentioned only that they were "transitioning" from "per session settings" to "per document settings" -- nothing about any requirements in Vista.
Why?
In my world, most people don't have a dedicated Photoshop computer with a default Photo printer. They have one computer with a "Default" printer and a "Photo" printer. The "Default" printer is used for letters, recipes, online receipts -- because you don't want to use the $1/ML photo ink for that stuff.
We use the "Photo" printer with -- Photoshop! It sure would be nice if Photoshop could remember that (like it used to). Instead, with CS3, I have to redo the printer settings: Every. Single. Time.
As an Adobe customer and user, who do I complain to about this? Do I call Epson and tell them that Photoshop now won't remember my printer? Do I call Microsoft?
I'm sorry, Jeff, but I'm putting this one on Adobe.
What frustrates me the most is that Adobe made fundamental changes to the printing behavior of Photoshop CS3. They had to know that it would break the printing workflow of a large number of passionate users. But they said nothing about it, leaving us to bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out what going on.
I'm frustrated and disappointed.
Rick
-
There seems to be an issue using MSFT's Intellamouse 6.1 driver that is causing all sorts of CS3 problems on Win. Rolling back to driver 5.5 (or whatever was before 6) resolves the issue. Adobe & MSFT are aware and working in it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! Thank you, thank you, so much for that post Jeff. Uninstalled the wretched little rodent and my computer works sooooo much better. Most expensive mouse I've ever bought at £80/$160 [welcome to Rip Off Britain] and apparently the worst. And now it's going back to shop. Only reason I bought it, was because it was the least worst ergonomically. You try buying a big left handed mouse. Not easy.
-
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! Thank you, thank you, so much for that post Jeff. Uninstalled the wretched little rodent and my computer works sooooo much better. Most expensive mouse I've ever bought at £80/$160 [welcome to Rip Off Britain] and apparently the worst. And now it's going back to shop. Only reason I bought it, was because it was the least worst ergonomically. You try buying a big left handed mouse. Not easy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm using a Kensington Optical Track Ball. It is ambidextrous and just a wonderful, smooth, easily controllable device just using your fingertips.
-
I may be the only guy on the planet who routinely uses Windows 64 (I mean the XP/64 not Vista--it seems a lot faster to work with large images because it can address more RAM), but I discovered the hard way that the most current version of the Epson drivers for the Epson 4800 NO LONGER SUPPORT the "Maximum" option, which, based on reading through this thread means there is no way to use CS3 to print on an Epson 4800 under Win64.
So, to print centered one has to both only use WinXP not Win64 and CS2.
When I called Epson support they said that the "Maximum" feature had been removed because it was causing too many problems.
If anyone else cares about this and wants specific driver versions please email me at andy@jli.com and I'll provide them.
I *knew* I should stayed with Win2K until WinXP and 64 had stabilized!
-
Thanks for informing us that the Maximum option has been discontinued in the latest version of the Epson driver. It means therefore that unless printing with CS2 it is necessary to remain with the penultimate version of the Epson driver, otherwise CS3 will be useless to print with (as long as we want centered prints). As I've mentioned in previous posts, it is now all the more important that the key players - Adobe, Epson and Microsoft collaborate on how this print centering issue will be resolved. As it all comes together in Photoshop, because that is the application from which most of us print, I also still believe it would be sensible for Adobe to take the lead in getting it worked-out.
-
I have a related question that I think will be much easier to solve.
I too am having problems printing, in this case to an epson R380 with cs3.
In cs2, I let photoshop manage colors, choose my profile, and then when I hit print, the epson printer driver pops up and I am able to disable printer color management.
The problem is that in cs3, the epson driver does not pop up for me, so I am unable to disable printer color management.
Is there any other way for me to disable printer color management? If I try to do it in another application first, it doesn't seem to remember it when I get into cs3.
I sense that I am missing a button somewhere, but I've gone over it a couple of times already without any breakthroughs.
thanks,
matt
-
I have a related question that I think will be much easier to solve.
I too am having problems printing, in this case to an epson R380 with cs3.
In cs2, I let photoshop manage colors, choose my profile, and then when I hit print, the epson printer driver pops up and I am able to disable printer color management.
The problem is that in cs3, the epson driver does not pop up for me, so I am unable to disable printer color management.
Is there any other way for me to disable printer color management? If I try to do it in another application first, it doesn't seem to remember it when I get into cs3.
I sense that I am missing a button somewhere, but I've gone over it a couple of times already without any breakthroughs.
thanks,
matt
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What platform are you on - Windows or Mac? I'm on Windows with an Epson 4800 so what I'm saying here may not be identical with your conditions. Anyhow, FWIW, if Windows (and I'm sure they have similar in Mac) go to Control Panel, Printers and Faxes, select the Epson printer, (and assuming the 3800 and 4800 driver layouts are similar to this extent) select Printing Preferences, on the first tab select Advanced, then Select "OFF (No Color Adjustment)". Once this is done in that way (i.e. getting to these driver settings through the Operating System) that setting should be sticky in CS3.