Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: JimGoshorn on December 20, 2012, 08:30:11 pm
-
Hi,
I updated Photoshop Extended CS6 to the latest version today (13.0.3) and when I went to display a file by print size, I noticed that the print size button is no longer on the tool bar when using the magnifying glass tool nor is it under the view menu.
What gives?
Thanks!
Jim
-
Removed because, well, unless you knew how to properly set up the exact resolution of your display, it was always wrong...so, do you know how to properly setup the exact screen rez? (hint, it's buried in the New Document Preset Resolutions in the Units & Rulers preference).
Besides, its was a very poor size interpolation because the screen display is Bilinear Interpolation (assuming you are using the proper GPU settings, otherwise it's Nearest Neighbor which really sucks).
-
Hi Jeff,
Hoping you'd chime in :-)
Yes, I had the pref set to 94ppi and GPU to advanced. Remembering what you said, I check for approx sharpness etc. in print by setting the magnification to 50%. Used the print size just to get an idea of final look and not for precision.
Thanks for the explanation for why it was taken away although I will miss it.
BTW, enjoying the digital negative and looking forward to the digital print.
Jim
-
Despite the facts Jeff's presented, be prepared to hear a lot of bitching and moaning from users who don't really understand what the 'feature' is really providing.
-
Some of the people who will bitch and moan understand the feature and see no reason to remove it.
-
Some of the people who will bitch and moan understand the feature and see no reason to remove it.
That's really questionable understanding of the 'feature' considering the facts Jeff wrote.
Assuming you really do know how to configure the setting, just what do you hope to achieve?
Going back to 2001, Real World Photoshop 6 (and in editions forward), the advise on this ’feature’ is distilled on page 17: "We just ignore it".
Bruce explains what’s necessary to get it actually work in later editions and unless the correct values are calculated and inserted, the ’feature’ doesn’t do anything remotely what the name suggests.
-
It isn't rocket science to figure out what values you should put in there, though I agree the defaults are pretty far off. I'm not saying it's an irreplaceable feature, but it's a nice shortcut to get an idea of roughly what zoom view on-screen will correlate with your target print size. From there you can step to one of the higher-quality zoom levels Photoshop supports.
-
It isn't rocket science to figure out what values you should put in there, though I agree the defaults are pretty far off.
No it isn't. Yet few know how to do this. But once again, just what are we supposed to gain here? For tiny screen size images, that's one thing. But for high rez?
It is very, very rare to see Adobe remove features. But when you consider what Schewe, Fraser and the Adobe engineers feel about this 'feature' it's difficult to see the other side of the argument!
-
I'm not saying it's an irreplaceable feature, but it's a nice shortcut to get an idea of roughly what zoom view on-screen will correlate with your target print size.
I disagree...I think you are not seeing anything really useful with high rez images on a display unless you have a divisible number such as 100%, 50% or 25%. The moment you see an image that is not those sizes you are seeing a very poor interpolation of the image. Most displays are in the range of 90-110 PPI. If you are outputting for halftone you'll be using 300 PPI which means that the image rez will be 3X the display rez. If you are outputting inkjet with high rez images (I output at 360 or 730 PPI) the images displayed will be about 4-7X compared to the display. So, looking at the image at the actual print size (assuming you know how to set the display rez correctly) the image is displayed with very low resolution–particularly if you are making big prints...I gotta tell ya, that tells me exactly nothing useful about the image detail. Even if you had a 15" Macbook Pro with Retina, it's still only about 220 PPI and while better, this is still not really enough resolution you get anything really useful when viewing at print size...
Look, the current displays are simply low resolution devices that are not really suitable for viewing high resolution image detail. The feature in Photoshop was removed because it really didn't work correctly and very few users knew how to use it. The guy on the engineering team would like to try to come up with some sort of new approach to previewing image detail and provide a more useful feature, but in the meantime the decision was made to remove it because i cased more problems than it solved.
-
The guy on the engineering team would like to try to come up with some sort of new approach to previewing image detail and provide a more useful feature, but in the meantime the decision was made to remove it because i cased more problems than it solved.
Hopefully, Adobe will come up with a suitable replacement. It's good to know that they are still interested in the feature as long as it could be reinstated with a better result.
Jim
-
So, looking at the image at the actual print size (assuming you know how to set the display rez correctly) the image is displayed with very low resolution
Which isn't a problem if you just want an idea of layout at real size. Not everything one does in Photoshop is about photo printing.
-
Removing it was simply IDIOTIC.
Just because it might not be useful for certain uses, it does not mean there are no other useful uses at all.
Once I set it up correctly (which isn't such a rocket science) then I can use a measuring tape to double check the dimensions of the printed image. For instance, I was just today (Christmas Eve) printing an insert for a Starbucks tumbler, which needs to be of EXACT printed dimensions in order to fit in. In prior editions of Photoshop, I would just place the Starbuck cutout onto the screen and be sure it is the right dimension. Of course, in CS6, without that feature, my printout was a few millimeters off.
-
Removing it was simply IDIOTIC.
It is what it is...it's gone–just like No Color Management from the Print dlog...deal with it. It won't be coming back in it's current incarnation. And while YOU say setting it up correctly isn't rocket science, I would venture to guess that prolly less than 5% of the installed user base actually knew how to do that (people here perhaps being in that 5%).
If you are worried about exact layout, size & position, may I suggest you look into InDesign (since that's what it's designed for).
-
If you want an approximation, couldn't you resize the image to the ppi that you set in preferences and then display it at 100%?
Jim
-
It is what it is...it's gone–just like No Color Management from the Print dlog...deal with it.
No problem here. I stopped upgrading at CS4.
I would venture to guess that prolly less than 5% of the installed user base actually knew how to do that (people here perhaps being in that 5%).
If you strip out everything that isn't used by more than 5% of the users Photoshop becomes Elements or Touch. Then try and justify the huge cost.
If you are worried about exact layout, size & position, may I suggest you look into InDesign (since that's what it's designed for).
I assume you haven't tried that yourself then ? If so you'd know that InDesign doesn't have a 'view real size' option. The only way to get that is by trial and error to work out the correct zoom ratio, then write a script to view at that size and assign a keyboard short cut etc... It's a bigger mess than PS (was).
For an excellent example of how to implement this feature have a look at Scribus (the open source alternative to InDesign). If you have a ruler to hand, setting up the screen resolution takes less than 10 seconds, just 5 clicks of the mouse, no calculations needed.
If an open source program can make viewing at 100% actual size so easy, why can't Adobe ?
-
It is what it is...it's gone–just like No Color Management from the Print dlog...deal with it. It won't be coming back in it's current incarnation. And while YOU say setting it up correctly isn't rocket science, I would venture to guess that prolly less than 5% of the installed user base actually knew how to do that (people here perhaps being in that 5%).
Viewing the photo in print size wasn't mean to have a good rendition of it. Sharpening boost is set with 50-100-200% depending on the needs.
That feature was useful when needed to review the layout of the photo at a certain size, the print size. Some photos work well when printed big, for smaller prints you may need to crop more so that a particular detail doesn't get lost. Not the easiest concept to explain, but it is. This is true even with prints which ar way bigger than the monitor itself.
I do miss it into Lightroom!
As other said, Photoshop CS6 lives thanks to features that 2-5% of the users need. Maybe 5% of PS users knew how to set it up, but 80% of those who needed that "zoom level" knew it. Who cares about the rest of non-users?
If you are worried about exact layout, size & position, may I suggest you look into InDesign (since that's what it's designed for).
…or even better an older Photoshop, or even Photoshop Elements. ::)
To buy InDesign to view an image as print size is as questionable as buying Photoshop Extended to convert a JPG to PNG for the web.
This unless Adobe gives you the product for free, but I'm not that lucky.
-
Guess I'm an idiot. I use this every day, as I have been for years, and it has nothing to do with sharpening or judging image quality. It is still there in my version of CS6 - was this only removed from the extended version? I would never move into InDesign in order to get a quick look at an image at real size though (the process would no longer be "quick") - I'd rather just use a ruler and adjust the percentage manually until it matched.
-
Guess I'm an idiot. I use this every day, as I have been for years, and it has nothing to do with sharpening or judging image quality. It is still there in my version of CS6 - was this only removed from the extended version?
Hi,
It's not removed on my perpetual licencing Windows version of CS6 Extended (see attachment)... I suppose it was removed on the more recent Cloud version update 13.0.3 ...
I would never move into InDesign in order to get a quick look at an image at real size though (the process would no longer be "quick") - I'd rather just use a ruler and adjust the percentage manually until it matched.
Or just calculate it based on the PPI setting of the display, and temporarily resample the image size to the desired dimensions at the required PPI for the display used. My laptop e.g. has a 1920 pixels wide native display and is a fraction over 381mm wide, which equates to 1920/381*25.4 = 128 PPI.
Doing the same for print also gives a much better preview impression of fine detail than using the crude interpolation by zooming, although it's too inconvenient for use during an editing process. It would be much better to use a simple switch like the Print Preview button, but with better resampling quality (e.g. adding a Mitchell Netravali resampling filter option would be a much nicer allround method than the current choices, and one with an adjustable sharpness parameter would even be more flexible). It could be made into a Preference option to use for Print Preview or not.
Why does Adobe Photoshop development drag it's feet when it comes to resampling? There are increasing numbers of better alternatives, just not as convenient in a simple single application workflow, because they need the use of a plugin or an external application instead of being built into the application itself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've got the same version of the regular CS6 - 13.0.1 and have not updated, so it looks like they removed this feature in a dot update and not just CS6? That is odd. Why would they remove something that is a great little feature in a dot update? I must remember to not update this version as the dots come along...
-
I use the feature all the time with clients who bring me files of all sorts of quality/resolution and want to know "how big can I print this?" I show them on the monitor using View Print Size (it's not at all hard to set up properly.) Is it perfect? Of course not, no more than any other monitor representation of a paper print can be, but it is totally useful. Not one person has ever complained to me that they were disappointed in the print after seeing the on-screen representation at print size and many made adjustments to the print size after seeing the monitor version.
For others here to say that is has no value and intimate that those who think it does simply don't understand it is just arrogant. If you have no need for it, fine. If you can't see the other side of the argument, that's your own limitation.
-
If you can't see the other side of the argument, that's your own limitation.
Oh I see it...but let me explain real carefully...it's gone. Whether or not something comes back depends on whether the engineers can come up with an implementation that works and doesn't cause a tech support problem (which was the main reason for its removal).
-
Oh I see it...but let me explain real carefully...it's gone.
You know, Schewe, no one, least of all me, doubts your expertise and the contributions you make to the photographic community-I'm a happy purchaser of your books-but sometimes your attitude of superiority is just embarrassing. Yes, I know it's gone. It was taken out despite it's usefulness to some of us and we gave our feedback to Adobe on the subject. As someone who has funneled thousands of hard-earned dollars to them, I think I'm entitled to make the occasional enquiry or request. If it's a tech support problem, it's probably because Adobe doesn't bother to include a manual with their expensive programs. It's certainly an easy thing to explain to users who are confused about how to set it up.
-
...but sometimes your attitude of superiority is just embarrassing.
To whom? You? Me? (gotta clue you in, I really don't get embarrassed by anything–you should know that).
It's certainly an easy thing to explain to users who are confused about how to set it up.
Apparently Adobe Tech Support doesn't agree with you...nor did Bruce Fraser when the feature was first implemented. The vast majority of users had no clue how to correctly enter the display resolution accurately and thus the vast majority of users thought it was showing them something it wasn't.
I would call that a poor feature...and truth be told I'm not convinced you really understood the feature and what it was showing you vs what you thought it was showing you. So, exactly what resolution is your display running? And how did you calculate it? Did the resolution work for all displays or only the main display with the menu bar?
-
There are gazillion features in Photoshop that are gazillion squared times more complicated to understand and use than Print Size. And that's the one Customer Support chose to complain about and eliminate?
-
There are gazillion features in Photoshop that are gazillion squared times more complicated to understand and use than Print Size. And that's the one Customer Support chose to complain about and eliminate?
Yep...go figure.
Look, I have a slight advantage over 99% of the Photoshop user base...I saw the debate and arguments "for and against" on the CS6/7 beta forums. The fact that I agreed with the Photoshop engineer that explained why the feature sucked is beside the point. I encouraged that engineer to keep looking for a way to implement a more useful View Print Size feature–one that didn't require diving down into an obscure and mislabeled preference to correctly set up. BTW, that engineer also argued for (and was successful) in removing the No Color Management from the Print dlog (also something I agreed with).
-
I can't help pointing out that there is one pretty accurate way to see an image at actual print size: Print it to your printer. ;)
Actually, Soft Proofing has limitations that some folks find difficult to understand, and the difficulties in setting up (and interpreting) View Print Size seem to me to be somewhat analogous. But I can certainly survive without it.
-
I can't help pointing out that there is one pretty accurate way to see an image at actual print size: Print it to your printer. ;)
Hardly a cheap or convenient solution is it ?
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?
-
... Actually, Soft Proofing has limitations that some folks find difficult to understand...
Great example!
I am now going to badger Adobe Tech Support with phone calls about how confusing it is, hoping they fill finally eliminate it from both PS and LR. Features like that just poison innocent minds. Actually, might cause a few heads to explode.
-
I don't think it's a great example. For one, all the user has to do is pick the correct profile and of course the command to invoke a soft proof. The user who wishes to use the clone tool is also expected to be educated enough to pick the right tool on the toolbar.
With Print Size, the user has to first know how to properly measure and end up with the correct resolution to add in another area of the app that has no obvious link (preferences), then, the big question: What does the end user expect the Print Size to provide? Few here have answered that question. Jeff has pointed out something factual that unless the planets align just right, the interpolation algorithm used to show you the preview is wrong. You can't determine sharpness for one. Hopefully that's obvious to most here. So what does it show you that is supposed to be 'useful'? The relationship of various elements? Possibly if your document is small enough to see the entire 'page' or image on your tiny screen. If not, just how useful is the feature?
-
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?
Who lays out books in Photoshop?
-
Highlights mine:
... Both Photoshop AND Lightroom's gamut warnings are not accurate! All you have to do is take an sRGB image into LR, load sRGB and ask to see a gamut overlay. There should be none. But there is some overlay depending on the image. Adobe knows about this tiny disconnect and I don't think they'll do anything to fix it (cause the gamut overlay is kind of worthless anyway). Well it is kind of useful to see what OOG colors are in the image that fall outside display gamut. At least you get some idea on your sRGB display what you're not seeing!...
Just how useful is that feature?
As for your other points, several of us posted how we find the Print Size feature useful, none of which included judging sharpness, yet you keep repeating that straw-man argument. It is certainly not an earth-shattering feature of PS, but it can come handy. It was there for as long as I remember Photoshop, thus not something that a "few weirdos" are asking to be added.
Anyone "educated enough" to use Photoshop, is certainly educated enough to figure out their screen PPI. If not, head over to Google, type "screen ppi" in the search field, and the second top result would be "List of displays by pixel density." Find your model and voilà! Remember, that needs to be entered only once, into Photoshop Preferences. That those preferences are now considered by some as "obscure" is... well, a surprise, to say the least.
-
As for your other points, several of us posted how we find the Print Size feature useful, none of which included judging sharpness, yet you keep repeating that straw-man argument.
It isn't straw man, it's not useful for sharpening. And I asked about the other functionality and as yet, I'm hearing about 'viewing at print size on a display" which sounds like people must be either printing really low rez images or printing tiny images. Other than viewing the entire image on screen fully at a low rez, explain the other expected and desired functionality.
Anyone "educated enough" to use Photoshop, is certainly educated enough to figure out their screen PPI. If not, head over to Google, type "screen ppi" in the search field, and the second top result would be "List of displays by pixel density." Find your model and voilà! Remember, that needs to be entered only once, into Photoshop Preferences. That those preferences are now considered by some as "obscure" is... well, a surprise, to say the least.
There's a tad more to it than just that. They have to know they have to figure out the right values and that means they have to measure their display(s) but even so, once done, we end up with just what useful behavior?
-
With Print Size, the user has to first know how to properly measure and end up with the correct resolution to add in another area of the app that has no obvious link (preferences),
There are many features in Photoshop that aren't easy to set up, colour management for one, but that in itself is no reason to drop them. The smart thing is to improve them, as previously mentioned it's not impossible to implement well.
Possibly if your document is small enough to see the entire 'page' or image on your tiny screen. If not, just how useful is the feature?
27" screens are increasingly common on desktops and they'll show the biggest page Blurb offer for their books. Even old non-widescreen 19" screens will show a full A4 page.
Just why are you so defensive about Adobe removing features anyway ?
-
Who lays out books in Photoshop?
Who said anything about laying out books ?
Just remember that Adobe's solution to their woefully poor book module in Lightroom 4 is to make full page JPGs to drop in to make up for missing features.
-
What does the end user expect the Print Size to provide?
Just this morning a client sent a low resolution file to me and wanted to know if it would go to 11x14. I was pretty sure it wouldn't, but by looking at it at different sizes, with and without resampling, I felt confident telling him a 5x7 would be acceptably sharp. When I made the print, it looked about the way it did on the monitor using View Print Size. That's all I use it for, but I use it a lot and having it removed just makes my work more cumbersome. I don't use it to gauge sharpening amounts or expect it to be perfect.
If a feature, however flawed, works for me within its limitations, it's annoying to have it removed just because it's not perfect.
To say it was removed because of frustrations within Adobe Tech Support for having to explain it to people doesn't elicit much sympathy. That's what tech support if for, especially with what is arguably one of the most complex and expensive programs the general user will ever buy, that no longer comes with any official printed manual or even an option to buy one at additional cost.
-
Just this morning a client sent a low resolution file to me and wanted to know if it would go to 11x14. I was pretty sure it wouldn't, but by looking at it at different sizes, with and without resampling, I felt confident telling him a 5x7 would be acceptably sharp.
IOW, you guessed. Which is OK but then just getting the resolution of the actual document would have made so much more sense no?
-
Who said anything about laying out books ?
You did–didn't you write this?
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?
Sorry if you didn't mention book layouts...sure looks like you did.
Just remember that Adobe's solution to their woefully poor book module in Lightroom 4 is to make full page JPGs to drop in to make up for missing features.
And, this has what to do with Photoshop?
-
Now... for some users its obviously a helpful feature. It is therefore not appropriate to question its usefullness.
Since OpenCL is built into Photoshop you can use arbitrary zoom sizes and the interpolation is at least okay. For my display "print size" for a 300ppi print would be 31,33% ... which looks aweful. But 32% looks pretty good.
Anyway ...
The "print size" feature has been removed in version 13.0.2. This update provides support vor HiDPI displays and Adobe has encountered issues with "print size" when used in conjunction with retina displays: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/missing_print_size_button_after_cs_6_13_0_2_upgrade?utm_content=topic_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification
Adobe provides a workaround through a script: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-print-size-button-zoom.html
But all it does is to calculate the required zoom size at a given DPI of the image. You still have to type in the zoom size manually... which is really annoying.
-
... The "print size" feature has been removed in version 13.0.2...
Can one revert to the previous dot version?
-
... Adobe has encountered issues with "print size" when used in conjunction with retina displays...
So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?
-
Can one revert to the previous dot version?
I am not sure whether or not a "downgrade" is doable. Maybe just download 13.0.1 and try? -> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5407
So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?
it seems so, yes.
As to the "uneducated" users: when it's really such a complicated thing to set the accurate settings for the "print size" zoom Adobe could have provided the quoted script years ago when they introduced OpenCL (without OpenCL any zoom size other than 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% was useless anyway). But they didn't ...
-
So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?
That's what Adobe engineers said publicly...but that's not what went on behind the scenes...Print Size was almost removed in the original CS6 release because of the tech support and usability issues.
Read what Chris Cox wrote: The change is in the HiDpi support of the OS, plus all the code we added to support high DPI displays. The physical display resolution is only part of the picture, since the OS wants to scale things drawn to the screen in multiple different ways... Again, we know, we're working on a solution - but we had to disable it for now.. If you want to blame Apple for changing the display pipeline, you go right ahead.
There is hope that a better engineered and more usable version may come back at some point. But, for now, it's gone.
-
There is hope that a better engineered and more usable version may come back at some point. But, for now, it's gone.
as a workaround it would be cool if we could save some dedicated zoom sizes on keybord shortcuts. I would only need "print size" for 300ppi and 360ppi.
Another workaround: duplicate the image, downsize it to the desired scale and view it at 100%...
-
Quote from: Rhossydd on Today at 18:45:54
Who said anything about laying out books ?
You did–didn't you write this?
Quote
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?
Sorry if you didn't mention book layouts...sure looks like you did.
You need to read what I've actually written, not what you've, wrongly, assumed I've meant.
I didn't mention creating books in Photoshop at all, just refining them. That doesn't necessarily mean having to produce a whole book in PS, maybe just a page or two.
If you want/need to assess the layout of a single page, maybe a page that can't be created any other way*, you may need to view it at actual size to ensure it's as you expect.
*See failing in Lightroom's book module with respect to adding text or custom layouts.
-
So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?
I'm sure retina screen users actually are a higher percentage of users than that, but whether they use actual print size or not is another issue. I'm sure some will be as annoyed by it's removal.
What's being demonstrated here seems to be that Adobe just drop any feature from PS across all platforms if it becomes difficult to implement for, or to support, Mac users. I've yet to read of anything being dropped for Mac users because it's difficult to retain for Window users.
-
What's being demonstrated here seems to be that Adobe just drop any feature from PS across all platforms if it becomes difficult to implement for, or to support, Mac users.
Yep, that's happened before...remember Contact Sheet and several other plug-ins & filters? Dropped for Windows users because updating them for the Mac wasn't feasible. Adobe has a pretty hard core bent on being as cross-platform independent on features. Mac uses do have a few features that Win users don't such as the ability to turn Application Frame on or off. It's always on in Win.
The bottom line is that the HiDpi support would have broken the Print Size anyway. And engineering wanted to remove it for CS6 anyway, so it's gone. Will some new version come back? Sounds like it will based on what the Photoshop engineers wrote on that thread...all I know is that the engineers couldn't get it done this time around.
-
Yep, that's happened before... Dropped for Windows users because updating them for the Mac wasn't feasible. Adobe has a pretty hard core bent on being as cross-platform independent on features.
Nice to actually see this in writing from someone close to Adobe.
I can see Adobe are having problems with the whole Creative Suite; How to keep it rolling in the money from loyal upgraders when it's already mature and feature complete.
I doubt removing features enhances the product in any way. I also doubt that a reduction in support costs by removing poorly implemented features would result in more profit overall when other users dislike features being pulled and refuse to stay on the upgrade bandwagon.
-
A long time ago, I created an action to duplicate the image (renamed to "Actual Print Size), re-size the image to my screen resolution and then to set the zoom level to 100%. Is this the same, better, or worse than "View Print Size" which may set the zoom level at, for example, 30%?
-
A long time ago, I created an action to duplicate the image (renamed to "Actual Print Size), re-size the image to my screen resolution and then to set the zoom level to 100%. Is this the same, better, or worse than "View Print Size" which may set the zoom level at, for example, 30%?
It has nothing to do with "Print size".
I use a similar process on Lightroom to view a photo without scaling artifacts. Nothing more than that.
-
Read what Chris Cox wrote: The change is in the HiDpi support of the OS, plus all the code we added to support high DPI displays. The physical display resolution is only part of the picture, since the OS wants to scale things drawn to the screen in multiple different ways... Again, we know, we're working on a solution - but we had to disable it for now.. If you want to blame Apple for changing the display pipeline, you go right ahead.
Maybe that's the reason why a similar feature have never been added to Lightroom at all. :(
-
I can see Adobe are having problems with the whole Creative Suite; How to keep it rolling in the money from loyal upgraders when it's already mature and feature complete.
Actually, Adobe is doing just fine (really good actually). See this article from The Motley Fool (a stock picking web site) This Software Giant is Flying High (http://beta.fool.com/anupriya123/2012/12/27/software-giant-flying-high/19663/?ticker=ADBE&source=eogyholnk0000001). In the industry, Adobe is seen as very successful with it's Creative Cloud efforts (even though a vocal group of users don't like it). This CC CS6.1 update actually brought new features to Photoshop Cloud version which perpetual license holders won't see until the next .5 update. Yes, some CS6 perpetual license users were complaining because they though they should have gotten the new features for free–but that not how the subscription service/perpetual license dev works...
It's likely (based on what Chris and Jeff said in their posts) that some sort of improved Print Size feature may indeed come back (which if it works well, I'm all for) but the timeline is not at all clear...
What I would not do is judge Adobe based on online forum posts which are not a good indicator of the feeling and thoughts of the vast majority of the Creative Suite user-base. Heck, photographers make up less than 10% of the Photoshop user-base and an even smaller % of Creative Suite users. I know photographers think they are a really important group to Creative Suite and Photoshop but we simply are not. We are a big market for Lightroom however...but advanced amateurs outweigh pros for Lightroom.
It's tough reading tea leaves and making any real sense of the marketplace...with Adobe's stock being a few $ off their 52 week high, I think Adobe is doing just fine (which is fine by me because I still have Adobe stock–not sure I would be a buyer right now...might want to wait till after we do/don't go over the "fiscal cliff" next week).
-
Despite a few people here who stubbornly refuse to believe that this feature, imperfect as it may be, still has utility to some of us who understand its limitations, a member of the greater Photoshop community has posted a solution in Adobe's Photoshop Forum:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1113391?start=0&tstart=0
It's entry #14, but also read the next few replies if you have problems.
Create a keyboard shortcut to the script in Photoshop and all will be well in the world...
-
Schewe: "Removed because, well, unless you knew how to properly set up the exact resolution of your display, it was always wrong...so, do you know how to properly setup the exact screen rez?…"
I'm offended by this incredibly patronizing and arrogant statement! When have you last been in a professional's work place?
If this is the way Adobe sees its Photoshop user base, I'm deeply worried about further dumbing down.
It was EASY for a professional user to set up. It WAS NOT always wrong. I made it work on all my displays and it was a very useful feature when mocking up designs to quickly evaluate the optical weight of visual components at print size (even near print size would be good enough).
Adobe offers Elements, Touch and Lightroom for workflows that do not require the full professional features of PS.
I have instructed hundreds of students to set up their displays with 100% success.
You have devalued Photoshop for no good reason. If users do not know how to set a preference, they usually just keep it at the default. What was wrong with that?
If you must take it away for simpleton's reasons, why not use an "Advanced Settings" Tab?
Please re-consider. Print preview was a much-used feature in our workflow.
-
Schewe: "Removed because, well, unless you knew how to properly set up the exact resolution of your display, it was always wrong...so, do you know how to properly setup the exact screen rez?…"
I'm offended by this incredibly patronizing and arrogant statement! When have you last been in a professional's work place?
Offended? ...and it's just your second post here on LuLa? How cool is that?
:~)
You got some learning to do here bud...if you have a thin skin, this ain't the place to hang out.
Everything I wrote is/was exactly spot on. The technical reason it was yanked was because it couldn't be made to work with Retina. The fact that the feature was, at it's roots, flawed, also came into play.
If you are so desperate for this function, there are work arounds until Adobe decides to put it back.
Really, it would be useful if you want to spend much time around here to racket down the drama queen act. It kinda doesn't go over too well here.
BTW, I personally didn't take ANYTHING away from you...I just happen to agree with the engineer's decision. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW, welcome to LuLa...if you work at it, you might fit in...just dial it down, ok?
:~)
P.S. if ya gotta know, I take a perverse pleasure at offending. You're just egging me on, ya know :~) Have a nice day!
-
Your self-important reply confirms your arrogance. Not having posted often before makes my post less valid? I apologize for stepping on your patch. You can keep it. I'll be happy to stay away. You can get your perverse "pleasure at offending" from dismissing other contributors as rookies. You can post a further blast at me for your pleasure and perhaps even groupies that will cheer you for it, but I won't be here to read any more of your puerility. What a waste time…
-
You can post a further blast at me for your pleasure and perhaps even groupies that will cheer you for it, but I won't be here to read any more of your puerility. What a waste time…
Promise?
Actually, your off the cuff, out of nowhere, post speaks volumes.
What, are you sitting in the grass just looking for somebody to have a fight with?
(like a snake in the grass)
See ya, bye...don't let the door hit ya on the butt as you leave.
(actually, I hope it does...sorry, you are such an easy target!)
Firiggin' drama queen!
-
it was a very useful feature when mocking up designs to quickly evaluate the optical weight of visual components at print size (even near print size would be good enough).
Yes that's what I use it for.
If I want to forensically check absolute image quality I'll view at 100%, 200%, 50% or 25%.
But you know it's sometimes nice to check the aesthetic qualities of an image...
Graeme
PS Not a problem for me - I'm on CS5 and have absolutely no intention of upgrading for the forseeable future.
-
One pleasant surprise of upgrading to Photoshop CC was the re-inclusion of the View Print Size feature dropped in a CS6 upgrade.
When it's set up properly (which isn't difficult) it was a useful tool to many, despite the derision heaped on us by some who couldn't understand why we liked it. Whether or not the engineers changed any underlying code is not apparent, but it's good to have it back.
Thanks, Adobe.