Photoshop CS6 public beta

[tvalleau]

And I have no argument with that point, Andy.  But you are missing my point: why -remove- capabilities from the software? Is there some technical, programmatic reason behind it, or are they just trying to cut down on the number of support calls? Are they "saving me from myself" as seems to be the trend these days?

The issue here is art and their tool. There are many reasons I might want to send unmodified data thru to the printer. Perhaps, artistically, I happen to -like- the results of assigning my monitor profile to an image and sending it to the printer as a scanner profile. (Ghastly thought, I know...)

What I have not heard yet is a rational -reason- for the change. Not on the Adobe forum from Adobe employees, or anywhere else. You're well connected, so perhaps there's something you know that I don't.

My point certainly is the several thousand Piezography users this is going to affect... but it's also that a useful technique has been removed from a professional tool.

If Adobe is not willing to put back the capability to send the same profile as the document, (and they emphatically are not interested in doing that, as I've been told) then obviously it falls back to the third-party vendors to fix the situation.

No argument from me on that.  

Perhaps I'm the only person here who uses Piezography... in which case, it served no point to make this post (as a heads up) in the first place. I'm not here to argue, but to discuss.  :-)

[Schewe]

If Adobe is not willing to put back the capability to send the same profile as the document, (and they emphatically are not interested in doing that, as I've been told) then obviously it falls back to the third-party vendors to fix the situation.

No argument from me on that.  

Good, then it's settled...Adobe will adhere to the Apple API's (and Windows which s a bit less draconian) and do the right thing for the 99% of the user base. Using a 3rd party rip with non-standard inks isn't mainstream. I seriously doubt there even 1K users that CS6 has bitten because of print pipeline changes...it's gotta be less that 1% worldwide, do you disagree?

Using non-standard inks is a hack. Any way you look at it (even if it's a good hack) that impacts a very small number of users. Those that have designed the hack that used to work will just have to re-design their hacks. That's what the CS6 "beta" is all about–letting users and developers see what's happening.

[tvalleau]

Do I disagree? No, Jeff, I don't disagree that the vast majority of people don't use the tool to the full extent possible, and that therefore Adobe has every right to eliminate those users who don't like MacDonalds, or don't drive Fords.

(As a programmer of Apple products for 34 years now, I'm not sure how Application Programming Interfaces have anything to do with code that works fine in CS5 and doesn't work in CS6, on the same system, but I'll leave that alone.)

You're entirely correct that it's a small percentage of people that need to profile their printers or use non-standard inking. Apparently I'm the only one on LL that does.

Photoshop is a wonderful tool, and I admire it as a programmer, and a photographer for 55 years. When I got my first Apple ][ in 1978, I intuited that the world was about to change, and Photoshop has lead the way and been a joy to watch evolve.

CS6 continues that tradition... but it's also sneaking in the "iOS-ification" of software; making it easier for the "vast majority" and to whatever extent that is true, it becomes less useful to professionals.

It's because I care passionately about the software that I hate to see its direction change from professional to consumer. I'd much rather see all the coddling happen in Photoshop Elements, and the CS tools continue to expand toward more versatility instead of less.

But I'm talking as a user, and you're talking about marketing, and that conversation could go on for years without resolution (other, of course, than that the marketeers always win.   :-)

I'm sorry to see the change as it lessens the value of the tool, and I'm sorry I bothered to comment on it here. This was obviously the wrong place. (Too many Adobe employees...  :-)


(BTW, thanks to you for all your own contributions to the art and understanding of digital photography over the years. As a programmer, I found it pretty easy to understand, but you do a good job of explaining too, and many of your works line my bookshelves. Without your work with Bruce Fraser, I'd likely not have landed a job teaching digital photography at graduate school, nor had my works rise to the level allowing them to be presented at The Center for Photographic Art. I am in your debt.)

That said, I'll still cast my vote for making PS a more nitty-gritty professional level tool, and splitting off the "softer" software for Joe Sixpack.   :-)

Now: I'm off to see what I can do to get Roy or Jon to step up to the plate, and make it easier on the 1% of us to make the switch to CS6 !

[Farmer]

ACPU wasn't designed to send unmanaged data in general, it was specifically designed for targets to be sent to the printer through the standard driver.  Sending it somewhere else (i.e. to QTR) wasn't in the design spec.

The changing colour management paradigm to which Adobe is adhering was implimented by Apple and Microsoft.

The options were removed because it's too hard to keep supporting it within the PS framework - any changes to the OS require changes to PS - that's a big deal.  With ACPU, changes need only be made to that app.

I was fortunate enough to have a lengthy conversation with Dave P. from Adobe on the topic.  Once CS6 is bedded down, it's more likely there will be bandwidth to look for updates or changes to ACPU, but as Andrew and Jeff have mentioned, the onus really is on the vendors of the add-ons.

And, I still maintain that it's a very, very small subset of a subset of users involved.  That doesn't mean you should be ignored, but you can understand that priority is going to be based on demand.

[tvalleau]

ACPU wasn't designed to send unmanaged data in general, it was specifically designed for targets to be sent to the printer through the standard driver.  Sending it somewhere else (i.e. to QTR) wasn't in the design spec.

Aha! So the advice I got on the Adobe forum (to use it) was incorrect.

Thank you for your thoughts, which confirm those of others here. I appreciate your courtesy in taking the time to reply.

[Schewe]

I was fortunate enough to have a lengthy conversation with Dave P. from Adobe on the topic.  Once CS6 is bedded down, it's more likely there will be bandwidth to look for updates or changes to ACPU, but as Andrew and Jeff have mentioned, the onus really is on the vendors of the add-ons.

Dave would LOVE to be able to extend and expand on the Photoshop Print dlog..but, he's really not in a position to jump over the standards that are being enforced.

There has been a lot of effort in the work to produce a standard practice regarding print output. There is a standard he's trying to work towards called "Best Print Practices" that all of the OS and print manufacturers have agree to adhere to.

Yes, it adversely impacts a small subset of users (such as those using the Advanced B&W Epson workflow). But that's life...and it's not Photoshop's "fault". It's the reality that Photoshop must live within given the limitations of the print pipeline as dictated by Mac or Widows print processing pipelines.

[tvalleau]

Thank you, Jeff. That's the kind of explanation that is useful.

[Farmer]

Aha! So the advice I got on the Adobe forum (to use it) was incorrect.

Thank you for your thoughts, which confirm those of others here. I appreciate your courtesy in taking the time to reply.

Hmmm - incorrect?   Maybe not.  There's nothing wrong with finding new uses for things, but we just have to accept that sometimes those workflows will break when changes are made because they're not specifically supported.

I think it's a really conversation that you've started and I suspect that like me, many people appreciate it - this is how we get good information out and thoughts and ideas discussed that often find their way back to the right people :-)

[Rhossydd]

.Adobe will adhere to the Apple API's (and Windows which s a bit less draconian) and do the right thing for the 99% of the user base.

That's not quite correct is it ?
It's only the Mac users that have had their OS change how CM works that needed Adobe to change things, not "99%" of the PS's overall user base.

Removing the 'no color management' workflow was unnecessary and unhelpful for Windows users.

Somewhat ironic that one of the boasts about CS6 is that they have returned some features that they'd removed from CS5 !

[Farmer]

No, that's not correct.

Windows has the same path, they just don't prevent a user from overriding it, for now, but the workflow that it is trying to follow is valid for the vast, vast majority of users and removing other options will help more people than it hinders by a huge margin.

Which features have returned that were removed from CS5?

[Rhossydd]

Which features have returned that were removed from CS5?

Can't remember the fully details, things like the contact sheet facility and something else, it's all detailed in one of their 'sneek peeks' videos.

removing other options will help more people than it hinders by a huge margin.

You could probably remove 80% of PS's feature set and make it more usable for most users, oh yes they did that and called it Elements.
If they're making the highest level professional software removing features seems just daft.

[john beardsworth]

They didn't remove them - they put them in a better place, Bridge. Now they've listened too much to whiners who couldn't get that into their skulls.

[digitaldog]

Removing the 'no color management' workflow was unnecessary and unhelpful for Windows users.

And Windows users of this product are using the no color management option in droves because?

[RFPhotography]

Dave would LOVE to be able to extend and expand on the Photoshop Print dlog..but, he's really not in a position to jump over the standards that are being enforced.

There has been a lot of effort in the work to produce a standard practice regarding print output. There is a standard he's trying to work towards called "Best Print Practices" that all of the OS and print manufacturers have agree to adhere to.

Yes, it adversely impacts a small subset of users (such as those using the Advanced B&W Epson workflow). But that's life...and it's not Photoshop's "fault". It's the reality that Photoshop must live within given the limitations of the print pipeline as dictated by Mac or Widows print processing pipelines.

Jeff, could you expand on this?  I've got the CS6 beta installed on a Windows machine and the few ABW profiles I've downloaded from Eric's site are still visible and usable in the print workflow. 

[Rhossydd]

And Windows users of this product are using the no color management option in droves because?

They were using it for printing profiling targets amongst other things. You of all people should appreciate that.
Yes, they now offer ACPU, but it famously doesn't print as it should in Windows and Adobe can't be bothered to fix it.

[digitaldog]

They were using it for printing profiling targets amongst other things.

Amongst what other things specifically? Cause if they are printing profile targets, then the software generating that target should have provisions to print it! It isn’t Adobe’s headache. Nor the huge majority of Photoshop users who don’t create said targets.

Put the responsibility for printing targets where it belongs.

Other than printing targets, why would Windows users suffer from this lack of functionality? What other applications provide this option and why is Photoshop targeted to having to provide this functionality?

I’ll add that Mac users can print targets using Preview a FREE application that comes with the OS. Does Windows provide anything like this and if not, shouldn’t you guys be bitching at Microsoft?

[RFPhotography]

That's not quite correct is it ?
It's only the Mac users that have had their OS change how CM works that needed Adobe to change things, not "99%" of the PS's overall user base.

Removing the 'no color management' workflow was unnecessary and unhelpful for Windows users.

Somewhat ironic that one of the boasts about CS6 is that they have returned some features that they'd removed from CS5 !

I'm not sure why people are griping about this now with CS6 because it was gone in CS5.

[tvalleau]

I'm not sure why people are griping about this now with CS6 because it was gone in CS5.

Because the work-around (printer-profile matches document-profile) is no longer possible in CS6.

[digitaldog]

Because the work-around (printer-profile matches document-profile) is no longer possible in CS6.

For good reason!

The “null-profile trick” does not work in all situations. At best, it won’t actually conduct a transform, and at worst, it will transform through the profile and back out, compressing the gamut.
 
Use ACPU if you want to print targets. Or Preview on the Mac.

[tvalleau]

As noted earlier, ACPU won't work with QTR, and just crashes.

Here's a version of the null-transform that does seem to work for Piezography, (which is concerned only with maintaining the 2.2 gamma, and not any colors) courtesy of Jon Cone:


(I had tried converting to sRGB this weekend, but whatever I chose for a printer profile was not accepted. I did not try Wide Gamut, and that's what worked.)

So:

1) work in Gray Gamma 2.2;
2) convert image to sRGB;
3) choose "Photoshop manages colors"
4) choose "Wide Gamut RGB" as the printer profile

all else as usual.

I ran a couple of prints this morning testing this, and eye-balling the output (compared to known good test prints done thru CS5) it looks correct, and as expected.