Photoshop CS6 public beta

[Chris_Brown]

I'm thinking I can shoot really exciting time lapse videos of the grass growing while Mini Bridge extracts thumbnails from my folders of big files.

I love my lawn, too!

And if you set Bridge's prefs to ignore anything over, say, 50kB, then it will *blip* right across those continent-sized files and show the precious thumbnail (if you have PS prefs to save the magic thumbnail).

[bill t.]

And if you set Bridge's prefs to ignore anything over, say, 50kB, then it will *blip* right across those continent-sized files and show the precious thumbnail (if you have PS prefs to save the magic thumbnail).

Oh.  Thanks.  I'm too pretty to be reading manuals.

[tived]

Ohh, I set to 10Gb ... Give a little time and it will catch up.

[Chris_Brown]

Oh.  Thanks.  I'm too pretty to be reading manuals.

 

[Dinarius]

I don't want to load CS6 onto my overloaded hard drive.

Could someone please confirm that Adobe Camera Raw is still 0-255/Adobe RGB & hasn't been changed to the Lightroom farce that is %/Melissa RGB?

Thanks in advance. ;-)

D.

[Chris_Brown]

Could someone please confirm that Adobe Camera Raw is still 0-255/Adobe RGB & hasn't been changed to the Lightroom farce that is %/Melissa RGB?

I don't know who Melissa is, but she doesn't care about ACR.

Lightroom uses percentages because the output profile has not been selected and soft-proofed by the user. ACR provides RGB values because you must set the output space to something prior to using the program.

[Dinarius]

I don't know who Melissa is, but she doesn't care about ACR.

Lightroom uses percentages because the output profile has not been selected and soft-proofed by the user. ACR provides RGB values because you must set the output space to something prior to using the program.

Which is why ACR is very much Pro and LR is Prosumer (at best), IMHO.

Thanks.

D.

[stamper]

Does that mean I have to go back to using ACR to boost my placing in the world of photography?

[Dinarius]

Hah! 

I just wish that LR took colour as seriously as ACR does. It doesn't, in my opinion. (Melissa RGB??  ) In every other respect, LR is outstanding.

D.

[digitaldog]

Could someone please confirm that Adobe Camera Raw is still 0-255/Adobe RGB & hasn't been changed to the Lightroom farce that is %/Melissa RGB?
Which is why ACR is very much Pro and LR is Prosumer (at best), IMHO.

Farce? What has the encoding scale have to do with anything? The data isn’t in 256 steps yet you feel a 0-255 scale is professional but 0-100% isn’t?

FWIW, you can produce 0-255 values in LR4 for Melissa RGB while soft proofing if that is somehow useful. I don’t see how a value of 255 or 100% to define the whitest white is in any way more useful or less professional than the other. In fact, 100% white, 0 black seems to make more sense considering the actual data. Equal values of either is neutral.

Just because someone was brought up with one scale, doesn’t make the others inferior. The metric system, (which I would submit is more intuitive than the US standard system) confuses those brought up with the US system. The opposite should be true. That doesn’t prove that a mile is any less a professional metric to describe a distance than a kilometer!

In Photoshop, 24 bit CMYK is still 0-255 data but represented as 0-100% CMYK ink. That’s logical? Try telling an old time prepress guy that using those values are silly or not professional despite the actual data.

ACR has never been 0-255/Adobe RGB. The primaries are ProPhoto RGB but with a linear gamma encoding. The histogram and numbers are the same primaries but with an sRGB tone curve. You can build this as an ICC profile in Photoshop’s Color Settings, save off an ICC profile and load it into LR4 to get those beloved 0-255 values. Now are you going to export that data in MelissaRGB? And considering that any working space, Melissa RGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto will most likely get converted to another space (output or maybe sRGB for web), the numbers are going to change. So what?

[stamper]

Hah! 

I just wish that LR took colour as seriously as ACR does.


Fortunately nobody is taking you seriously. 

[digitaldog]

Fortunately nobody is taking you seriously. 

Based on his 'logic" and mindset, that was what I was going to say but didn't. Thanks.

[Colorwave]

0 to 1000 is the most professional, plus the colors are much richer!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

0 to 1000 is the most professional, plus the colors are much richer!

+1000  

[tvalleau]

Heads up: for some of us, CS6 is a step backwards. There is no way to send an image thru to the printer unmanaged. The old technique of matching the document to the profile is refused. To further make the point, Adobe has removed what it deems inappropriate profiles from the printer profile list. For example, as it now stands, it's not possible to print using Piezography, which requires a Gray Gamma 2.2 document, sent off unaltered to  Quad Tone Rip. (Setting the dialog to "printer manages colors" doesn't work either, since QTR then ignores its own curves, and every print is therefore identical.)

Neither does saving as a TIFF work since ACPU simply crashes when trying to print  to QTR.

While I can print to my other printers, the one I have dedicated to Piezography is useless under CS6. The only solution I can find is to continue to use CS5.

There are lots of wonderful tweaks in CS6, to be sure, and I've been anxiously awaiting its release so I could buy it... but now I have to wonder why I'd buy a photo program I can't use to print !

As I've noted on the Piezography Yahoo group, I'd LOVE to have someone make me look the fool in public by showing me how to print a Piezograph thru CS6.

(And don't get me started on why Adobe insists on dumbing-down a supposedly professional program to the point where professionals can no longer use it. Isn't that what PS Elements is for?   Grrrr.)

Ain't computers wunnerful?  :-)

[Farmer]

I think you need to realise that you're a very, very small subgroup of a small subgroup of PS users.  No disrespect intended, there's nothing wrong or invalid about your workflow, it's just that to cater to the demands of the colour management paradigm being imposed by Apple (and being supported by Microsoft) and which suits the vast, vast majority of users, some changes have been made.

Let me ask, for example, if it's Adobe's fault that ACPU crashes doing something it wasn't designed to do?

I would suggest that asking for support from QTR would be the way to go - it's hanging off Photoshop, not the other way around.

I don't think it's fair to say that Adobe has dumbed things down - they've simply reacted to vendor (OS) and market demands and changes.  Of course, this is a Public Beta, so letting Adobe know where you're having difficulties would also be useful, so if you haven't already (and you probably have), then I'd suggest sending them details or posting on the Adobe forums as well as following up on the QTR side.

[digitaldog]

We are very fortunate that Adobe built a utility to produce prints for a task the profiling software vendors should have done in the first place.

[tvalleau]

Thanks for the prompt reply, but I'll point out that the whole point of ACPU -is- to send an image to the printer without modification. That's what Adobe gave us specifically for that purpose, since many of us (not a "very, very small subgroup of a subgroup") need to make profiles. That's what Adobe themselves suggested I use to get around the fact that CS6 can no longer send unaltered data to the printer.

I'm not so sure that's a minor issue, actually.

And, I'm afraid that I simply cannot accept the "market pressures" argument when dealing with a professional tool. It's too convenient a reply, and is used for everything these days. Sure, mass marketing is the be-all and end-all in some eyes. After all, it's about the money, isn't it? And, even if it is "reacting to vendor and market demands" that doesn't mean it isn't dumbing-down!  :-)

But at $700 - $1000, I don't want the latest iteration of a tool I use to make a living, offered up with -less- features than it had before.

Yes (thanks) I have noted this on the QTR group; The Piezography group and the Adobe Forums (whence I got the "use ACPU" advice.)

But I'd have thought that here on LL, the complete loss of the ability to send a file unaltered to the printer would be at least of modest interest... not to mention that I'll wager there are more than a couple of Piezography users lurking about...  :-)

Thanks again  for the prompt and courteous reply.

[tvalleau]

We are very fortunate that Adobe built a utility to produce prints for a task the profiling software vendors should have done in the first place.

Indeed we are. Too bad it crashes with a -2582 error.

Perhaps I'm simply in the wrong venue here. I just assumed (and we all know about assumptions...) that this forum would have a fair share of Piezography users, who would be interested to know that their dedicated printers and thousands of dollars invested are useless with CS6 until something is done.

As a programmer, I've suggested possible work arounds to Roy Harrington (who wrote QTR) and have engaged Jon Cone in the conversation as well. I have just spent 48 hours and several hundred $$ trying to find a solution, to no avail.

I'm as big a fan of Photoshop as the next guy. I sell my photos as part of my living. But I'm not an apologist for Adobe, and find their increasingly "any color as long as it's black" attitude disconcerting.

Thanks again.

[digitaldog]

As a programmer, I've suggested possible work arounds to Roy Harrington (who wrote QTR) and have engaged Jon Cone in the conversation as well. I have just spent 48 hours and several hundred $$ trying to find a solution, to no avail.

And I’d submit it is Roy who needs to come up with a solution, not Adobe. Same with X-rite and others who have a product that requires their targets be printed in a very non confirming fashion.