Talk:Adobe Photoshop/Archive 1

message: You can add filters, functions, tools,html etc. Thedjatclubrock :) 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: Can we update the screen to the final version (CS3 Standard, the one I use)
:Why the one you use? I've updated it to Extended, anyways. ALTON .ıl 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: There seems to be too many references to competitors of Photoshop.....recommend rewriting some of the references to where they are not mentioned as much. --Stdjsb25 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite to limit references to competitors 

message: I changed the page name from Photoshop to include Adobe as our usual practice is to refer to such products by their proper name rather than their colloqiual name (c.f. Powerpoint, Excel etc). I don't think this is a big deal but thought I should leave a talk page note explaining my rationale as the page has had a long history at the old name. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: CS is the current version, but this article discusses versions from before the existence of CS and Elements as well. — Haeleth Talk 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: page name change [[Photoshop]] to [[Adobe Photoshop]]

message: Adobe did license the Opera technology, but it went into their GoLive product. Photoshop has no HTML editing capability.
:Yup. I removed that line. --minghong 15:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No HTML editing 

message: It seems that the majority of people favouring GIMP do so beacuse it is open source, not because it is a particularly good product. I don't know much about GIMP myself, given that I'm quite happy with Photoshop, but it would be interesting to read any comments that cared to shed light on the two programs head-to-head.
:You might want to refer to Comparison of bitmap graphics editors.--Anakata 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIMP v. Photoshop 

message: Photoshop 6.0 can be upgraded to 6.0.1 by applying an update from the Adobe website. There is no update to produce a 6.1 version. 6.0.1 is not mentioned in the release history in this article, but 6.1 is. Was 6.0.1 commercially available? Is 6.1 the same as 6.0.1? Please clarify. — mjb 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photoshop 6.0.1 vs 6.1 

message: I think that the article does not fully explain the fields of applications used with Photoshop.Apart from Web graphics its main application is Photo-Manioulation,Photo-Enhancements and Photo-Retouching.(Which is where *Features* as mentioned above should be!).All this article does is to take dry word-by-word essay from the official site rather than explain in simple the uses for photoshop.Photoshop-Tennis is not all that matters,there is a large section of DTP,Print & Media ,Advertising industry which also uses Photoshop in their work.Filters and the plug-ins are another aspect which should have been elaborated.--asydwaters 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo-Retouching : Application Of Photoshop Needs Elaboration ? 

message: I have a very specific request, which may sound a little odd: I need to find a piece of software (or an option in Photoshop) that will allow me to wrap an image around itself in a tight spiral. Is this possible? -Litefantastic 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Could you elaborate? Or show a mashup? Shinobu 14:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean to take a very skinny image and bend it into a spiral, so the image's qualities will be preserved, but distorted into a spiral. I can't show you an image because I don't have anything I can make it with. -Litefantastic 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have posted some VB code that does that job at User:Gerbrant/Spiral image: VB source. You can inspect the code and change it to work with other languages/programs. As long as you can use formulas to map from one coordinate system to another, there should be a way to do this. Shinobu 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help, please

message: Has anyone used Ananya Curves?  I am considering it, but I don't know how much it costs, yet.  How much does it cost and is it worth it?  I saw a demo which makes it look like the greatest free-form tracing tool ever. --James S. 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Ananya Curves website: "Each month we will introduce more of our surprising and easy to use features. Then we will launch Ananya Curves." In other words, right now it's vapourware.  — Haeleth Talk 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I missed that; thanks.  I met the author for the first time at the math library last week, saw/used the demo by remote control.  I thought it was already available and will re-send my email to them.  I agree with rm of see also link here until it's released.  I, for one, look forward to being able to trace by drawing instead of fiddling with tangent control points, and I can't imagine anyone who doesn't. I'm kind of sad that the natural medium between pixel-based tracing and current Adobe tracing splines is subject to patent protection.  If it weren't, it would probably already be in there. I hope Adobe buys them out. --James S. 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ananya Curves 

message: Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1) became available on Adobe's website on May 16th, 2006 and all new versions shipped from Adobe as of that date contains 9.0.1. No new features, only bugfixes. I don't know if you want to update the version list with that information? (As far as I know (and Google searches), there was no widely-used codename for this patch.) --Utopianheaven 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9.0.1 

message: This talk page probably shouldn't be used for end user questions regarding how to use Photoshop. I'm sure there are many forums that these sorts of questions would be more appropriate. -- Tomlouie | talk 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech support outside scope of WP 

message: Photoshop 9.0.2 was released a few days ago, but only via Adobe Updater. It is not yet available on www.adobe.com. Should we update the article now? --BbEcPeter 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 9.0.2 

message: When people ask me how to learn Photoshop, I always suggest they hire a "coach" for 3 or 4 hours to learn the interface hands-on.  Then,
I tell them, you can buy books with lots of nice mini-chapters explaining how to do this or that.  I discourage them from trying to learn
this complex interface by taking a community college course.  Do you agree with the advice and is it a good point to place in the
article, for the benefit of newcomers?   16 September 2006
I firstly do not agree that community college courses wouldn't be good. However it would depend on the level of interest that the student had (ie: I want to fix the red eye in this picture of my grandma, or I want to be able to work with new and existing images to create inspired and thoughtful pieces of art). In many cases, learning a program like this from a class has several benefits: you have a real live person with (hopefully, but generally) extensive and practical knowledge of the software, you are more likely than not reading the same text that you could buy in the store, and community college classes are generally cheaper than hiring a pro, and longer term with the possiblity of more depth. I'd also like to say that knowing how to "use" software, does not mean you can actually be creative with it. That is where a good art teacher comes in.
But I don't think that this is relavent to this article in the slightest.
66.90.162.101 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Learning Photoshop

message: Shouldn't this slang term at least be mentioned since it is almost synonymous with Photoshop on many message boards (including the ones you listed)--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romoshop??

message: I'm removing the following paragraph:
"Photoshop is known for its Air Brush tools used to easily touch up photos.  The Air Brush tool was designed with the help of Playboy Inc editors for use in the touch up of images for the venerable Playboy Magazine.  Sharon Stone, who appear in the July, 1990 edition of Playboy Magazine, was the first model to receive the "Photoshop" treatment."
The first sentence is unverifiable and false. PS is hardly "known" for the airbrush tool, and it would be impossible to provide a source that says it is.
The section about Playboy is interesting, if it is true, but it should go into a trivia section. And there should be a reliable source to support it.
::True enough. Yet the airbrush is somewhat redundant for this purpose since the inclusion of blur, smudge and the healing tools. James Random
----
The rest of the article fails to cite any sources and is flagged for not doing so.  I think we should clean up the rest of the article as well, instead of changing what you think is a poor addtion.  
Google has 1,450,000 search results for "photoshop airbrush".  What do you mean Photoshop is not known for the airbrush tool?  There is also the slang of "photoshopped", and when used to referred to a model, it means to use the Airbrush tool to "clean them up".
: Google also has 1,450,000 search results for "photoshop elephant".  Shall we add a paragraph claiming that Photoshop is known for its use in editing pictures of elephants?  I can find no reliable sources that suggest that the airbrush tool is a particular feature that people think of in the context of Photoshop, or even that Photoshop's airbrush tool is particularly different from the airbrush tools in any of its competitors.
: Additionally, the fact that the rest of the article also lacks sources does not justify the addition of another section that is no better.  The Playboy claim is unverifiable, and thus it fails Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability policy, and thus we are forbidden to include it.  This would naturally cease to be a problem if you were able to provide a reliable source for the claim, so that readers can verify that it is true.  — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other tools that also have airbrushes, so it is hardly anything associated with Photoshop in particular. The slang term "photoshopped" is hardly limited to modifications using the airbrush. If I apply curves to increase contrast in an image, I may very well say I photoshopped it. Personally, I use Photoshop regularly, but I don't think I have used the airbrush for several years. Mlewan 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbrush 

message: Removed the sentence "The program was intended from the start as a tool for manipulating images that were digitized by a scanner, which was a rare and expensive device in those days." because it lacks a reliable source, and thus it fails Wikipedia's fundamental verifiability policy.
: Good catch. According to the only source I can find (Jeff Schewe's article 10 Years of Photoshop, in PEI magazine, February 2000, available online from ), the original impetus for developing Photoshop was actually digital special effects for movies, though it was a scanner company that first distributed Photoshop commercially (version 0.87, not version 1.00) -- so not only was this claim unverifiable, it also appears to have been incorrect. — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be verified.  I believe that both statements are correct but I am not sure where to find a source of this.  Perhaps books on the history of ILM might be able to explain the origins of Photoshop in more detail. Robert Elliott 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Intent

message: My photo teacher told me that one can find older versions of Photoshop for free. Does anyone know anything about this?
:Sounds like wishful thinking. - 66.93.200.116 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are free versions of other programs. And some programs let you use old versions for free. I don't think Photoshop is one of them. -Althepal 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sites, like http://www.vetusware.com/, allow you to download very very old versions for free. - PGSONIC 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Version 

message: Does anyone know how to change this picture into this one using photoshop?      Henry     Talk 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The person who made your example: User:Cyp.  --Althepal 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steganography 

message: This article seems have a little bit of these elements: worded in glowing terms, only says good things about Photoshop, keeps on saying that it is the best. It should be worded a little more critically, I think. There are also lost of unreferenced, boastful claims in the article, such as "it is considered the industry standard". I only put in one { fact } tag in (I didn't put in a pov or needs citation tag on the entire article, even though one probably should be there), but the article really needs to be fixed. Althepal 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I have seen and can confirm that there are alternate splash screens, as seen here:
http://www.photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop-splash-screens/
I can take CS2 and CS3 beta splash screens as well as one for Elements 2, if we should put them up Øřêōş 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate splash screens 

message: I would be interested to hear from other users who can get the easter eggs to appear.  I have tried in 6 and Elements 4 and in neither can I access the 'hidden about box'. --Jdedmond 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't vouch for Photoshop 6, but in CS3 (Windows) when you press Ctrl and click "About Photoshop", the Red Pill does show up, and if you Print Screen, Fraser does show up if you mess with levels (and paws). The funny thing for me is that I can make out the name and the year (and partly the glasses) without messing with the levels, no paws without level change :) --Modenadude 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Eggs 

message: There appears to be very limited details on .psd files, it doesn't state if any other software can read this file type, or such. Is it possible? --Hm2k 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of raster graphics editors. It appears that at least 27 programs support this file type. You can update the article if you like. Althepal 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited information on .psd files 

message: I just saw the image in this article with the suspension bridge cables, and i dont unertand how the person manged to seamlessly edit out the cables out of the picture.I've also seen people edit out people and add different background to photos, but how do they cut and paste around the picture so seamlessly, and at the edge of a persons body there is no lesft over spots of the other picture or a sighn that a little of it is missing.64.229.201.128 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video cropping 

message: Does anyone share my view that listing rival products is hardly Wikipedia style and that this should be removed? Notinasnaid 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, do not agree. "See also" is a standard section in wikipedia. Insight on other products gives you perspective, otherwise it is hard to determine whether a good product is good, fast, advanced, effective, etc. --FateClub 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the link to the list of other raster graphics editors might suffice, but really, since Photoshop is so well known, many people might just assume that this is what you need to edit pictures professionally, which is not the case. So I think that the alternatives section is appropriate on this article. To tell you the truth, the article shows obvious POV towards Photoshop ("industry standard," ... "Photoshop is used increasingly," ... "it revolutionized the art of photo retouching," general praising tone, all because it is part of Adobe and thus well-known), which makes this section more important. Althepal 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reworded it in a way which better illustrates its importance here, but I would appreciate a review on which programs be listed there. Althepal 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct that most professionals choose Photoshop, and that is exactly the reason why this section should be included - in order to let people know that there are other programs aside from Photoshop. I agree that the simple link could suffice, but it may not get the attention it deserves (I know I, when researching programs, found this section helpful and probably wouldn't have looked for comparison articles or noticed links). This section probably should be on this article since image editing ("photoshopping") is too synonymous with this program, and this fact could confuse people. BTW: Photoshop is the choice for most professionals for a few reasons. One of them is that if you understand all the ins and outs of this program, you will be able to produce excellent results. Another is that Adobe is well known and markets, causing even the professionals (not just the consumers looking for an image editing program) to think that this is the only good professional program. But the fact of the matter is that many professionals have found and prefer other programs. So even though it could be argued one way or another, I think it probably is appropriate in this particular article. Besides, unless we really get a few more people to voice their opinion, this section which has been here for a long time should not be removed. Anyhow, my question is regarding which programs should be included in the section. I say that the most advanced programs, based on the comparison of raster graphics editors, be listed, in order of popularity, but I didn't really change the programs when re-doing the section. I kind of just re-ordered them. Althepal 05:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How is this section POV against Photoshop? It simply states that other programs do exist which are like photoshop. That is not POV at all. You are right, however. This article is POV towards Photoshop, and it should mention both good things and bad things about it, and it shouldn't give the feel that Photoshop is the only or the best program when this simply isn't true. Althepal 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: In the first paragraph it is stated: "It is considered the industry standard in most jobs related to the use of visual elements.[citation needed]"
I realize that this statement is flagged as needing a citation, but I for one think this is a bogus and non-"industry standard" statement. Photoshop has it's place in a design studio, but is not used for a large portion of images and layouts that an artist may be working with. 
In the world of photography, particularly prior to some really "nifty" applications like Lightroom, Apperture and others, Photoshop has probably been the most widely used piece of software. Not so in the world of graphic design as it's use limited (as with any tool). 
I propose this statement be removed. Any thoughts?66.90.162.101 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should certainly be sourced. The source should remove any ambiguity and define the "industries" in which it is "standard". No particular reason to pick that sentence: there are only three references, which is terrible for an article this size. If all the uncited stuff was removed, to meet Wikipedia's basic standards, there wouldn't be enough left for a paragraph. It would in general be better with things like "It is considered the industry standard..." to say instead "someone states that it is considered...". Notinasnaid 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right, the wording is very poor; I hadn't picked up on that. It certainly isn't the industry standard for anything to do with text or vector graphics, and such a statement could cause many a newcomer to make the classic error of assuming Photoshop is good at those things. I do regularly hear from people who have typeset entire booklets in Photoshop, which is very scary. Notinasnaid 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've had a go. I've been able to source the "Industry Standard" stuff to a reputable source, and I've added a note about not being the standard for text and vector graphics, which needs sourcing. Ultimately, the source should win and my commentary be removed if nobody can source the qualification: sources trump facts. Notinasnaid 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry Standard In Most....????!?

message: I ranted about this on 3 separate edits:
... ADOBE CS3 PRODUCTS WERE NOT REELASED ON MARCH 27!!!!!!!! ... THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DAY THAT A PRODUCT IS ANNOUNCED AND WHEN IT IS RELEASED!!! WHEN IT IS ANNOUNCED, IT IS NOT RELEASED YET AND THUS IT DOES NOT COUNT!!!!
This after I noticed that someone put March 27, 2007 as the date that Photoshop CS3 was "released". Notice that Adobe shipped, and thus released, their products on April 16.  Announce and release are not the same, but release and ship are! Release is when the public actually gets it. Announce just lets the public know when the public can get it. Sorry for yelling. - PGSONIC 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My ears hurt. lol. Actually, I didn't look into this or anything, and I'm not saying you didn't, but just make sure that you research a few other places before going to the rant level. Then you can give multiple websites which support your statement and cite that in the article. Then you shouldn't have a problem. Just a thought - was it downloadable before it was available in stores? Althepal 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACTUAL RELEASE DATE OF CS3 

message: I think that these edits to the page are helpful to weed out some of the info that is not supported by citations, but what does "rm OR sect" mean in the summary edit line? Crocadillion 12:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means, "original research." However, I think much of the information removed should not have been removed. I think that the removed text needs to be checked and have the appropriate parts put into the article. Althepal 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User Mgekelly Edits

message: I have an example picture made with photoshop that could be added to the article. It's on my userpage. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture add?