Forum menu
I tried the stitching, and it was rubbish The horizon came out curved.
there are different ways of stiching (reposition only/automatic/perspective correction/etc.) never had any problems.
I also notice that .psd & dng files come up as black rectangles in Windows Explorer as Adobe haven't got round to writing a 64 bit codec yet...
but surely the preview file embedded (just a small jpeg) will show up? or failing that use bridge.
i don't use bridge as i'm only working on one image at a time and process in capture one. wasn't a fan of it but it's very quick in generating previews and swapping between photoshop.
I'm convinced it's got excellent tools and facilities (apart from the primitive stitching) which I look forward to learning how to exploit!
it is a steep learning curve. there is so much it can do, i guess i only really use 40% of it's capabilities and no matter how much you know about it other photographers/retouchers often show you something you didn't realise it could do.
if you are only resizing/cleanup/basic corrections and have an image database to maintain then Lightroom is very popular (not used it myself as i dont shoot volume and prefer to stick with CS5/capture one/hydra/bracketeer
give CaptureNX a try. If you're working with Nikon NEFs
thanks! I'd forgotten about that as it didn't work on my previous computer...
Well worth buying a copy of autoloader;
[url= http://www.photoshoptools.ca/ ]Autoloader[/url]
A beautifully simple little prog. All you do is point it at the directory of your original files, press F1, it opens the first file, you work on it to your heart's content. Press F1 again, it saves it according to your own parameters into whatever folder you specify and the next file opens on your screen.
Repeat ad infinitum, or until your directory is finished.
It's a great tool for working on a large number of pics and the guy who wrote it (Mike) has just sent me the new script for CS5 (I bought it four years ago) so ongoing support is a given.
The best thing is you can automatically run an action on every file (i.e., save for web at whatever quality) which sounds like it's perfect for your needs. Drop me an email if you've any questions...
Good god man save an ACTION to make it do the work for you. Or use the Image Processor script.
The best thing is you can automatically run an action on every file (i.e., save for web at whatever quality) which sounds like it's perfect for your needs. Drop me an email if you've any questions...
thanks, I've just been reading up on it, but doesn't it beg the question "Why doesn't PS do this itself?" 🙂
Good god man save an ACTION to make it do the work for you
I think it's reasonable to suppose that if one has to create a macro to save a file the application is deeply flawed 🙂
Are you really this much of a tool in real life or is it just an internet persona?
Photoshop is the greatest invention since photography itself, imo. It's absolutely ****ing amazing, and I've been playing with it since version 1.
I probably use less than 10% of it's capabilities. What you can achieve with it is incredible.
But of course it's rubbish because Barnes can't save a file propperly or something... 🙄
FFS Barnes; sort yerself out man.
FFS Barnes; sort yerself out man.
look who's talking 🙂
It's very funny to see people leaping to defend outdated programming which is incidental to the function or main design of the product. if it were cheap then such oversights and careless practices would be easily forgiven, but cheap it ent.
Yeah but there's no 'ope for me; you at least may have some chance..
How's the Bottom Optimising coming along?
Photoshop doesn't do it itself because if it did it would make it easy to accidentally throw away vital data (layers etc). Which is why any sensible professional would keep the layered Photoshop file and use the built-in save for web feature to export another copy for the web. Which is why you have to choose. Which can be a pain in the arse. Which is why Photoshop lets you set an action. Which is what several people have told you repeatedly.
Uber powerful professional software in a bit-complicated-for-amateurs shocker.
Heh heh!
Which is why you have to choose. Which can be a pain in the arse.
which is the wrong way to do it. Rather than assume I'm clueless, by all means have the warning one time, but allow me to check "don't tell me again" if I choose to override it. Patching it over with a macro as suggested is a gaffer tape approach.
The proper way to avoid "accidental" loss of data or modifications is to save it all in a big undo buffer so you can go back later if you change your mind, rather than endlessly nagging the user.
Not.
No-one who understands and uses Photoshop all the time would ever set it the other way round. The default has to be to preserve data. If you want the default to be to chuck data away the assumption that you're clueless is correct!
Uber powerful professional software in a bit-complicated-for-amateurs shocker.
ha ha, funny joke. I hardly thing one can describe fatuous warning dialogs (cf Windows 1.0) as "powerful professional" 🙂 And while I may be an amateur photographer, I am a programmer, so I do understand how these things work...
That's the point - they're not fatuous warnings. Not only is the software trying to make a critical point but it is also fitted with a very good tool (actions) to avoid it if you want. Everything you need Photoshop to be is already in there, you're just not using it right.
No-one who understands and uses Photoshop all the time would ever set it the other way round. The default has to be to preserve data.
utterly wrong. I am confident enough in my workflow not to close a file until after I've finished with it, and don't appreciate silly handholding
Ok, so I've just tried this:
Open jpg file (just something off tinternet)
Do some squiggles
Cmnd-S
Close.
(CS3, Mac)
Simples.
Can't see why you're having problems, Barnes, unless you're adding layers. And if you are, then you need to Save As .psd file, 'cos jpg can't do layers. So, you're creating a whole new file.
Tell me again why Photoshop is faulty?
You can even set the action to save the layered file, which you can always go back to without losing fidelity, [i]and[/i] a flat jpg copy at whatever settings you like (with an option to pause at that point for you to fine-tune the compression to suit the content of the image) - all in one action. There are no circumstances under which that isn't a superior solution if you are talking about lots of files. Your way will burn bridges and no matter what your level of general competence with computers you will make a mistake one day that you won't be able to back-track on without digging back to the orignal file, if you still ave an unedited copy of it.
unless you're adding layers
yes, adjustment layers, like they tell you to - a useful implementational metaphor and nothing more, except perhaps an elaboration of the undo mechanism, but not supported by display devices so flattening has to happen sooner or later.
Your way will burn bridges and no matter what your level of general competence with computers you will make a mistake one day
it's not an acceptable compromise to slug every edit to avoid the slight risk of a mistake some time, particularly when my normal workflow of horizon, crop, histogram, shadows and highlights is nothing I need to preserve forever. If Adobe were serious about alieviating mistakes of that kind they could just store a description of all modifications in a small file associated with the image and perhaps delete them a year later. Getting the user to do the programmers' job is negligent.
I kind of agree with glenp there simon.
To me jpg is an output format, the equivalent of a print. Something I would only ever produce at the end of working on a photo, and then only as an export from the original 'negative' (NEF or PSD).
I can't think of many situations where I'd want to start from a JPG, spend time adding layers, then throw that away by flattening it into a JPG again.
Anyway, did you try CaptureNX yet?
Non-destructive, versionable editing of NEFs with full data from the camera, and batch correction and conversion of multiple shots. Plus it's about £500 cheaper. I rarely touch Photoshop thesr days.
If Adobe were serious about alieviating mistakes of that kind they could just store a description of all modifications in a small file associated with the image
Which is exactly what CaptureNX does, except that it is stored directly in the NEF with the image.
When you save a file to a format that does not support some of the features you have used, such as layers in a jpg, Photoshop saves a copy.
If not it would have to flattern the file you have open.
Hence you get the repeat question in your work flow.
e) confirm I don't want to save it again when I try to close it
If you flattern the open file so it is supported by the format you want to save as you will not have this problem.
Obviously it will still ask you for the quality settings but why would it not?
Obviously it will still ask you for the quality settings but why would it not?
because it's brain dead ? I'd far prefer to tell it when I want to [b]change[/b] the quality (if ever) not every bloody time I don't 🙂 Unless I'm saving for web (which is also broken) I always want max quality, and I have 5TB of spinning disc to hold it 🙂
Unless I'm saving for web (which is also broken) I always want
max quality
Stop using JPG then!
Bring back film, scalpels and cow gum 🙂
At least you could snooze in the dark room
Am I missing something here? You don't use Photoshop all the time, or professionally. So you ask why it works in a certain way. And then lots of nice people (well, plus me) give you nice sensible answers. And then you're still pissing.
The answer is if you don't want a layered file, don't create one. Just use the adjustment tools in their direct way, all of which have keyboard shortcuts, and then save, which also has a shortcut.
Crap way of doing it, but if you want quick and direct then its right for you, esp since you seem so confident you won't have to go back. Personally I'd use levels and curves adjustment layers so that I could go back into them and fine-tune if needed, for example if your expected result when served on a web page is not quite right.
The problem is that you are using the power of layers when you don't want to. So don't. To be honest, your question is plain daft. No-one is forcing you to make layers, just edit away if you're not going to keep a safety.
Stop using JPG then!
oh, to suit some numpty in San Jose I have to change my file formats ?? Do [b]any[/b] web browsers support .psd files ?
because it's brain dead ? I'd far prefer to tell it when I want to change the quality (if ever) not every bloody time I don't Unless I'm saving for web (which is also broken) I always want max quality, and I have 5TB of spinning disc to hold it
(a)When creating a new file (including copies) it asks for the quality you would like to save as.
(b)When saving changes to an existing file you are not asked to select quality settings again.
Photoshop asumes that in (a) you may not want to use the settings of the last file you used and in (b) that the quality settings you chose when first creating this file still stand. This makes perfect sense does it not?
oh, to suit some numpty in San Jose I have to change my file formats ?? Do any web browsers support .psd files ?
Why are you using "save as" for jpg's to use on the web? and
is not an answer. I use it everyday so it's not."save for web is always broken
This actually suggests a case of user error / lack of understanding. Try keeping all you files as psd's and then use Bridge to batch convert any you need for the web to the correct format in nice small file sizes.
Why are you using "save as" for jpg's to use on the web? and
I wasn't, I tried "save for web" at someone's suggestion
. I use it everyday so it's not.
every time I use it it complains about the image being too big and says it may run out of memory. The only time it didn't was when I'd cropped part of an image and shrunk it to 1000 pixels high. My PC has huge amounts of memory, disc and CPU.
Are you being deliberately obtuse now simon?
PSD is [u]the[/u] photoshop file format. The fact that JPG cannot support layers and uses lossy compression is down to the JPG file format and nothing to do with any numpty in San Jose.
No, no browsers support PSD. But you just said yourself that you always save at 100% quality (as near lossless as possible with JPG) because you want max quality.
My point is that if you are worried about quality then those saves should be to PSD and you only export a JPG version at the end when you're done. That way you also benefit from those non-destructive layers you are carefully adding.
b) that the quality settings you chose when first creating this file still stand. This makes perfect sense does it not?
I want it to use the same for all of them unless told otherwise, asking every time is dumbass.
I wasn't, I tried "save for web" at someone's suggestion
Fair enough.
complains about the image being too big and says it may run out of memory
Not heared of that before. out of interest how big are the original images? i've "saved for web" from images up to about 150mb but not larger.
Did you understand my post about flatterning the image before saving as this will solve the problem from your OP.
A masterpiece of trolling SFB... you've spun a boring non-thread into an 80-odd respose ego fest and willy-wave session. OK, I'll bite some more.
Here's an allegory for you. I hate spell-checkers. I hate them because they think they know best. They try to 'correct' my spelling on-the-fly, though not against a dictionary that I have chosen, or ever would choose. They underline words or phrases in hideous colours (or should that be colors (no it shouldn't)) simply beacuse they don't recognise them. They get arsey about syntax if sentence structure begins to stray above Janet-and-John levels of technical competence...
Photoshop is the opposite. It is a blank canvas. It doesn't tell, it [i]asks[/i] me what I want to do. It trusts my judgement. It expects me to know the difference between .png, .gif, .jpg, .tif, .psd etc. etc. It won't interefere with my decisions unless I am in danger of discarding data or doing something nonsensical. In short, it assumes I am an expert. I want something to happen, I make it happen. End of.
MS Office, for example, is a wretched piece of dreck beacuse in trying to be helpful it actually hinders creativity and wastes system resources. PS's philosophy is massively better because it provides a toolkit to do whatever the hell one wants and only asks "are you sure?" when trying to step outside a few common-sense parameters.
As a supposedly free-wheelin', free-thinkin' free spirit, who claims to have some technical nous, I would have assumed the latter philosophy would be far more attractive to you.
As above, try Lightroom or Aperture. They should fit under the trolling bridge somwhat better. Shoot in RAW, maintain your edit settings as text attachments and save .jpgs to your heart's content.
You may be a programmer, but airing your view that PS is poor software design anywhere - and I mean [i]any[/i]where - and you will get laughed out of there.
God knows why I am sticking up for it. Adobe certainly doesn't need me to do that.
Of course it does presume common-sense in the first place.only asks "are you sure?" when trying to step outside a few common-sense parameters.
A masterpiece of trolling SFB..
not really. just somebody who was offered advice from various users who use the software without issue every day.
but despite all this advice has decided that everyone else is wrong and he is right.
but then nobody ever changes their mind because of an internet forum 'discussion', as i'm still 100% certain that i'm correctly using a very capable well developed piece of software.
nobody ever changes their mind because of an internet forum
Blimey, you're right!
I used to niavely think they did, but you've just convinced me otherwise. 😀
but then nobody ever changes their mind because of an internet forum 'discussion'
I have done. I've learned stuff which I didn't know before, and been educated and enlightened.
A masterpiece of trolling SFB...
on a point of information, just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them a troll. I believe what I'm saying, and I have a professional interest in program design.
It doesn't tell, it asks me what I want to do. It trusts my judgement.
right up to the point where you try to close a file, when it suddenly assumes (as do most editors) that you have decided to abandon your edit and discard all the changes you have made, but then pops up a stupid dialog to ask if you really meant it. In fact is should carefully and silently save all your work unless you click a thing saying "Throw all changes away I've changed my mind" - with me this would be about once a month.
You may be a programmer, but airing your view that PS is poor software design anywhere - and I mean anywhere - and you will get laughed out of there.
you are sadly mistaken if you think programmers talk to each other, except perhaps in expletives, though why I should be concerned about being laughed at I don't know :o)
God knows why I am sticking up for it. Adobe certainly doesn't need me to do that.
yes, I wondered that!
not really. just somebody who was offered advice from various users who use the software without issue every day.
but despite all this advice has decided that everyone else is wrong and he is right.
the advice was a ludicrously complicated workaround. I don't expect to have to pay through the nose for software which then needs to be customised to perform simple functions
Don't use adjustment layers, the whole point of them is that you can tweak them later rather than commit. If you then want to save as jpeg you have to flatten them before it can save as a jpeg.
So just use normal adjustments (Image > Adjustments) and you shouldn't be bothered with having to go through the save prompt.
If you don't want to use a PSD fine, but don't expect to be able to use all of Photoshops features properly. It's like you're saying photoshop sucks because jpegs don't support all the lovely tools they've created.
I can't believe you're still going! Can't you see you're only half doing it right? If you use layers you are making something other than a jpg, so you then have to build a jpg again.
You [i]can[/i] do all of the alterations you described the quick way, [i]and re-save the jpg just exactly as you want to do[/i]. Its just that you don't know how to, or a are being willfully stupid.
Don't know how much more simple it could possibly be. It only appears to not work in a simple way because you are doing it wrong! If you want to edit a jpg and do a straight save then don't put non-jpg features (layers) into it.
it suddenly assumes (as do most
editors) that you have decided to abandon your
edit and discard all the changes you have
made, but then pops up a stupid dialog to ask if
you really meant
It doesn't "assume" anything. By choosing to save the file as a 8-bit single layer JPG, rather than the standard multi-layer PSD you have EXPLICITLY told it that you would like to flatten and commit all your changes into a new file type.
In fact is should carefully and silently save all your work unless you click
a thing saying "Throw all changes away I've
changed my mind" - with me this would be
about once a month.
The point of non-destructive editing is not just that you can throw ALL your changes away and get back to the original image, but that you can tweak the changes you have already made:
eg you might take an image, do a normal capture unsharp mask, fix the white balance, adjust the levels, straighten and crop it, convert to sRGB, do output sharpening save and print it.
If you then decide that the resulting image is still a little cool then you can re-open it, alter the white balance in your second step and leave the rest as they are.
A great trick is to use layers to do High-Pass sharpening and localised contrast. Means building one or two new layers, and takes time to learn, but its a really powerful move once you've got used to it. Naturally, you can write an action to create the necessary additional layers and set them up with a good first guess for settings.