Forum menu
Not sure why your quoting thay back to me as the Adobe forums seem to agree it is a bug, or at least an out of date warning based on an arbitrary limit.
Save for web is used for optomising for
website use. The average screen size is 1280.
Only 25% of the image would be viewable
from a jpg that size.
FFS Yes yes I know.
That's why one might use the Save For Web dialog to [u]reduce the size of the image[/u] so that it fits on a web page!
i.e. one of the functions of Save For Web is to RESIZE the image. Simon even supplied a screenshot pointing out those controls.
there are reasons not to use save for web but to first resize the image to 72dpi from it's native 300dpi first.
but:
i can't be bothered to explain the why's and wherefore's, it will take me too long to explain.
i'm going out for a bike ride as the sun is shining.
there are reasons not to use save for web but
to first resize the image to 72dpi from it's
native 300dpi first.
Agreed that the Save For Web dialog is not really fit for purpose.
For one thing I generally want to apply output sharpening once I have the image the size I want it and it doesn't let you do that (or at least didn't in the old Photoshop I have).
I have no idea why the dpi setting would matter for web images as it is completely ignored by web browsers as far as I know, but you would think the SFW dialog would do that for you too.
FWIW I find myself aligning with sfb now: Photoshop is incredibly powerful, which is why it is so deservedly popular, but its user interface is distinctly shonky in places.
Quoting back to you because, you asked a question, answered it yourself then started being pedantic because another user may use the program differently to you.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect ]No disrespect intended...[/url]
I'm not being pedantic. You were claiming that it was too big and you have to resize the image before opening the dialog for resizing the image.
I'm saying that's a bit mental.
The time it takes to apply sharpening is the same whether you do it to your optimised export or before you make the export, so I can't see how the way it is arranged currently is "daft" at all. Just do all your adjustments except sharpening, export at the correct size and re-open the exported jpg to double-check and do sharp etc. You're going to double-check it anyway, so no big deal.
Ha Ha!
Jucky Jim hits the nail firmly & squarely on the head!
....."I'm rubbish, me!"
glenp: if you export an optimised JPG, then open it and sharpen it and save it again then it is no longer optimised and is now lower quality.
Fair point, I put that wrong. So you need to do image size and save a psd (or other lossless), and then make optimised at correct pixel size. So, it is true to say that the ability to re-sze as part of the save for web dialog is of (slightly) limited value.
GrahamS : apologies for calling you pedantic 🙂
So, it is true to say that the ability to re-sze as
part of the save for web dialog is of (slightly)
limited value.
I'd say so, yes.
I guess not everyone bothers to sharpen after resizing an image, but it can make a pretty big difference.
But I suspect, as others on this thread have suggested, that a large percentage of users don't use the Save For Web dialog when saving for the web - which kinda suggests poor UI to me. 🙂
GrahamS : apologies for calling you pedantic
I'm an engineer. It's my job to be pedantic. 🙂
Sharpening is over-used in my view. Like all effects it is best to be sparing with it anyway.
It may have some less than 100% perfect areas, but it still pretty stonkingly good. I won't be learning another package any time soon, put it that way. But - if I were batch processing lots of images I certainly would. Not only is that not the perfect territory for Photoshop, Adobe themselves have another product for that purpose!
> Sharpening is over-used in my view.
Agreed.
Over-saturated and over-sharp seems to be the norm on the web where many folk will be using crappy 6-bit TN film monitors with the brightness at max and the colours all wrong 🙄
But when you're taking a full size original and resizing it to maybe 10% of its original size then a (lightly applied) Unsharp Mask can bring back some of the lost detail quite nicely.
sharpening. a whole new can of worms 🙂
each image usually needs totally different sharpening depending on the lens used, subject, and intended output and size.
big fan of the highpass filter > soft light/hard light method myself.
High pass is the way to go - two or three layers with different radius high pass, then juggle transparency settings, usually soft light for the local contrast layers and hard light (turned down) for the fine sharp. Means you can go back and edit the layers. I often go right ahead and build two or three high pass layers (as above) plus a levels a curves and a hue/saturation adjustment layer. Once you're used to is it takes seconds to set up and you can do it while you're having your first look of the image.
Doing it after the fact to a JPG isn't really the same thing at all.
but there are many circumstances in which the jpg is all you have...
photoshop assumes you are already aware of how additive/subtractive colour works and how the 80-82 85-81, red/green cc filters work etc.
why would one bother with ancient history when a simple slider is so much more obvious ?
- I would suggest something but clearly you have no intention of listening.
to the contrary I'm reading all the comments hoping to learn something useful
Are you saying it gives you a memory error even when you enter a more appropriate pixel dimension in the fields? What pixel dimension are you asking it to reduce to?
yes, it pops up as soon as you click the menu item 🙁 The size I get to is irrelevant as it only happens afterwards, but typically 1000 pixels high...
2gb ram aint much when processing a 950mb image
no, I said Photoshop hogs 950MB with one image loaded. Having just turned on it's at a sensible 88MB, so I guess that means it's not releasing memory. I just loaded a 21MB file and its usage jumped to 240MB, and didn't drop when I closed it.
dunno. but i doubt any prefs have been changed regarding cache/history states/scratch disk/graphics redraw/compression when saving/ amount of ram allocated to photoshop.
I prefer the programmer to sort that kind of thing out and not need handholding...
If you can think of something you want Photoshop to do, it will do it. You will, however, need to find out how it works first.
and drag through endless menus and needless dialogs to achieve it 🙁
pressing alt (I think) turns either the 'OK' or 'Cancel' button into a 'reset' button.
Is this not the case with the colour balance bit you mention?
Hey! Thanks for the tip, however, pressing the ALT key requires you to look away from the screen to find it. I can never remember keyboard shortcuts, being visually orientated (as I imagine many photographers will be) and want something on screen to click instead
I suspect, judging by the reference to colour temperatures, that there was some confusion between "White Balance" (as performed by the camera and/or during RAW conversion) and "Color Balance" (as used within Photoshop).
yes, I do get them mixed up as it has nothing much to do with 'white' and is in fact about the representation of colours. So, yes, I want a white balance adjustment layer, as images can easily have multiple light sources ie sun/skylight or daylight/artificial indoors near a window...
Photoshop is way more powerful than required
people keep saying this, but I'm wondering if they're confusing power with complexity of presentation. The things one needs to achieve are simple and intuitive, whether getting the image to correspond more closely to the original scene, as captured by 2 pieces of face jelly, or creative distortions. The complex bit is telling the program what you want.
every designer/photographer/retoucher i know uses a wacom tablet/pen for photoshop unless it's just processing files.
I think that may be the most useful tip so far, as the mouse is a hopelesly crude tool compared to the pen! I shall buy one ASAP. Any recommendations ?
Fair point, I put that wrong. So you need to do image size and save a psd (or other lossless), and then make optimised at correct pixel size. So, it is true to say that the ability to re-sze as part of the save for web dialog is of (slightly) limited value.
so resizing then saving to web is somehow better than doing it in one step ?
sorry can't help you there.
I have a new inexplicable one, if I drag the crop rectangle, when it gets close to the edge, it snaps to it. Why does it think it knows where I want the edge to be better than I do ? The only way I can find to crop near the edge is to zoom right in close...
The normal way to crop right to the edge is to try to drag beyond it - which is supported too.
it's something very easy to turn off but it's buried in a menu somewhere or you can use a shortcut to turn it on/off.
found it:
When you’re trying to crop an image using the Crop tool (C), your cropping border tries to snap to the edges of your document window. This might also be happening when drawing large Marquee selections as well. Solution: Press Command-Shift-; (PC: Control-Shift-;), which is the shortcut for turning off this snapping. The only downside is it turns off all snapping (like Snap To Guides, Snap To Grid, etc.). If you just want the Crop snapping (or Marquee snapping) off, go under the View menu, under Snap To, and choose Document Bounds, and your tools will no longer try to snap to your, well, document bounds.
phew! For a while I'd thought I was imagining it! It's not at all clear to me why this would be the default as it seems counterintuitive when there's already an obvious metaphor for going to the edge...
> Doing it after the fact to a JPG isn't really the same thing at all.but there are many circumstances in which the jpg is all you have...
Yep, fair enough, but White Balance is really an input parameter of the RAW conversion.
If you are working with a JPG then that cake is already baked.
I guess they could offer a dialog that simulated something close to the same effect based on a similar colour temperature slider, but that might just add to the confusion.
Photo Filters seem to be the easiest way to apply a full image colour adjust after the fact. See http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/white-balance-photoshop.html
Photo Filters seem to be the easiest way to apply a full image colour adjust after the fact
thanks - but doesn't this beg the question why you can't do the same with a colour temperature effect ? I don't know the figures in millireds or K, but I suspect a percentage of 85 warm isn't the same as a smaller colour temperature correction
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!
if I turn off snap to edge, it doesn't snap when you go [b]outside[/b] either, so suddenly "crop" becomes "extend background". That is [b]so[/b] broken 🙁
thanks - but doesn't this beg the question why you can't do the same with a colour temperature effect ? I don't know the figures in millireds or K, but I suspect a percentage of 85 warm isn't the same as a smaller colour temperature correction
wrong.
1°kelvin is about a 20 mired shift. a 1% opacity filter (80series etc) is a lot less. i very much doubt you could tell the difference between a 1 and 2% photofilter on your monitor.
if I turn off snap to edge, it doesn't snap when you go outside either, so suddenly "crop" becomes "extend background". That is so broken
wrong again. it's actually enabled not broken. you can also rotate and gain extra background or instantly turn on 'snap to' with a quick intuitive shortcut. if you want to extend your canvas (different from cropping outside your image area) you can do that too. this way you can specify the dimensions and direction of the extra canvas.
That is so broken
My 8 year old daughter has the same intonation.
Are you an 8 year old girl too? Oh, jesus, that explains so much.
Sorry, [b]so[/b] much.
1°kelvin is about a 20 mired shift. a 1% opacity filter (80series etc) is a lot less. i very much doubt you could tell the difference between a 1 and 2% photofilter on your monitor.
when I said "a percentage" I meant some random fraction, not 1%
or instantly turn on 'snap to' with a quick intuitive shortcut.
uh that quick, intuitive shortcut is (PC: Control-Shift-) which requires 2 hands and is instantly forgettable, is it shift or alt or ctrl or all three ? And overloading a [b]crop[/b] tool to extend seems highly counterintuitive to me, especially as I crop 99% of my photos and extend 0%
i don't think photoshop is made for left brainers such as yourself, your rigid logic just isn't compatible with the program.
i would hate to think what a non linear history and the ability to paint back into the image from various snapshots in time would do to your cerebral cortex.
have you thought about film and maybe a small home darkroom?
your rigid logic just isn't compatible with the program.
oh, is that what it is ? And there was I thinking its stultified metaphors were to blame...
"non linear history" hmmm, forgive me, but you're talking implementational detail not pictures, the kind of thing that's better hidden or forgotten. Like I said, if you make a simple thing more complex it's worse 🙁
have you thought about film and maybe a small home darkroom?
the operation simplicity is appealing but the lack of timeliness and undo are killers
how about the zen photography approach.
shoot jpeg only no cropping, no colour balance (5500°k only), no sharpening, no levels and curves, no filters, no photoshop.
maybe this would give you the simplicity and ease of use you crave?
shoot jpeg only no cropping, no colour balance (5500°k only), no sharpening, no levels and curves, no filters, no photoshop.
no friggin way, I want the picture to look like what I saw - and due to the inherent compromises in photography that often takes a lot of work
and due to the inherent compromises in photography that often takes a lot of work
i know a really good application that once mastered is quick and easy to use and quite a productive timesaver.
if photoshop is beyond your capabilities. and you have no success locating an application to match your limited skills there are quite a few freelancers who would happily do the job for you, at a price.
if photoshop is beyond your capabilities.
it's not below my capabilities, it's below its own - so many things could easily be done better. Look at the tool bar - on my monitor it's only half the height of the screen, and contains 3D tools I don't want, so I'd like to remove those and get the multiple overlapping tools separated so I don't have to ferret around to find the ones I want - and use the whole of the real estate available - but it won't let me, it would be so easy to reduce/remove the overlapping as you drag the bar longer, or do it automatically. And I want custom toolbars to hold visual shortcuts to buried menu options I frequently use - this isn't rocket science. There's acres of blank UI space that could be put to use.
And it doesn't respect my choices. I always right click the eyedropper to get the ruler on top, but when I look away it stupidly defaults back to eyedropper - just not when I'm watching it.
[url= https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform ]https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform[/url]
i'm sure adobe would love to hear about your frustrations and gain insights on how to make a better product for those lacking cognitive ability and having a pedantic outlook towards learning new skills .
having a pedantic outlook towards learning new skills .
oh, you've really made me laugh now 🙂
My whole point has been that Photoshop is stuffed with old ways of doing things. Why anyone would want to learn how to put up with outdated modalities is beyond me!
I bought Photoshop exactly to learn new skills, and I had not expected it to put endless pointless deadfalls in the way of learning them.
it's a wonder they stay in business selling such outdated software (and charging £600 for it).
why not get a refund for your purchase?
blah blah blah.. can anyone answer me a very quick and hopefully simple PS question please?
I have a jpeg with a particular colour scheme and I would like to transfer that colour scheme onto a psd that I am working on..
where do I start with that?
To be fair MrSmith, some of the interface stuff [i]is[/i] pretty clunky and unintuitive, as Simon has rightly pointed out.
And several other bits are based on historical film metaphors that no longer make much sense to modern photographers (e.g. not many digital photographers would bother with a Warming Filter these days, and if you've never touched film then dodging and burning isn't going to be obvious either).
Photoshop sells because it is very powerful, is pretty much industry standard, and doesn't really have any close rivals.
But that doesn't mean it is perfect or beyond criticism.
"industry standard": on every other program I've used that supports undo, the shortcut has been CTRL-Z (since Wordstar, ~ 1985). In Photoshop, by default it toggles between undo and redo - though I think that can be overridden. Conventional undo has been relegated to Alt-Ctrl-Z
Yep: Windows standard, as used in Word etc is Ctrl-Z fir Undo, Ctrl-Y for Redo, but Adobe know better 🙂
When I said "industry standard" I meant it is the standard app used throughout the photo and design industry, rather than suggesting it actually follows any standards itself 🙂
I meant it is the standard app used throughout the photo and design industry
actually, that was a coincidence, I had already written my post before reading yours 🙂
So I go in to edit the shortcut, and try to change undo/redo to CTRL-\ (right next to Z) and it says "cannot be assigned as it is used by Channel Panel to select Layer Mask" - so why not offer me the option to remove that association rather than have to search through all the tabs to find it ? Oh, I see, ctrl-\ is part of a "panel" and cannot be changed...
Yunki: not sure what you mean. Is it just certain colours you want from the JPG? If so then the eyedropper tool can pick up colours from the JPG.
Try changing the keyboard shortcuts.
edit menu > keyboard shortcuts