Simple Photoshop CS5 question…

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!

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 🙁

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, so 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 crop 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.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

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 is 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

Simon: do yourself a favour and leave the default key assignments, because sooner or later you'll be reading a Photoshop tutorial or book and it will be saying "Press L, then Ctrl-Z, then P" and you'll be left trying to decodr what they are on about.

By the way, Digital Photo magazine is quite good at giving step by step instructions for various PS stuff.

because sooner or later you'll be reading a Photoshop tutorial or book

😀

To be fair MrSmith, some of the interface stuff is 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.

nobody said it was easy to learn or beyond criticism, if it was perfect they wouldn't keep releasing new versions.
complicated things aren't picked up in a day. you only have to look at the list of shortcuts to see it's a very comprihensive program. the trick is to learn which areas you use the most and learn the shortcuts (for me paths/masks/colour correction/cloning/layer blending modes). once you do this there is not much interface to deal with as changing tools is done with the keyboard and you only use the layers pallete. i usually work without the tools palette shown as it's not really needed.
as for historical film metaphors? that's crap. light is light, colour is colour. these things don't change. if you wish you can delsve into LAB or CMYK for a different way of working with colour.
talk to any decent working photographer/D.O.P and the language is the same, you still need to know what an FL-D is and what a 20-green is used for.
"modern" photographers don't use filters? all the professionals i know still do as balancing mixed lighting is better done on set (if possible) than on system.
dodging and burning not obvious? i guess if you were visually unaware but even a basic grasp of what the tools do by clicking in an image to see what effect they have is going to make you realise the possibilities.

the thing is this thread isn't about that. Simon wanted advice and several people on here who have lots of working experience offered suggestions and reasons why the program works in certain ways. only for it all to fall on deaf ears as simon knows best.

i only kept posting as i was sent a mail informing me that SFB was an argumentative tosspot and not really having any previous experience of his antics i decided to give him the benefit of the doubt (for the first page)
however it soon turned into a wager to get 5 pages of STW angst.
i don't think it was worth just a pint though. 🙂

this will create custom toolbars, which is a start 🙂

though you need version 2 for CS5 which isn't ready yet…
[despite a certain user of 15 years who told me this wasn't possible – yes PaddedTakaFred]

Yunki: not sure what you mean

no no… no eyedropper.. need the whole colour scheme picked up and mapped… maybe replacing shade or tone like for like?.. hmm

like you might see in 3d wire mesh generator type stuff I imagine..

Sorry to jump in at the end of a long thread, but I agree that Photoshop's user interface is pants. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to learn to use it, and given up. Thankfully I don't need to use it for my job.
I don't think it's just me, I've used a few CAD packages, FEA, CFD; all of which you can't learn in a few minutes, but helped by at least a reasonable user interface.

"modern" photographers don't use filters? all the professionals i know still do as balancing
mixed lighting is better done on set (if
possible) than on system.

Really? Fair enough then i stand corrected.

Curious though: What gain is there in a putting a warming filter on the lens to fool the automatic white balance, rather than just setting the white balance to what you need?
Gels on lights I understand as that lets you mix different lights, but not lens filters.

dodging and burning not obvious? i guess if
you were visually unaware but even a basic
grasp of what the tools do by clicking in an image to see what effect they have is going to
make you realise the possibilities.

Yes the effect becomes apparent when you use them, but they simulate darkroom techniques that many all digital users will know nothing about – hence the odd names and icons: a metal shape on a bit of wire for blocking light during developing (dodge); a hand for only allowing light to fall on one part of print (burn); and a sponge used for soaking up paint on a watercolour!

As UI metaphors go they probably make about as much sense these days as the continued use of a Floppy Disk icon to indicate saving!

i only kept posting as i was sent a mail
informing me that SFB was an argumentative
tosspot

Nice to know Fred/Talkemada is still watching 🙂

yunki, not sure exactly what you want to do or what version you have.

Swatches can be loaded/saved replaced in the swatches panel.
Psd can be colourised in hue and saturation (command u) select colourize
Match colour in the image > adjustments menu
color overlay in blending options

hth

and it will be saying "Press L, then Ctrl-Z, then P" and you'll be left trying to decodr what they are on about.

I use the keyboard for text entry only (and perhaps copy/paste). This not 1984. The only way I would remember any other shortcuts would be if I had invented them.

There isn't much call for text entry in Photoshop but some keyboard shortcuts you will use a LOT (i.e. try holding space).

You could always get a photoshop keyboard to remind you where they all are.

luckily, adobe made it easy to remember, although you can change if its not obvious
b = brush
v=move tool
m=marquee
c=crop
e=eraser
p=pen
t=text

🙂

You could always get a photoshop keyboard to remind you where they all are

I want to look at the screen when manipulating visual things

luckily, adobe made it easy to remember, although you can change if its not obvious

like:
auto tone = shift+ctrl+L
auto contrast = alt+shift+ctrl+L (try pressing THAT, ow!)
auto color = shift+ctrl+B
very obvious I'm sure…
etc etc

Perhaps a direct synaptic link then?

Perhaps a direct synaptic link then?

I'm thinking that and cameras to follow the eyeballs would be a good idea, but until then I'm going to try a pen and tablet as suggested last night 🙂 Also once Configurator 2 is out I can add my own buttons…

change the shortcuts then.

once you do this there is not much interface to deal with as changing tools is done with the keyboard and you only use the layers pallete. i usually work without the tools palette shown as it's not really needed.

of course, you may choose to work in that legacy manner, but many of us like visual things we can click without looking away from the screen. Also due to a biking injury 3 of the fingers on my left hand lack the dexterity needed to hold down arcane key combinations, were I even willing to try

talk to any decent working photographer/D.O.P and the language is the same, you still need to know what an FL-D is and what a 20-green is used for.

that squarely places me in the ranks of the indecent photographers as I have no idea what they are! Are you suggesting that one can only take decent photos if one knows the history of photography ?

all the professionals i know still do as balancing mixed lighting is better done on set

unfortunately carrying a spare sun is heavy and tends to melt things

Simon wanted advice and several people on here who have lots of working experience offered suggestions and reasons why the program works in certain ways.

apparently based on a lack of understanding of how programming (rather than Photoshopping) works. Just because things used to be done one way does not mean such methods are set in stone for ever and a day. New metaphors are constantly invented which supplant less intuitive or convenient ones.

i only kept posting as i was sent a mail informing me that SFB was an argumentative tosspot

if you need an email to tell you that you've obviously not been paying attention 🙂

Only you could make a thread about PS amusing, Simon….

Infinity plus one!!!!

Only you could make a thread about PS amusing, Simon….

on the contrary it's the mass rush to defend the flawed PS status quo that I found so funny, but that may just be my lack of cognitive ability 🙁

When it comes to post processing skills, there are 2 levels:
a) photographic
recognising a good photo, selecting a composition and crop, recognising what corrections are needed – these are essentially timeless, barring possibly significant advances in the hardware
b) implementational
once upon a time mixing chemicals, paper grade selection, dodging and burning etc, now accomodating the quirks and complex metaphors of photo editors – these are transitory and usually inconvenient, as programs and abstractions come and go, hopefully to be eventually replaced with artificial intelligence mimicking the abilities of Ansel Adams etc