Comments on: Announcing two flavors of Photoshop CS3

By: Trace

Trace — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:25:22 +0000

[What 16-bit features are you missing? --J.]
Specifically, when in 16-bit mode in Photoshop, the following filters are not available (grayed-out):
Blur-Smart Blur
Artistic-ALL
Extract
Distort-ALL (except Lens Correction)
Render-Lighting Effects
Sketch-ALL
Stylize-ALL (Except Emboss, Find Edges, Solarize)
Pixelate-ALL
Brush Strokes-ALL
Pattern Maker
Texture-ALL
Digimarc
Is there some over-riding reason for this, and is anything being worked on to make ALL filters usable in 16-bit mode?

By: jimhere

jimhere — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:38:42 +0000

John said: [...We're making an effort to tailor the two versions to specific needs. Having said that, I grant that having just two versions isn't terribly granular, so it's not possible to be totally surgical in determining which features go where. --J.] Isn't "Photoshop Lirghtroom" a third flavor of Photoshop? And with Elements there's getting to be quite a pile of 'em. Surely some are more ...advanced... than others. Adobe must want a perception of a Pro version. That's not a bad thing, so why not admit it? I'll pay for the Excel version (or whatever it's called this month), that's all you need to know. [I guess there are different ways to view things. My take boils down to "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks." Calling the apps "Standard" (or "Basic") and "Pro" would imply a clear hierarchy: one is better than the other. But what's "better" depends on who you are and what you do. If the features in Extended are up your alley, then it is indeed better for you than the standard version. That may or may not be true for someone else. You're right that the Photoshop family is growing larger, and that evolution reflects an effort to do a better job of providing the right solutions to a diverse set of markets. I'm not trying to be weaselly and political here. We really do want to provide a set of options tuned to different needs. Extended lets us do that in a way that's never been possible before now. --J.]

By: L. Thomas Martin

L. Thomas Martin — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:14:16 +0000

John Welch wrote: “It’s why I’m gradually going to stop recommending Acrobat to Mac shops and start recommending InDesign. I find the ID (and CS teams overall) actually listen to Mac users far better than Acrobat will.”
I could not agree more.
[Just for my edification--and for the sake of passing along the feedback to the Acrobat team--it would be helpful to know what, specifically, isn't working for you guys in the Mac version of Acrobat. This is of course off topic for this thread, but it would still be good info to have. --J.]

By: Peter Kahn

Peter Kahn — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:18:58 +0000

To follow up on the NAB 2007 event in Las Vegas comment: If Photoshop Extended really does have some cool features for post-production (roto, paint, clone, 3d texture), I would hope you all have a huge booth because we will ALL want to see it. In fact, it would be fantastic if you had someone swing by the Post-Production World Conference to do a show and talk,,, please

By: Barry Pearson

Barry Pearson — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:14:13 +0000

What matters to me is: "are any of the CS3 Beta features only in the "Extended" version? [Nope. --J.] In other words, is there a risk of photographers who have used the Beta version inadvertently finding themselves locked into the Extended version, even though they would normally have no need for such a package? [That's not how we roll. :-) --J.]

By: Peter Kahn

Peter Kahn — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:02:10 +0000

Well, the news has me very interested but also lotta head scratching. John, you mention that its one new menu, a new tool and some new sub-menus. That doesn't sound like a lot when we are talking about the kind of function that the press release suggests. [I don't mean to say that the features aren't significant; they are. But I'm saying that they don't eat up a lot of real estate in the menus or toolbar. --J.] Does the 3D texturing suggest a "BodyPaint" or "DeepPaint" like product? Hopefully we can UVs back and forth between Extended and more 3D apps than just May and Max. I use Maya, XSI, and C4D. Are we talking about transforms and edits in x,y,z space or just views? Or no true z space support? And then there's animation and paint for 2D as the press release suggests. Is this the reincarnation of Curious gfx with its roto and paint capabilities finally coming to light? I did like the Curious product a lot but it had a very different UI than PShop. I can see blending the Paint side but Roto??? I know, Pen Tool on steriods but you have to put some type of timeline into the UI with keyframing to make roto and paint work. That seems to suggest lots of UI changes, or, all of us who currently do roto and paint on a regular basis have to adapt to a whole new pardigm; not easy. I recently tried to adapt my roto style to Imagineer Systems Motor and it was a "no go" so I am trying to imagine Photoshop with a good timeline and viewer and it still is Photoshop. Money wise, yeah, if you pull it off right, it could be worth it. BodyPaint is something like $400 and Silhouette Standalone is over $1,000 so there you go. But, I already have those tools and know how to use them. What's Photoshop going to bring to the table??? I can't wait til March 27th to see. [I know, I know--but I think we've gotta sit tight until then. It's a slightly weird state of affairs, but the idea was to give people a heads-up on the two-pronged Photoshop story ahead of the big onslaught of news. --J.] Please bring a working copy to NAB in April so we can touch. [I hope to do just that. --J.]

By: Trace

Trace — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:34:53 +0000

John,
This may be off topic here, but what about 16-Bit support for ALL filters and the new features in the Extended version?
[No, what you see in the public beta is what's been converted. We don't see making things like Plastic Wrap 16-bit compatible as a priority. --J.]
Switching between 16-bit and 8-bit modes in order to edit images because some filters (and other features) don’t work in 16-bit is impractical.
[What 16-bit features are you missing? --J.]
Will 16-bit editing capability help in say, 3-D editing?
I realize as you get this out the door it will not be incorporated in CS3, but is it being worked on ? Glad you’ll have trial versions…Extended features sound intriguing.

By: amadou diallo

amadou diallo — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:12:09 +0000

Until specific details are released there is always going to be speculation that veers from “this move is brilliant” to “This is the the worst thing even done to humanity.”
But I think its important to keep in mind that for the large majority of PS users the addition of an extended version will have zero effect, unless you just can’t stand the thought of someone owning a version of PS with more features/tools/plug-ins/menus, what have you. It seems the extended version is for a relatively small user segment. Otherwise, I’m guessing the tools would have been rolled into a single version. With 2 versions, Adobe gets to charge a premium, but only to those who need the features. The rest of us, most likely can carry on as usual. I prefer this approach over 1)having to pay extra for features for which I have no practical use or 2) having to spend time and energy choosing a la carte from a long list of features whose values are not so clear cut. I’d rather have 2 choices than 50,in this case.

By: Ben VonZastrow

Ben VonZastrow — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:00:20 +0000

I for one am fairly excited about this – though I also a bit confused as to what, exactly, 3D means in this context. I work in the film industry and have been searching in vain for a really good 3D paint package that lets me still work within the photoshop framework. If this extended version allows the easy painting of 3D texture maps I am all for it! My fear, of course, is that it will be a mini-3D paint package which will reach towards the holy grail that I and my colleagues have been searching for, but then drop the ball long before getting there. (This isn’t a cut on Adobe at all, simply a realization that most “3D” apps out there are targeted towards very simple projects and not the kind of stuff I am struggling with every day).
Here’s keeping the faith though!

By: Doug Baldwin

Doug Baldwin — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:25:02 +0000

I'd like to nominate a file format for inclusion in the new PsCS3Ex. Stereolithography or .stl files. They're a 3-D file for outputting a solid 3-D shape. To be able to read and write them would be great. [I wish I could say more at the moment, but what I can tell you is that we aim to do things in a way that's readily extensible, so that if a capability doesn't ship in the box (e.g. support for a particular format), it can be added via a plug-in. --J.]

By: Reed

Reed — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:07:10 +0000

After the many naysayers commenting (as they did with the logo commotion), I thought I’d chime in with some optimism. I’m generally quite happy with this, although not so much because I’m looking forward to the new features. I was really concerned that there might be a “Pro”/”Standard” divide, so to hear that the divide is based largely on motion graphics makes me feel better. I’ll have to see what the new features are, but I doubt I’ll miss them since I don’t do any motion work. But who knows – maybe I’ll change my tune once I realize that I’d love to have those new animation tools you’ve cooked up. Ultimately, if it had to happen, I’m glad this is how it did.

By: brian sargent

brian sargent — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:29:08 +0000

I was working in an educational capacity few years back and bought student/teacher version of Creative Suite. With all these new suite variations what kind of upgrade would I be eligible for? Is it a flat rate discount applied to the version that best suit's my needs? [All this info will come out on the 27th. Sorry that I can't share more until then. --J.]

By: Maryland Wedding Photographers

Maryland Wedding Photographers — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:28:36 +0000

I respectfully disagree with Mike's all in one. I have no use for the animation or what has been released in Extended. The last thing I need is a heavier PS footprint and memory requirements for stuff I may never use or would want to pay for. [Ah--but there are no extra memory requirements for these things unless you use them. Components like the 3D engine, video import, etc. are invoked only on demand and remain dormant the rest of the time. But in any case, we are aware that there's already quite a bit of functionality in Photoshop, so we want to offer a choice. --J.] What happened to elements? Did that go away in CS3 or does that have a lifecycle of it's own? [The latter. --J.] As for the Standard, Premium, Extended, etc. just be happy you are on the good sides of the Apple marketing team or jokes. http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyimages/915.gif [FWIW, the MSFT iPod spoof was actually made by MSFT. --J.]

By: John Welch

John Welch — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:18:39 +0000

“That’s pretty cool. now if you could only teach the Acrobat team how to deliver feature compatiblity cross-platform :-/
[FWIW, they're generally much closer than they've been in years past. --J.]”
Depends on the features you’re talking about. In general, it’s gotten worse in more places than not.
[I guess I'm just not familiar enough with what Acrobat offers & in what configurations to comment further. --J.]
It’s why I’m gradually going to stop recommending Acrobat to Mac shops and start recommending InDesign. I find the ID (and CS teams overall) actually listen to Mac users far better than Acrobat will.
To be fair, it’s not much better on the Windows side. If you’ve less than 10,000 or more seats, the Acrobat team does a very good impression of not caring.
Photoshop and the rest of CS however, do show continual signs of listening, hence my willingness to keep my Mac *and* Windows users current.

By: Sol

Sol — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:45:36 +0000

Hmmm, at first I thought the effect of splitting Photoshop into two versions could be likened to After Effects, where you have a Standard and Pro version. I'm not sure how that works out on the business end (i.e. sales of Standard vs. Pro), but there doesn't seem to be a huge backlash regarding the different versions. Although admittedly, you really do need the Pro version of AE, as the Standard version is somewhat limited IMHO. I think the problem here is that the majority of people see Photoshop as the ultimate tool for graphic work. As it is the industry standard application for graphic work, people expect it to be able to do everything. Moreover, when a new version comes out, we expect to reap the benefits of all the features Adobe has managed to add by paying a small upgrade fee for our loyalty, not just some of the features. Now we're going to have to decide between getting the "better" version (which is what Extended will be viewed as no matter how Adobe markets it) and the "LE" version (aka the "standard" version). A version split also introduces the question, "will the best new features in later versions be limited to the Extended version?" Regardless of the answer Adobe provides, there will likely be a sense of uncertainty in the minds of the users. Of course, we will all have to wait to see if the features are specific enough to certain industries so that it doesn't seem like the capabilities of the "standard" version are limited. I guess the question I'd most like to ask is "Why?". Why not give all users everything Photoshop has to offer as it has always done in the past? It sounds like the justification is that these features are too specific to certain industries or types of users. Does that mean that the inclusion of these features makes Photoshop more difficult to use for a user who wouldn't regularly use the "extended" features? I don't use all tools currently in Photoshop on every project, but that doesn't mean those tools are "in the way". That's the beauty of the palette. You just select the tool you want and use it, while all the other tools stay off to the side.