Comments on: Photoshop 3D is not about 3D

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:22:10 +0000

When can we get a real tutorial developed for the 3D tool? Or if there is one, can I get a point in the right direction? I would love to learn how to texture an object and link it to other imported 3D objects, etc. But I cant find a good tutorial anywhere. Looking forward to this new tool.

By: Nat Brown

Nat Brown — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:39:36 +0000

Phew! Traveling for business and I’ve not had the chance to keep up with your blog. Look what I’ve missed.
Reading the comments, I can see that you and Adobe are right on track. When you have half the people flogging you from one direction and the other half flogging you from the other direction, you know you’ve got the product centered. :-)
I always thought you had it pretty easy. Just post a few blog entries and go on a NAPP Hall of fame junket every now and then. But I can see you really earn your keep at release time.
Keep up the good work.
N.

By: Zandr

Zandr — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:01:40 +0000

Before you go off adding thermometers, err, "depth sensing", perhaps you could consider supporting white balance settings from cameras correctly? It's *really* annoying trying to work with IR RAW images. Aperture is better, but still poor. And yet dcraw works flawlessly. [This may be of interest. --J.]

By: BJN

BJN — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:24:17 +0000

After watching the CS “Next” keynote podcast, it’s clear that image transformations and filters will have new hooks into graphics card processors providing huge performance boosts. Since it’s coming, how about a hint for hardware buyers – OpenGL or DirectX? Same for Mac and PC? Will new graphics drivers be needed? The biggest boost to Photoshop performance in some time is in the pipeline and it would be nice to have a hint on what hardware to buy.
Bridge should be a core application that ties the suite together, but it’s the Creative Suite development stepchild with real stability problems and a clumsy interface that makes it easy to unintentially move folders and modify files. Even after a supposed fix, Bridge still crashes when trying to create thumbnails from a couple of pdf and Illustrator files that I have to store in a “don’t peek” folder.

By: Matthew Fabb

Matthew Fabb — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:41:21 +0000

As a Flash developer, the inclusion of 3D in Photoshop CS3, I thought came at the perfect time for the Flash community, as 3D was really taking off in Flash Player 9 thanks to various ActionScript 3D engines done in ActionScript 3. Flash designers and developers who were familiar with Photoshop didn’t have to learn or buy new 3D software when they already had Photoshop Extended.
I doubt Adobe had planned for this, as 3D in Flash wasn’t anywhere at the same level when planning for Photoshop CS3 started. It was just great timing for a niche of users that those features were added when they were.

By: T

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:10:06 +0000

You could have also asked, “what if you want to load a crappy 3D Model of a dinosaur into your favourite wedding photograph and paint it? What would you use? The answer would always be “%$*(&^%$?????!!!!) (=wtf?).
Oh and I’ve had Bridge crash WHILE renaming leaving the images out of order so even for such simple things I prefer Renamer4Mac. Bridge isn’t all bad but too dangerous and slow. At least at the moment.

By: T

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:05:55 +0000

Forced to repeat: It WOULD be nice if it worked but there are too many causes for it to not work properly which makes it not the first choice. It’s not about not understanding it, it’s about getting smacked in the face every other time you use it and you always have to wait for it. Nobody should be forced to use it, if it’s not what they need. You talk about your workflow of having it always opened, that’s fine. For me it’s not worth it and on every machine or network it has different issues. Time is money and if you like to spend your free time on 3D features that you said you don’t really need but find interesting, that’s cool. But don’t expect everyone to stay at home and try every Ps feature. This is a pro app. It’s supposed to just work fast and be stable and that’s all we’re asking for. Half finished additions that will never get a good update are acceptable but get the basics first such as a fast way to browse instead of a sepparate app.
Regarding 2. Yes it is theoretically possible but often doesn’t work, that’s what I mean.
Well you ask a question that is designed to make Bridge seem useful but what if I never have to do all these things at the same time? What if I only have to use Bridge’s unique features once a month, that still slows me down every other time I’m forced to use it.

By: Maciej Gralek

Maciej Gralek — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:26:17 +0000

Regarding T’s comment on my previous opinion…

1. I wouldn’t go so far to say that Bridge offers more that anyone needs, although it can be slow but it depends on cache settings. i don’t get that many crashes on both platforms but even if Bridge crashes (which again is very rarely) you don’t lose any changes.
2. You can synchronize Color settings across whole Suite in Bridge.
But most important thing is the one you said “they refuse to use it because it costs them too much time and nerves”, now to respond to this one I’ll quote Deke McLelland “it takes time to save time” sounds like “Wiseguy” but when you think about this seriously it is a solution for all frustration and giving out to Adobe team… and you know that Wiseguy is always right even when he’s wrong, he’s right:-).
We can’t compare Bridge to file browser – that’s like comparing skateboard to comfortable car. I can’t imagine working without Bridge it is the only app that is permanently open on my machine. when i have to switch between Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign at work and additionally After Effects, Premiere… working in different workspaces depending on project ie. photography, advertising, motion graphics etc.
I don’t want to talk about Bridge in here but more about users approach to exclude something they can’t understand only because it means changing their habits (good or bad, but habits) and that is a subject for a psychological debate.
There is one trick I always show to designers who don’t use Bridge… I ask them a question… and them give them answer:
How would you rename 100 images, change their exposure, brightness, contrast and saturation… and finally save them in 2 different formats with different resolution and color space…without even going to Photoshop?
well you have to go to “The Bridge”Reaction is almost always identical… “%$*(&^%$?????!!!!)Regards,

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:10:33 +0000

FTP straight from PS ?
Yes please

By: Mark Landman

Mark Landman — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:48:17 +0000

Regarding what goes into Photoshop upgrades, what doesn’t, what’s useful, and how many upgrades it takes for the “big picture” to materialize, a couple of comments about filters jump out at me.
Mainly that the filter set is ancient, and has been in dire need of upgrading or total re-doing for much too long. Lighting Effects and Displacement are two good examples of useful tools that could be a LOT more useful.
Smart filters was a great addition, but seeing as 90% of the filters are essentially the old unchanged Gallery Effects package, not as exciting as it could be.
I’d enjoy seeing thee filter set reworked and expanded as much as possible.

By: Daniel Presedo

Daniel Presedo — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:23:23 +0000

Just want to echo John’s sentiments about the new 3D features. There will be some unique effects achievable only with the 3D engine.
We hope to provide a lot of samples and actions to make it easy to discover and enjoy.

By: Jeff Duran

Jeff Duran — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:39:03 +0000

There must come a time where Photoshop must cleave based on usage.
Lightroom and Elements are doing great work. As PS keeps adding just for specialized, forget the Extended crap and split it based on functions.
A tad of research will show that folks using the App use about 15% of functionality.
I have been using it every day since version 1.0. Go back. Look at it.
Make things simple. Not every tool is a hammer. Make the PS Toolbox of Apps :)

By: Robert Barnett

Robert Barnett — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:36:32 +0000

I have no problems with what Adobe has been adding to Photoshop. Photoshop like all good programs is a creature in evolution.
My big complaint is that Adobe very very seldom goes back and fixes or repairs older areas of the program.
The extract command could still use some work. Being able to save history with your image, logic processing and user prompting and some sort of code protection for actions is still needed. Scripting that a normal person could figure out and use instead of a 5th degree programming black belt, the filter gallery was bad from day one and needs to be slimmed down and improved by adding transparency and layer blending modes, almost all of the filters need to be updated with a little larger previews, some need previews and most could use some new functionality. The list goes on and on. Adobe just ignores this.
[No, we don't. You're just not seeing all of what we're up to behind the scenes. --J.]
New features are great, but when added on top of some of the weak parts of Photoshop’s foundation it makes one wonder how long this structure is going to be standing before people starting putting their foot through the old floor boards.
You don’t have to do all of this overnight, but you should have been doing this all along.
Robert

By: what

what — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:29:14 +0000

I thought the newton's thermometer helped with the screen, (google results imply contrast?) and wasn't really to tell you how hot/cold you felt. [I think that was its reason for inclusion, and I'm guessing the temperature readout was added in order to offer a more customer-facing feature. --J.]

By: T

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:32:02 +0000

Regarding Maciej’s comment that people don’t use Bridge because they don’t “know how to use it”:
1. Most people give it a chance but it’s just way too slow compared to the simple file browser, offers more than anyone needs, which might be why it’s so slow and often crashes or needs a reset of the preferences.
2.It might get somewhere, it would be great if it worked (ie one setting Color Profiles for all apps) but at the moment I really ask myself “Should I open it or just use a different app?” Should Bridge still get a chance? Yes, as long as it doesn’t mean replacing something that works fine, faster and is actually used by people. Accusing the costumers who already paid for the app when they refuse to use it because it costs them too much time and nerves although they know every single shortcut doesn’t solve the weakness of the app. Should 3D get a chance? Why not, if it’s on top of the necessary updates, hell yes. As long as the Installers, Updaters and basic Tools need heavy improvement, no. Think about it, with simple improvements you can reduce worldwide cussing and heart attacks. Or you can add a feature that one day might be useful and make most people shrug. Is that worth it?