Big tiffs

Hi
I need help with a project.
I would like to create a large poster roughly 4ft square made up of tif images (22 of them). I've tried using powerpoint or keynote and they are both very slow.
I am wondering if there is an alternative software (under $100) that would work better for this....eg, how is The Print Shop?
or do I need more ram or something?
Currently running an imac (intel core duo) with 1GB ram in 1 memory slot. Will take up to 2GB total. Will the extra gig make a big difference? Or is the software the limitation?
Cheers
Tracy

Sure Kort:
There are 2 free ways.
First Method:
1. Go to Applications-->Utilities-->Disk Utility
2. Select the Hard Drive you want to repair permissions on from the left side pane (Usually Macintosh HD).
3. After selecting your drive, Click the "Repair Disk Permissions" button.
This may take some time, but will return the various system files, including fonts, to their proper state.
Second Method:
1. Download and install the free Linotype FontExplorer X (http://www.linotype.com/fontexplorerX). I find this handy utility to be much better than the FontBook in OS X.
2. Run FontExplorer X.
3. Go under the "Tools" drop down menu and you will see several options for refreshing and resetting fonts. I recommend selecting "Cleaning the System Fonts Folder" first.
4. Apply the rest of the cleaning and clearing options. The last options is "Clean Application Font Caches".
These are simple methods to help keep your fonts in check.
Have fun designing
PS: I believe you can download FontExplorer X on the Apple Software site as well.

Similar Messages

  • Dodge and burn , can't save a big tiff.

    Hi, I'm trying to save a tiff of 137 MB that I've worked on in dodge and burn but already three times I get the message it can't be saved and aperturte should be quitted and restarted (?) Someone can help with this one?
    Thanks!

    Thanks Clem,
    Indeed I was low on spare space (10% left) so I changed that back to a save 25% of my HD. It doesn't help me out though; still getting this message after trying to save the tiff........

  • Can't Save a Big TIFF 16 bit RGB Image to JPEG

    Hi all,
    I'm using Photoshop CS5 Extended on Windows 7 64 bit (Home Premium).
    I've stitched a panorama in Photoshop using merge from 19 RAW files (Canon 5D mkII) in 16 bit. All was fine, I saved the merged image as TIFF 16 and worked on it. Resolution of the panoramic image is around 33000x4900. File flattened and no active selections left.
    Once I was happy I ran Image Processor on it with an action to watermark and add EXIF copyright data. This failed saying that it could not save to JPEG (it performed the action correctly, just stopped at saving it). This normally works fine with other TIFF 16 RGB images I have done.
    I tried to save it manually, but at that point I noticed that the "save for web" option was grayed out and that the "Save As" dialog did not display JPEG in the options.
    What I did:
    1.) tried to open it with ACR and save it as JPEG. This has worked fine
    2.) tried to resize it to 20000x3600 (more or less) and it worked fine (meaning the option to save it as JPEG where back there)
    3.) tried to convert it full-size to 8 bit and that did not work
    I'm not too bothered because I have the ACR workaround, but it is annoying and in the past I've done bigger panoramas with CS4 and I've never encountered this problem before now.
    Any ideas?
    The image is almost 1 GB so I'm not going to post it...
    Thanks for your help!

    My inital thoguht was: there must be some size limit on the JPEG format that this person is hitting.
    So a quick Google search later (quicker than posting a thread!) and I found this: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/325/325073.html Although it's focussed on CS2/3 it seems that the limit of 30,000 pixels vertical or horizontal has remained in place for CS5.
    M

  • Spot retouching on big b/w Tiffs impossible?

    Hi there,
    Had to work on some big Tiffs these days. Flextight scans of 6/6 cm. b/w negatives. Around 200 Mb each. I'm on a brandnew Imac (16 GB 1333 Mhz / Intel Core i7) here and most of the adjustments work well and fast. Only the retouch tools (repair and clone) are completely unusable. Within a few minutes the rendering starts to slow down to impossible working times. Checked the same files in Photoshop on another older Mac with 4 GB ram only. Here spot retouching flew fast. Why is it that Aperture 3 cannot do this? It would save so much time if one wouldn't have to jump to PS only for this.

    Ernie
    Aperture off :
    Available 13.70 GB
    Wired 596,2 MB
    Actief 1,32 GB
    Inactief 403,4 MB
    In use 2,29 GB
    Aperture on/ Retouching
    Available 10.27 GB
    Wired 678,2 MB
    Actief 3,88 GB
    Inactief 1,19 GB
    In Use 5,73 GB
    Second row:
    Grootte VG 143,12 GB
    Page Ins 960,3 MB
    Page outs 0 bytes
    Gebruikte swap 0 bytes
    I noticed also that while working on a new version from the original (scanned) Tiff I couldn't duplicate my problem and all seemed to work fine for at least 10 minutes. When I start to continue working on the version that slowed down completely the same thing happens again. Could there have been some error introduced in this version somehow? (The above stated numbers don't differ much working on both versions)

  • Open Tiff file error

    Hi!
    I've a very big tiff file, created by a scanner.
    The scanner produces tiff files from my code, but the shipped SW can produce pdf.
    My question is, how can I open this large tiff file in Labview (Vision)?
    Using the Shipped SW I scanned a PDF and using Ghostscript I could convert the pdf to png and after the conversion I could open it!
    Is there any way to convert this big tiff file to open in LV?
    IMAGE:http://data.hu/get/3787417/Irbesartan_393356_2.tif
    +++ In God we believe, in Trance we Trust +++
    [Hungary]

    Hi Durnek,
    My first idea is to convert it from tiff to some light-weight format (i.e. BMP or lossy JPG) - you may do it i.e. controlling MS Paint via ActiveX.
    Also, I would like to ask you which function/SW are you using to open/read this file? Could you also prove the image in the other way? (I am redirected to Hungarian portal - I can't easily download it).
    Thanks and BR,
    Wojciech.

  • Error "Failed to Export PDF" with big image on CS6 (32) and CC (64)

    Hi everyone,
    I'm on indesign CS6 (v8.0.2) and when I try to export pdf with a very big image ( *.tiff, 25000*35000 pixels, ) , the action failed with this message :" Failed to export a PDF".
    To be sure that there is no any corrupted elements, I made a very simple layout (one page , and just one element for my image,I turnoff prefilgth and all  ressource intensive options, and export with no downsampling or resampling) and try to export with different size image:with 20000*30000 -or smaller -image the export works, always failed with image .The export failed to in scripting mode.
    If I diveded my image in four , the export works but this solution is not convenient (I actually made tests for a fully automatised process, and we want to be sure that the indesign  component is  enough "safe")
    I try the same action with an evaluation version of indesign CC 64 bits (v9.2) and have the same behavior.
    I can imagine that there is a memory issue there, but my config seems to be strong ( windows server 64 with  16GB ram, DD with more than 100GB free). I don't undersant why-in a "full" 64 bit environnement- it is not possible to manipulate and export very large image ?
    I'm wonder If the background task is a part of the problem, and if it 's possible to disable it in CS6 or CC as in cs5 ( creates an  “DisableAsyncExports.txt” file in  Adobe InDesign executable directoty don't seems to disable it  in CC or CS6).
    Thank you for your help and good ideas..
    DC.

    this is a .tif (not a "big"tiff) compressed in LZW or ZIP.
    I just tried with another format (png), the error is the same...

  • Lots of 16 bit Tiffs & no idea how to delete

    Hi,
    I'm really new to photo editing & Mac's, but by following various sources of advice from the net, I think I've created myself a big problem - please advise!
    I use Aperture 2.0 for my library & most of my editing of Raw files, but to interpolate these images, I "Edit With" Photoshop CS3. I have the default Edit With set to 16 Bit Tiff, which instantly creates a big TIFF file along with the Raw Master. I then interpolate in Photoshop & reimport an 8 Bit JPEG back into Aperture [I'm sure this is a really poor workflow, but I'm struggling with all this techy side to Photography & I know no-one with a Mac).
    The problem, as I'm sure you can guess, is that I have lots (& lots) of unnecessary TIFF files in Aperture that I can't delete without deleting the RAW too.
    I use CS3 for interpolation because this is a system that works for my needs (plus I know Photoshop from my pc past-life).
    Can you advise of a better workflow that can get 16 Bit Tiffs from Aperture into Photoshop that allows me to delete it whilst keeping the RAW master? Any suggestions for a better workflow really, really appreciated.
    Cheers!

    BigDwarf wrote:
    Hi,
    I'm really new to photo editing & Mac's, but by following various sources of advice from the net, I think I've created myself a big problem - please advise!
    Many people believe there are too much info - both correct and incorrect - out there. Filtering what you need can be difficult at times, especially if one is learning new material.
    I use Aperture 2.0 for my library & most of my editing of Raw files, but to interpolate these images, I "Edit With" Photoshop CS3. I have the default Edit With set to 16 Bit Tiff, which instantly creates a big TIFF file along with the Raw Master. I then interpolate in Photoshop & reimport an 8 Bit JPEG back into Aperture [I'm sure this is a really poor workflow, but I'm struggling with all this techy side to Photography & I know no-one with a Mac).
    Not sure why you do this. The default external editor is set to PS, and you are creating 16bit tif files - just fine. The odd thing is what you do after your edit in PS. When you say interpolate, I'm guessing that you are resizing the image? Going from 16bit to 8bit is not interpolation. Rather, it is data reduction in the file. By definition, jpeg is 8bit so I understand why you want to convert 16bit tif into 8 bit.
    If you simply save your edit without doing save as, then the edited tif will go back to Aperture as tif file. You can export jpeg from Aperture to suit your needs.
    Two different approaches exist to do what you want to do. Since you ultimately end up in jpeg, you can simply export jpeg from Aperture and open the file using PS, do your thing and save, then import jpeg into Ap and stack with raw. Sounds close to what you are doing now.
    A different approach is to set your externally edited file preference to 8bit tif and use PS as an external editor and do your edits there (do not convert to jpeg and use save as), and simply save - which will bring you back to Ap environment. Images will already be stacked and all you have to do is export the edited 8 bit tif file as jpeg. Files will be stacked an need not worry where the file is.
    The problem, as I'm sure you can guess, is that I have lots (& lots) of unnecessary TIFF files in Aperture that I can't delete without deleting the RAW too.
    Depends. If you use referenced master files, then the newly created tif file will be saved in the same location is the master file is located. In which case, if you have no need for it, you can simply delete it from Ap and will get rid of the tif file also (as long as you unstack and check the box that say move the file to trash). Raw original will still be in Ap database as well as in your referenced folder.
    If you use managed masters, then bit more complicated but using the same method should work. You can see how the files are kept within Ap Lib by showing content and dig your way into the folder structure, if you're willing.
    I was going to suggest you can simply just delete the tif files, if referenced, but it would leave broken links in Ap, so bad practice...
    I use CS3 for interpolation because this is a system that works for my needs (plus I know Photoshop from my pc past-life).
    Can you advise of a better workflow that can get 16 Bit Tiffs from Aperture into Photoshop that allows me to delete it whilst keeping the RAW master? Any suggestions for a better workflow really, really appreciated.
    You have constrained the problem by specifying 16bit tif and delete, as your current workflow dictates. Try thinking about the workflow from the perspective of what you'd like to get done. Not necessarily how.
    If the objective is to have high quality jpeg from your raw and keep your raw files and jpeg related, then tif is just a intermediary file. Recall that jpeg is 8 bit by definition and the reason people don't like to edit using jpeg is because of truncation issue with compression, everytime you do something with jpeg. Tif does not compress so there is no loss issue with tif.
    If you go from Aperture handled raw to tif (8bit), then edit using PS and save, you have made 1 translation from raw definition (12 or 14 bit in most cases) to 8 bit tif. Editing and saving tif will not degrade your image (there is a loss of IQ, if you up scale resolution, as data needs to be interpolated to fill in the missing data). Once back in Ap, saving as jpeg is simply format change.
    If your objective is to enlarge the image beyond the raw size, then use 16 bit tif and interpolate to upscale in PS. That said, unless you have a small raw file (4~6mp) and are printing large images (say beyond 12x18), there really is no need to do so. Upscaling becomes quite noticeable beyond 25% past the original size, even using 16 bit data set.
    This long winded response is really the short version Others will have different opinion so keep in mind that this is yet just another info on the web..
    Good luck,
    Cheers

  • Importing a catalog when the images are stored offline

    I have cataloged 126 DVDs worth of images, around 7000 in all (lots of big TIFFs)
    As I have done this over the last year, I have selected "import from current location" option so that the actual images stay on the DVDs and I just have the previews in LightRoom.
    I am migrating from an old to a new computer. I am using LR 1.3.1.
    I burned my LR catalog to a CD and told LR to "import from current location" after pointing LR to the .lrdb file on the CD.
    All 7000 images were imported but the previews did not get imported.
    I am thoroughly unclear how to get the previews into my new computer. I see a folder called "Lightroom Catalog Previews.lrdata" with a whole bunch of files in it but I don't understand how to get those into Lightroom.

    Did you burn the previews folder to the CD as well?

  • IPhoto 6 and RAW files a hint of what's to come?

    Anyone notice that iPhoto 6 can send a raw file to an external editor?
    Set up an external editor in the preferences and then go to advanced and set the preference to send raw to external editor.
    Choose photoshop as your external editor and the image is opened in ACR. However, once you have done this there is no way to save it so that iPhoto recognizes the changes. You must save it and then import the tiff, jpeg, or psd. The images are not tied together as original and edited version. To get that, must allow core image to convert the image and then send that to photoshop. This is half the solution needed to have great Photoshop integration.
    I would think (hope) that this is an indicator of things to come. If Aperture gets the ability to send a raw original (master) out to photoshop and then "import" the resulting file (tiff, psd) as a "second" master (some thing iPhoto currently can't do), well, that would be progress.
    We could then choose which raw processing engine to use. Choose apples and you save on space, choose Adobe and you get ACR quality at the cost of a BIG tiff or psd in your library. I do think it is way to much to ask that Aperture understand Adobes sidecar files or instructions imbedded in a dng.
    Additionally, iPhoto 6 can be set to use "external" files instead of coping everything into the library. It does make a full size jpeg of raws at import time, so space becomes an issue quickly.
    And, oh yea, this is not an opportunity to start yet one more flame apple thread, we've heard it all and it has grow tiring.

    This has worked since iPhoto 5 but just a slightly different set of options. You could always for the first edit, open the RAW file in any editor (as RAW). However, and as you have stated, you can't directly save it back to iPhoto. Aperture kind of reversed this a bit by not allowing you to directly open the RAW in an external editor.
    Sam

  • Automatically create file name based on information in image

    Hi,
    I have a requirement to scan 100 documents into a single tiff file. I need a software that can split the images (inside the big tiff file) into individual tiff files afterward. I need to extract a number appearing in each of these tiff image to become the filename of each individual tiff file after splitted. Finally, I have a process to upload and attach these files to the corresponding table rows in Oracle.
    Does anyone know any software that can accomplish this?
    Thanks.
    Andy

    Use the file dialog box function to get the file name/path.
    To save the file , use appropriate write function ( as per file type that is being saved..text file,datalog , binary ..)

  • Aperture 3 not usable - Constantly "processing"

    I need some SERIOUS help PLEASE!!!! I have been using Aperture 2 and loved it. Seen the new Aperture 3 and thought hey great upgrades so I bought the upgrade version and installed. Everything seemed ok until I uploaded some images into a project. When I am in the project it freezes my computer (gets stuck on an image and says processing...can't do anything in this stage) and I have to force quit. I have tried everything....restarting, checking for software updates, googling it, leaving it stand for a bit and nothing has helped. I even uninstalled (moved to trash) and tried reinstalling. However I think I did something wrong as when I reinstalled all my original albums were in there still so it must not have uninstalled??? I am trying to edit some pictures and promised my client they would be done this weekend. I have been in many tears over this. Very frustrated. Any help would be appreciated HUGELY!!!

    Problems for those who used Aperture 2.0 (like me) seem to be:
    -- Problems in the AP2 database, which didn't bother AP2 but which prevent conversion to AP3. AP3's database appears to be very, very different and you will have to allow about 5 seconds per image for conversion. (My 10k images took about 3 hours.)
    -- Inadequate disk space during the conversion process. There is a lot of reading and writing going on, you will need lots of free space. (I used an external drive with twice as much free space as the size of my Library.) After everything was back where I wanted it, I found that a "Quick" defrag, using iDefrag worked wonders for import and export speed. (Long sequential reads.)
    -- Problem images, the following have been noted: Big TIFF, images with lots of spot and patch, some images with retouch.
    -- Residual AP2 data and settings in the RAW default files, preference files, and cache files. Purging these files generally results in a huge speed increase, once they are rebuilt for AP3. (Appzapper might help cleaning all traces of AP2 from your machine.)
    Finally a certain generation of iMacs with an NVIDIA graphics card seem to be simply broken for Aperture 3. This won't get fixed until Apple fixes it.
    As always, make sure you have a safety copy of EVERYTHING before you do anything. This has been a most un-Apple like experience, but AP3 is a very nice upgrade and can really fly on a 4 GB machine; in my case, my Mini runs AP3 faster than my MacPro ever ran AP2.
    Good luck!

  • Document size / contect menue: no more "packet content"

    I work with system 10.6.1 and iWork'09. (German version)
    Now Pages makes documents of huge size with the new system:
    630.1 MB comes down to 11.4 MB if I zip the file.
    I was wondering what's inside the file to make it so fat and big.
    1. I couldn't find the well known item "packet content" (or similar). I had to save it first under the option "iWork'08" and there I have this item and could open the packet.
    2. I found some very big TIFF droppedImage (20 MB and larger) coming from MathType 6.0a
    Well what happens here? Can I do something to solve this problem?

    Christian Rohrbach1 wrote:
    Thanks a lot.
    Well...
    1.
    I don't really understand the difference between iWorks'08 and iWorks'09 in storing the files. But this is not very important for me...
    It's really important.
    (a) Several mail apps are unable to accet an 'old fashioned' document due to the package structure.
    We must pack these documents in a compressed format like zip or sit to be able to attach them.
    FlatFiles may be attached directly.
    (b) File recovery applications are able to recover flatFiles, they are unable to recover packages.
    (c) alas, it seems that flatFiles are more prone to corruption than packages.
    (d) this is why, for my own use, I set iWok's applications to save as packages and keep backups zipped by myself (in fact by my Autosave script).
    2.
    Yes it's MathType fault of course... but I studied MathType a bit closer now: If I insert a formula by copy-paste it's a huge TIFF-file, but if I use the inbuilt menue which is created in Pages when I installed MathType (Insert: MathType Equation) the insertet picture is in pic-format and comes down from 15 MB to 4 KB. Surprisingly!
    3.
    I checked the influence of the box "store a preview in the document": practicly now difference concerning the size of the file.
    I saw documents with a more than 10MBytes preview file so the difference was important.
    But I made tests with the first release of iWork '09 and reported the problem to Apple.
    Maybe they changed the 'quality' setting used when building the embedded preview.
    I will make some new tests for see.
    BINGO, they made changes !
    In the first release, the preview was built with the very higher quality.
    With my sample file this gave a 13 Mbytes file
    In the lower quality setting the exported file was a 128 Kbytes one.
    Now, when I save the same document with the Preview embedded, the stored Preview.pdf file is a 40Kbytes one.
    Of course, the quality is not the same but the impact upon document size is huge.
    The new code creates a Preview.pdf which is sufficient for what it is designed to do.
    If we need a high quality PDF, we are free to build one.
    Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) dimanche 4 octobre 2009 11:38:06
    Message was edited by: KOENIG Yvan

  • Start automatically an action only when another action finish

    Hi all,
    first, sorry for my bad English....
    I am an Italian Architect, I use Photoshop actions mostly to manage many big tiff files.
    I try to solve this problem since long time.... but so far I can't..  :-(
    This is my problem: I woul'd like to use some actions in sequence launcing only the first one, and when the first finish the second starts automatically, when the second finish, the third starts automatically, and so on.
    Example
    I have 3 actions and a folder "X" that contain tiff files:
    I launch action "A" that resize, colorize, etc tiffs files in folder "X" and put them in a folder "Y"
    only WHEN action "A" finish........
    action "B" starts and works in folder "Y", grouping logically tiff files in some layerized PSD files and putting them in folder "Z"
    only WHEN action "B" finish........
    action "C" starts and works on PSD files in folder "Z" doing some "save as" at different resolution in some folders (folder "JPG", folder "PDF", etc)
    I hope to explain clearly my problem.
    Thanks a lot
    Emanuela

    Hi Mylenium,
    I will try to call existing actions creating a new one (?), but I tell you that I don't understand your question "Does that not give the same result, just only per individual file?"
    thanks
    Emanuela

  • Editing large stills in HD

    I need to edit a sequence with dramatic pans and zooms of stills that need to be in DVC Pro HD 1080i 60. This means that my images have to be very large in order to not have a pixelated look when closely zoomed in on. No worries there, got the big tiff files.
    The problem is while editing in FCP 5, even with a super fast SATA II harddrive connection, moving these massive images, and making transitions and putting filters on the images lags drastically because there so big, though they need to be in order to get those great zooms, pans and so on in HD.
    Is there a way to edit these large stills in a smaller project file, or offline, with smaller image sizes, and then convert it to a larger project with the larger images? Any ideas? Thanks,
    -Pat

    Ok - I'll admit I've never had to use an edl - but that's likely to be your sol'n to this - staying in fcp.
    Save out your stills in dv size - make a new dv proj (16:9, I guess just for appearance sake) work in dv & get everything the way you want, filters etc; - and I'll have to let someone else lead you thru' the next bit.
    But as I understand it you export out your edl (or is xml the way to go ? dunno) then bring that into your hurky big project. The manual will have this covered I'm sure. never read that bit ....
    edit: ah here you go to start.
    vol 4 page 54 on
    Offline/Online Editing Workflows
    The offline/online editing process in Final Cut Pro consists of the following steps:
    Step 1: Set up and capture media at low resolution
    You can log and capture your footage directly to low-resolution, offline-quality media files. Alternatively, you can log and capture your footage at full resolution, and then use the Media Manager to create low-resolution media files for offline editing. The latter method is useful if you want to have both full-resolution and low-resolution media for two different systems simultaneously.
    Step 2: Edit with offline-quality (low-resolution) media files
    You edit just as you would with any other footage. Because you are using low- resolution footage, you can fit much more footage on your hard disk, and use a portable PowerBook editing system.
    Step 3: Create a sequence for recapturing media at full resolution
    When you finish editing your low-resolution sequence, you use the Media Manager to create a copy with full-resolution settings. For this step, you choose the Create Offline option in the Media pop-up menu.
    Important: It is important to understand the difference between clips and media files when performing this step. This option only creates a new sequence with new sequence clips at full-resolution, but no new media files are created. Once you have a
    sequence with full-resolution settings, you can recapture your media files at full- resolution. Also, the word “offline” in the Create Offline option actually refers to creating clips whose media files are offline, and doesn’t actually relate to the offline/online editing process. For more information, see “Clips Described By Their Properties” on
    page 31.

  • So... Photoshop CS6 is that revolutionary?

    Hi folks.
    I'm a user of Photoshop since the 5.5 version and I do any kind of retouching and photompontages, but I've specialized myself in high-end beauty retouching. I work with thousand of layers, so I'm well equiped with enough RAM and BIG TIFF Files, at 16 bit per channel.
    I find this new version of Photoshop quite good, however, this version should been done this way when CS4 was released. I think most people knows about the GPU scandal when the CS4 came out. So now, Photoshop CS6 uses the GPU to compute many tasks and the CPU much more smoothly than the other versions. Finally, Photoshop is using most of the hardware from computers and not just a very small percent, if did it in the older versions. I can see that finally, PSCS6 uses more than 1 or 2 CPU cores for most of it functions, and a part of the VRAM and GPU as well.
    All the tools in the image/adjustment panel runs VERY smooth in real time when moving the sliders, without ANY delay. That's because PSCS6 finally is using the GPU, as promised with the CS4 version . Also, filters like the Liquify Filter and the Blur/Lens Blur filter, which only used one CPU core, finally use more cores/GPU. Not exactly 8 cores, as my Mac have, but quite almost. Now the Blur/Lens Filter is useful, otherwise, it was totally useless due the heavy processing for just one core.
    I have been applying many heavy filters/adjustments to 21mp TIFF files of 16 bpc in order to check how good and responsive is the real time adjustments in Photoshop and the work perfect except for the Shadows & Highlights control. Even in smaller images has some kind of delay and that should be fixed. As well, some of the filters, like the Gaussian Blur, are not in realtime, as we EXPECT
    Also, few of the Adjustment Layers, such as the Solid Color, Gradient, Pattern and Gradient Map; don't work in Real Time. So again, you have to go guessing how the image will look if you're applying some of those useful tools.
    For the other hand, and from my experience in the field of high-end beauty, we use a lot the D&B technique to improve the overall light of the picture and the smoothness of the skin. And this is done pixel by pixel, or, at pixel level (3200% of zoom, that means, the maximum allowed by Photoshop). This means that we have to zoom in and out several times from 3200% to 100% (and to what resolution fit on your screen) in order to corroborate that our shading/pixel by pixel work is going good because, it happens that working at pixel level you miss how the whole image looks and that leads from fake looking to bad shading.
    There are 2 ways to not to zoom in and out all the time:
    1. Making the navigator as big as needed, so you can compare what you do at pixel level on the image with how the whole image looks in the navigator.
    2. Creating a new window for the same image (Window/Arrange/New Window For [...]).
    Unfortunately, none of these 2 ways work in real time. So you don't have ANY FEEDBACK, after you release the mouse/digital pen, making those 2 ways, completely useless and nosense.
    I have wrote an e-mail to the Adobe Labs with many improvements in there that have been ignored, except for the Liquify, the Lens Blur and the real time in the adjustments layers.
    One of the new tools I suggested in that e-mail, was allowing brushes acting like loupes. So when you D&B, you keep the image at, let say, 100% of zoom while the area where you're working on, is magnified to X%. This would be really useful if you have to work in detail. This is not just a personal point of view, but a professional one.
    So, overall... PSCS6 is a very good mirage of what it should be, but nothing out of the box, really. How can it be called a "new version" when it comes to just performance improvements... This should be a CS5 update, nothing more .
    I hope the Adobe Team get serious with this and stop bragging and scamming neophytes with just... improvements...
    س

    PECourtejoie, no exactly because it wasn't in my "want" list, as you say (you're the second who says that), but because these tools already came with CS5. It's because of the repetition of tools I'm complaining, not for anything else. Please, re-read what I have written:
    "I'm not judging the usefulness of these new tools, nor the improvements to the whole program. I think I was clear from the beginning of this post, as the title says, that CS6 isn't any revolutionary, but mostly, a rearrangement of the parts, which also involves the better performance of the whole program.
    Most of the "new features" from CS5 were also in CS4 (or they've been improved/optimized)... I would accept the "cars analogy" if we were comparing Photoshop 1 with CS6, but it seems we have quite different views about what's something new and what's something apparently new".
    Thanks for the link for suggestions, I already posted there long time ago.
    Noel Carboni:
    I test the beta while working on my own photographs and on clients photographs.
    1. So do I, Noel, but that's because the User Interface hasn't changed so much and not because of new tools (that you can chose to use or not).
    2. I do as well. I process around 1000 images per month in my work, and speeding up the workfow is my main priority.
    3. Yes, I have noticed the auto-save recovery the first time Photoshop CS6 crashed, which was yesterday.
    The main point is that you should discern how relevant are the changes, not if you feel nice with Photoshop CS6, or if you're a fan of Adobe. If we're doing an analisys about something, we have to be logical.
    c.pfaffenbichler
    I agree with you on that one, but the content aware does a very nice job in certain things. Of course, a high-end editing requires more manual job than just automated stuff, but it's a nice addtion for low-end editing or simplier things. For example, I do landscape photography and weddings, and for removing electricity poles from a landscape, or probably, a bush that ruined the composition, or maybe you need a rock a bit more to the left; the content aware comes pretty handy for that. It's something that you can do manually, not doubts about that because I use to do it that way when content aware doesn't match the textures and lines very well, but for simpler things (like patterned/random stuff backgrounds) it works very nice, also for removing hotspots in a cloudy sky works realy good. The same the content aware scaling if you want to change the aspect ratio of the image from let say, 3:2 to 16:9 without cropping down the image (or distorting its prpportions), you can achieve flawless results. However, these tools where already done in CS4 with, of course, much less performance.
    klsteven
    I would also love that feature become real time because, for every type of detailed work, you need to have feedback about how looks the image in its full extent while working in the details. I have emailed few ideas to Adobe long time ago, but just a couple of times because they have their own criteria of what should be done for the next versions, even if this idea is great for detailed work, I think it's not very well known by most users, so they just don't ask for it.
    I wonder, for example, how a filter such as Render/Lens Flare still working the same than in Photoshop 5.5 (not CS). It's not a filter I use, in fact, I don't use most of the filters, but there are many filters that have not been updated at all. I think we would agree that's just a marketing strategy. Probably, in PSCS8 we will see that the render/Lens Flare will work on a transparent layer instead of having to create a 50% gray layer set to overlay in order to avoid placing the lens flare on a layer with actived pixels and I will came here saying that CS8 wasn't any revolutionary I hope not, honestly.
    Of course, if we compare CS3 with CS6 we can see stunning changes, but from an objective point of view, from CS4 to CS6 there are not new things, mostly improvements. It's a fact that everybody can probe thorugh an objective analisys. Which is the point of this topic.
    س

Maybe you are looking for