Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 Release-Installation Nightmare!  (Read 40751 times)
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #120 on: May 11, 2007, 09:31:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Seamus. I'm glad one visual artist had the ability to "see" and speak the truth.

As much as I enjoyed Schewe's Hallmark rendition of his Adobe-family experience, all I know is Adobe has my money and Michael Jordan was notorious for NOT tipping the service personnel who waited on his every need. For me, there's something repulsive about a gifted, wealthy man who behaves so cheaply and so greedily.

To simplify everything (which is my preferred workflow), I guess nothing is perfect. I certainly don't want to go back to dirty-lab/darkroom days and retouching middlemen. Having total control of my art, from capture to print, justifies the painful learning curve (for me). At least the left side of my brain is getting a stronger workout. I worry that it will eventually beat the shit out of my right side and then I'll have to dress like a nerd and be rude (or morph into a Schewe look-a-like).

I don't "beta" or "test" anything and I wait one year from official launch dates before I upgrade. So, in my world, Adobe rocks!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 11:05:22 AM by mistybreeze » Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 841


« Reply #121 on: May 11, 2007, 11:21:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Absolutely! I refuse to be intimidated by such issues. Computers always have mystifying issues due to their complexity. One has to preserve one's sanity and just roll with the issues or work around them.

I got a free first issue of Lightroom because I was a registered user of RSP which Adobe took over, but I don't need it and don't use it.

I downloaded the beta version of CS3 because I was interested in the new stitching capabilities of Photomerge. It's a big improvement over CS2, but I don't need it. Autopano Pro is better.

I still use RSP when I want to give a RAW conversion a certain 'punch' and vibrancy. I know ACR in CS3 now boasts a 'vibrancy' slider, but it's quite tame compared with RSP.

I think we may be suffering from a surfeit of goodies here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 841


« Reply #122 on: May 12, 2007, 07:15:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,
The point I'm trying to make, probably badly, is that photography is our first love, and technology comes a poor second. Having emerged from the traditional darkroom after many years into the blinding light, I wouldn't be without Photoshop  etc for any money and look forward to each upgrade with great anticipation.  It's a wonderful tool enabling us to do things we could never achieve with chemicals. My only complaint is that when a product is shipped, it should be so thoroughly tested, reliable and bug-free that we shouldn't need to go poking into its inards trying to use programming and other high-tech skills that most photographers do not possess nor have any wish to do so.

When, for instance, Bridge inexplicably crashes, I have neither the time , the patience nor the knowledge to find out why - yet I have no choice. What follows is a complete waste of time devoted in a hit and miss fashion trying to solve the problem - time spend on the web looking for people with similar problems who may have an answer, time we all could use working more productively on making good prints  and enjoying our hobby, or more seriously, serving our clients. It's fine for photographers with a deep knowledge of the technology involved, but I suspect the vast majority of us have only a rudimentary awareness of how complex applications actually work. That's why we have to rely on forums like this where, in fairness, a vast amount of information is presented - but it takes time to unearth and implement it.

My experience is that since 'going digital' a few years ago, I find myself spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to solve purely technical problems than I do working on pictures. And please, don't anybody reply asking why I don't  shut up and buzz off back into the darkroom where I came from. We have reached the point of no return - it ain't an option.

Now that I have that off my chest, I have to to back to Lightroom and find why it suddenly can't find the database it's being using ever since the day I installed it. More wasted time, more high blood pressure and more scouring the web looking for clues. Nobody ever said it would be easy, but nobody ever said it would be such a pain in the ass either!

Regards to all,
Seamus Finn
Logged

mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #123 on: May 12, 2007, 09:46:14 AM »
ReplyReply

You certainly don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car and, if you've just purchased a new one, let's hope it's years before you need to hire Midas. Many car owners do take the time to figure out what's going on under their hoods and often save hundreds of dollars when maintenance is needed. I'm not one of them.

Upgrades are about money and it's important for companies who "develop" to keep their bank accounts flush. Adobe hasn't much competition but they haven't lost their focus on growth, either. We Photoshop users/lovers are at their mercy.

Beta versions are for feedback. A necessary final step because no software company can think of everything. If you're not tech savvy, you should avoid anything beta or Version 1. One must accept the nature of this beast and temper your need to be first in line. For me, there are easier and more fun areas of my life where I can be au courant.

Yes, it's expensive, but I keep a Mac/Photoshop techie handy. I have limited desire to learn, teach, or write about tech. My sex life suffers enough from the joys of shooting. (Don't touch that!) My heart goes out to Photoshop users in the hinterlands.

Thank goodness for the internet and forums like these. Most of us are in the same digital boat, trying to do it all because now it's possible. I sincerely appreciate the smarter folks who feel our collective pain and are willing to share their brilliance in an effort to help. A big kiss to Jeff Schewe et al.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #124 on: May 13, 2007, 03:26:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Referring to the discussion of print centering in the above, I received a private email from a Forum member using WINXP and an Epson 9800 telling me that the fix of selecting "Maximum" in the Paper tab of the Epson driver did not work satisfactorily, because when printed this way in CS3 the image came out looking "cropped" or "enlarged" by about an eighth of an inch. I assume the print size was large but he did not specify.

Therefore I considered it necessary to verify whether the fix that emerged from the work Jeff and I did - mine reported in post 81 - had this side effect on my set-up, WINXP with an Epson 4800. I snapped a shot of my bookshelves, so I could see very closely from the subject matter whether there would be any difference of material printed, and I ran two letter-size prints (coverage of 9 inches by 5.988 inches from a Canon 1Ds file at native resolution redimensioned but not resampled) as follows:

[a] print from CS3 with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Maximum and
print from CS2 in the usual way with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Standard.

I am pleased to observe that both prints are centered, identical with each other and identical with the image shown in Photoshop on the monitor.

It does appear to be the case however that the fix in Post 81 may not work uniformly well with every version of the Epson driver within the pre-3800 X800 series printers.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 13, 2007, 09:59:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I have now given-up printing with Photoshop CS3, because I cannot automate the Print Module given the consummate foolishness of its changed operational features from CS2, in regard to Printer Default behaviour and print centering.

In CS2 I have an Action which resizes the image to 360 PPI, applies PK Inkjet Output Sharpener at 360 PPI, commands Print using the Epson Driver settings that I made my default and spools the file to the printer; thereupon, the Epson Preview comes up (my default for a final check, but this can be by-passed) and I click print. This whole sequence takes about 7~9 seconds for a file in the range of 90~150 MB. The default paper orientation is Portrait. As long as I am printing in Portrait mode I can let this Action run without interruption. If I know I am next printing a Landscape, I place a stop-point in the Action beside the Print command before launching the Action, which allows me to change the paper orientation to Landscape in the Epson driver. This works reliably with a few quick short-cuts and always centers the print.

Well, I tried re-creating this Action to work with CS3. Complete disaster and no workaround.

Whether or not the Epson is selected as the default printer, unless Maximum is selected in the  Paper tab of the Epson driver by getting to it through the Page Set-Up of the Photoshop Print Dialogue, the print will not be centered; however the stop-point in the Action beside Print in CS3 does not pull-up the Photoshop Print Dialogue allowing one to do this; rather, it bypasses that dialogue and pulls up the Windows Print Dialogue for the Default printer. This allows one to enter the driver preferences and select Maximum in the Paper Tab, but selecting Maximum that way will NOT center the print. As well, Maximum paper coverage in the Epson driver does not appear to be a reliably sticky setting. It can revert to Standard after printing even if one created the Epson driver default setting for paper coverage to be on Maximum, especially if one makes a change of orientation between Portrait and Landscape. Therefore with a perfectly straightforward print Action of the kind I created, one can never be guaranteed a centered print with an Epson 4800 in Windows XP using Adobe Photoshop CS3.  

I shall continue using CS2 for printing, where everything works so smoothly and sensibly I can almost print with my eyes shut. If one bright day I wake up to see that Adobe has cleaned-up its kaka in the Print module, I'll print in CS3. Adobe can clean it up by: (1) reverting to an application-based printer default behaviour so the printer selection once chosen stays the same until the application is shut (this only makes sense for the more usual situation in which one would be printing file after file from the same application to the same printer) and (2) cleaning-up the mess with centering prints for Epson drivers on Windows operating systems. I have serious trouble believing Adobe software engineers cant find a way to do it, regardless of whatever operating system changes occurred between Windows and Vista. They have the brains - all they need is the time, effort and perhaps some collaboration with Microsoft.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 13, 2007, 10:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I shall continue using CS2 for printing, where everything works so smoothly and sensibly I can almost print with my eyes shut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which is why I use Lightroom...while I can't print with my eyes shut, it's a lot easier and less prone to user error.

Quote
given the consummate foolishness

Jeeeesh bud, I gave you the reasons sent by the engineer in charge...sure seemed like a well reasoned and thoughtful result of OS system requirements, no "foolishness" involved that I can see.

You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but it's pretty darn impossible to please all the people all of the time.

:~)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #127 on: May 13, 2007, 11:10:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which is why I use Lightroom...while I can't print with my eyes shut, it's a lot easier and less prone to user error.
Jeeeesh bud, I gave you the reasons sent by the engineer in charge...sure seemed like a well reasoned and thoughtful result of OS system requirements, no "foolishness" involved that I can see.

You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but it's pretty darn impossible to please all the people all of the time.

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, I'd print from Lightroom if it were possible to softproof from Lightroom. It's just extra steps doing the final work-ups in CS3, then sending the files back to Lightroom for printing. Opening them from Bridge to CS2 for printing really doesn't cause any errors and works well. But I may try it in Lightroom anyhow. Thanks for the suggestion.

I read what the engineer told you and I don't dispute he has a point - for now. But I also think they can move beyond that. Those guys are good and they're dedicated, etc, but managerial judgment and the fact that time is money on both the expenditure and income side of the ledger probably plays a role in outcomes as well.

To me, something is foolish if it worked well before and got wrecked in the process of trying to make it "better". It's not a matter of how many people get pleased or not pleased. Some things make obvious good sense and others just don't. This stuff doesn't and I think it's time to simply recognize it. I didn't hear complaints about how CS2 handled printing, but there's a fair bit about issues with CS3, and it's not just people resisting change or being too lazy to find workarounds. Speaking for myself, I've spent much more time experimenting with this stuff than should have been necessary, expecting if I could get it working well in CS3 I'd be just as happy to delete CS2; however after all is said and done I'm still reverting to non-CS3 printing solutions. This is the first time I've experienced such screw-ups since up-grading from Elements to 6, from 6 to 7 from 7 to CS and from CS to CS2.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #128 on: May 13, 2007, 11:37:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is the first time I've experienced such screw-ups since up-grading from Elements to 6, from 6 to 7 from 7 to CS and from CS to CS2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.

As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.

But NONE of this legitimately comes under the heading of Adobe being engaged in "consummate foolishness".

As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.

Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.

This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 14, 2007, 03:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.
*grumble*

Quote
As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.
Yes, that's been a bunch of fun. I've saved my PSDs to a network drive and printed them from my Windows PC with CS2 as a matter of course.

Quote
As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.

Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.

This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
Thanks for that tip, this may actually solve my woes.
Logged

Jan
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 14, 2007, 07:45:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.

As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.

But NONE of this legitimately comes under the heading of Adobe being engaged in "consummate foolishness".

As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.

Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.

This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, fine - there have been serious issues of software compatibility between Apple and Adobe; however, regardless of whether we're talking Apple or Microsoft I'm not interested in the lowest common denominator of operational systems' integrity as a benchmark for perceiving and correcting the issues now at hand. Consumers are not well-served by the lack of adequate co-ordination and programming to provide for maintaining pre-existing core functionalities from one version of software to the next as the developers make "progress". Centering prints seemlessly is a core functionality. As I mentioned above, I'm not disputing Dave's advice that Vista has caused them a problem. I would just like to believe they have the smarts, given the will, time and effort, to get it resolved in a more satisfactory way.

Thanks for taking the trouble to lay out the workflow for using Lightroom as a substitute print module. As I read it over, though, I'm strongly tempted to believe that using my Action in CS2 which involves pressing F3 and then about 8 seconds later pressing PRINT is much less labour-intensive. However, I shall retain your suggestion on-hand in case of need.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 14, 2007, 10:41:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Consumers are not well-served by the lack of adequate co-ordination and programming to provide for maintaining pre-existing core functionalities from one version of software to the next as the developers make "progress". Centering prints seemlessly is a core functionality.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do?

Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?

You folks seem hellbent on blaming everything on big, bad Adobe when in fact, not only do you have to share the blame accurately among all participants, it would actually be useful to place the blame directly on the correct party. Wonder why the newest Epson driver for the 3800 has-wait for it-equal margins all the way around?

Back in the early days, Epson NEEDED to have more gripper space at the bottom of the page. That requirement went away when they redeigned the grippers for being able to do borderless printing...but it seems nobody told the guys writting the driver that they no longer needed more page matin at the bottom. Now, with the 3800 driver, by default, centering the image in the Photoshop print driver does what? Centers the print....(you can thank me for pointing out that littel gem to Epson)

And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do.

Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?

:~)
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #132 on: May 14, 2007, 10:44:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
serious issues of software compatibility between Apple and Adobe
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ya see...that completely lets Epson off the hook...and that's wrong...the real conflict is between Apple/Epson and MSFT/Epson with Adobe caught in the middle trying to do the Right Thing
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 14, 2007, 11:01:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do?
Yes, apparently, coding two different behind-the-scenes behaviours is the right thing to do.

This is one of the fundamental headaches for those who wish to do cross-platform development; you may have to have different code for different platforms.

I know it sounds awful, but programmers have to live with it.

Oracle went to a pretty big step, and implemented their own virtualization layer (I'm pretty certain that's not the name they use, although they called it their "Oracle OS" rather jokingly) to help in this process.

Quote
Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?
Yes, the print driver is certainly one of the players here.

Quote
And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do.
It could have been configurable.

Quote
Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?

Logged

Jan
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 14, 2007, 12:27:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do?

Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?

You folks seem hellbent on blaming everything on big, bad Adobe when in fact, not only do you have to share the blame accurately among all participants, it would actually be useful to place the blame directly on the correct party. Wonder why the newest Epson driver for the 3800 has-wait for it-equal margins all the way around?

Back in the early days, Epson NEEDED to have more gripper space at the bottom of the page. That requirement went away when they redeigned the grippers for being able to do borderless printing...but it seems nobody told the guys writting the driver that they no longer needed more page matin at the bottom. Now, with the 3800 driver, by default, centering the image in the Photoshop print driver does what? Centers the print....(you can thank me for pointing out that littel gem to Epson)

And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do.

Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

(1) Yes - user-selectable options for the Print Module as a function of the user's operating system - that could well be a suitable approach under the circumstances.

(2) Discussing this whole thing in terms of "whose fault" is not going to progress the issue. Nor is an issue of being hell-bent on bashing Adobe. I've made it abundently clear that I have a huge amount of respect for Adobe and I'm not trying to personalize issues be it at the level of individuals or companies. When I say a behaviour is foolish I'm talking about the results - what the application does - not the people who created it. So let us get off that tangent once and for all.

(3) I've also mentioned before that I don't particularly care whether the behaviour is called a bug or an educated decision. Whatever it is, it is a problem and the problem should be solved.

(4) I agree there are at least three commercial parties involved in this: Adobe, Microsoft and Epson. The nodal point and the main point of contact with the user where it all comes together however is within Photoshop, so indeed yes you have a point - Adobe is the meat in the sandwich - and all the more reason why they need to put the extra effort into getting it resolved - as I mentioned above - collaboratively with others concerned as needed.

(5) Apart from all the stuff above which is largely about centering prints, the default printer business is another issue, and I just happen to think Adobe made an error of judgment on that one, with their change of philsophy from an application to a per document criterion, as you previously explained it. We can agree to disagree on that. True it is not difficult to change the default printer to the Epson every time I go to print, but I multi-task and use the other one as well, so each time I want to print something else while photos are printing, I would need to remember to select what is now the non-default printer. It's a PITA. The CS2 way, once the Epson is selected for printing it stays there as long as Photoshop is open, while the default printer is available for everything else without having to select anything, and without having to constantly remember to switcvh defaults back and forth. So in CS2 I had the best of both worlds with no effort. I liked that and I'm sorry to lose it in CS3.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 14, 2007, 12:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ya see...that completely lets Epson off the hook...and that's wrong...the real conflict is between Apple/Epson and MSFT/Epson with Adobe caught in the middle trying to do the Right Thing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've never questioned their commitment to try to do the right thing, but sometimes things can turn out to be not so right, and more often than not with the kind of ingenuity they have, such issues should be fixable. I agree with you that Epson is a party at the table, but that does not dismiss Adobe from going the extra mile to help insure that previous functionality somehow gets preserved. If the responsibility for fixing these things should be shared between three parties, so be it - just let them get it done, and I would argue that Adobe has a primary interest in coordinating it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #136 on: May 14, 2007, 02:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(4) I agree there are at least three commercial parties involved in this: Adobe, Microsoft and Epson. The nodal point and the main point of contact with the user where it all comes together however is within Photoshop, so indeed yes you have a point - Adobe is the meat in the sandwich - and all the more reason why they need to put the extra effort into getting it resolved - as I mentioned above - collaboratively with others concerned as needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, four...you forget (or don't care) that both Adobe and Epson have to deal with cross=platform issues which complicate the whole structure.

Look, I think (I know) Print With Preview _WAS_ an Adobe attempt at bypassing the issue and trying to solve the problem for users (in fact, I know it was cause I was involved with the first iteration of PWP working with Chris Cox because Chris was pissed at Epson/Apple/MSFT) and it blew up in their faces because they were arguably violating the OS APIs...Print with Preview is gone now-it's a combo dlog that is part Adobe and part OS/Print driver.

I'm pretty sure that Adobe caught flack for doing that in the past and in Vista, the printable margins are read only, set by the driver. An application can't bypass them. Which is also why, I think, Epson had to FIX the unequal page margin issue which they did for the 3800. So, let's all get on Epson's back to see if they will address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...

There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.

Quote
Discussing this whole thing in terms of "whose fault" is not going to progress the issue

See, that's where you are wrong...in order to bring about change, you need to know who is, at the root, responsible...blaming Adobe isn't useful and expecting Adobe to "fix" something that is neither their fault nor their responsibility is fruitless.

Ironically, Photoshop is now platform agnostic with regards to the print centering. So now finally, maybe you Win users will get off your butts and help us Mac users resolve the issue?

:~)

Yeah, well, maybe not huh?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 02:57:20 PM by Schewe » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 14, 2007, 04:22:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, four...you forget (or don't care) that both Adobe and Epson have to deal with cross=platform issues which complicate the whole structure.

Look, I think (I know) Print With Preview _WAS_ an Adobe attempt at bypassing the issue and trying to solve the problem for users (in fact, I know it was cause I was involved with the first iteration of PWP working with Chris Cox because Chris was pissed at Epson/Apple/MSFT) and it blew up in their faces because they were arguably violating the OS APIs...Print with Preview is gone now-it's a combo dlog that is part Adobe and part OS/Print driver.

I'm pretty sure that Adobe caught flack for doing that in the past and in Vista, the printable margins are read only, set by the driver. An application can't bypass them. Which is also why, I think, Epson had to FIX the unequal page margin issue which they did for the 3800. So, let's all get on Epson's back to see if they will address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...

There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.
See, that's where you are wrong...in order to bring about change, you need to know who is, at the root, responsible...blaming Adobe isn't useful and expecting Adobe to "fix" something that is neither their fault nor their responsibility is fruitless.

Ironically, Photoshop is now platform agnostic with regards to the print centering. So now finally, maybe you Win users will get off your butts and help us Mac users resolve the issue?

:~)

Yeah, well, maybe not huh?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do care, but I forgot - OK Apple Computer belongs to the party.

Jeff, please get it out of your head that I'm into some kind of blame game. If some of my wording misleads you into thinking that way, I regret it because that is not the intention. The intention is to identify problems and get them fixed.

I focus most on Adobe not because I have anything against Adobe - I don't - as I've said time and again, I have tremendous respect for them. They are a big part of my daily life. I spend many hours a day in Photoshop and marvel at it.

I focus on Adobe because Photoshop is our "point of entree" into the problem. Photoshop has a square radio-button in the Print dialogue that says "Center Image". So I check-mark it expecting a centered image (reasonable expectation - no?) and lo-and-behold out comes a mess. I try to create an elementary Photoshop Action to automate a workaround solution which I spent hours trying to develop and it fails.

So who do I turn to? Photoshop is the nodal point bringing together three elements needed to center a print: Photoshop itself, the o/s (be it OSX or WIN) and the Epson driver. If Photoshop has a button that pretends to center prints I would like to see that function evolve from pretence to reality. As I've said before, it may require more programming, it may well require cooperative work with Epson and Microsoft and Apple, but SOMEONE needs to take charge of doing this, and Adobe is the logical party to coordinate it for the reason I'm stating here. It's not a hostile suggestion, it's a suggestion to effectively do things to solve the problem. Epson, Microsoft and Apple will listen to them before they listen to me, because I'm one insignificant consumer in Toronto and they are a multi-billion dollar corpoation that helps put a good part of their bread on the table, and they need a solution to keep their customers satisfied. Yes, no harm writing all of them, but I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.

I do believe Adobe could have done more work on this before releasing CS3 - but that is their corporate judgment call, and they certainly could have provided documentation about the fact that this is new and could cause stated differences of performance relative to CS2, along with workarounds. They did neither, but that is now the proverbial water under bridge and we need to be forward-looking about solutions. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to explain the whys and wherefores of this problem, but we should not be satisfied to stop there.

I'm not the technical guru that you are in these matters, but as I said before I would like to believe that this issue is solvable in a much more satisfactory manner than has been achieved to this point in time. Looking forward.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 14, 2007, 04:45:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I focus on Adobe because Photoshop is our "point of entree" into the problem. Photoshop has a square radio-button in the Print dialogue that says "Center Image". So I check-mark it expecting a centered image (reasonable expectation - no?) and lo-and-behold out comes a mess.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah, it's YOUR definition of "Center Image" that is at fault...Photoshop is indeed centering the image in the printable area...which for the 4800, unless set to Maximum, IS off center. Photoshop CS2 hacked the margin settings, CS3 doesn't...for reason the print feature engineer mentioned...

If you _DO_ have 4 equal margins set by the printer, Photoshop DOES print in the center of the paper, not just the printable area. The 3800 comes to mind. Seems Epson got that right (just in time for Vista too, huh?)

Quote
I would like to believe that this issue is solvable in a much more satisfactory manner than has been achieved to this point in time. Looking forward.

Ain't gonna happen from the application...it'll have to happen from the OS/print driver...

Quote
Jeff, please get it out of your head that I'm into some kind of blame game.

I am...cause unless we can identify the guilty party, we can't get it fixed...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2007, 05:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah, it's YOUR definition of "Center Image" that is at fault...Photoshop is indeed centering the image in the printable area...which for the 4800, unless set to Maximum, IS off center. Photoshop CS2 hacked the margin settings, CS3 doesn't...for reason the print feature engineer mentioned...

If you _DO_ have 4 equal margins set by the printer, Photoshop DOES print in the center of the paper, not just the printable area. The 3800 comes to mind. Seems Epson got that right (just in time for Vista too, huh?)
Ain't gonna happen from the application...it'll have to happen from the OS/print driver...
I am...cause unless we can identify the guilty party, we can't get it fixed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, "MY" definition of "Center Image" is the usual results-based idea that most people would expect: A centered image is a printed rectilinear object that sits on a piece of paper such that it is equidistant from the left and right edges and from the top and bottom edges of said piece of paper. Let us not confuse the definition with the reason why it comes out centered with one combination of hardware, firmware and softrware but not the others.

OK, you a have a perception about where the problem will get solved. But first someone needs to be mobilized to get the right parties to do the needful, and I still believe Adobe is a natural for that role regardless of where the solutions will emerge from. It could well end-up being multi-pronged if anyone is willing to do anything in the first place. From that perspective we don't need to provide the analytics - umpteen engineers in those companies can do that; but we DO need to strongly urge them to FIX IT so that "Center Image" will be handy and workable not only for the minority using Epson 3800s on Vista, but by now the far larger numbers using WINXP and all the other X800 professional printers.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad