Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: View Print Size Now Missing In Photoshop CS6?  (Read 18784 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2012, 09:22:31 PM »
ReplyReply

If you can't see the other side of the argument, that's your own limitation.

Oh I see it...but let me explain real carefully...it's gone. Whether or not something comes back depends on whether the engineers can come up with an implementation that works and doesn't cause a tech support problem (which was the main reason for its removal).
Logged
Rob Reiter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2012, 09:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Oh I see it...but let me explain real carefully...it's gone.

You know, Schewe, no one, least of all me, doubts your expertise and the contributions you make to the photographic community-I'm a happy purchaser of your books-but sometimes your attitude of superiority is just embarrassing. Yes, I know it's gone. It was taken out despite it's usefulness to some of us and we gave our feedback to Adobe on the subject. As someone who has funneled thousands of hard-earned dollars to them, I think I'm entitled to make the occasional enquiry or request. If it's a tech support problem, it's probably because Adobe doesn't bother to include a manual with their expensive programs. It's certainly an easy thing to explain to users who are confused about how to set it up.
Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2012, 10:28:07 PM »
ReplyReply

...but sometimes your attitude of superiority is just embarrassing.

To whom? You? Me? (gotta clue you in, I really don't get embarrassed by anything–you should know that).

Quote
It's certainly an easy thing to explain to users who are confused about how to set it up.

Apparently Adobe Tech Support doesn't agree with you...nor did Bruce Fraser when the feature was first implemented. The vast majority of users had no clue how to correctly enter the display resolution accurately and thus the vast majority of users thought it was showing them something it wasn't.

I would call that a poor feature...and truth be told I'm not convinced you really understood the feature and what it was showing you vs what you thought it was showing you. So, exactly what resolution is your display running? And how did you calculate it? Did the resolution work for all displays or only the main display with the menu bar?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2012, 11:06:44 PM »
ReplyReply

There are gazillion features in Photoshop that are gazillion squared times more complicated to understand and use than Print Size. And that's the one Customer Support chose to complain about and eliminate?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2012, 11:16:22 PM »
ReplyReply

There are gazillion features in Photoshop that are gazillion squared times more complicated to understand and use than Print Size. And that's the one Customer Support chose to complain about and eliminate?

Yep...go figure.

Look, I have a slight advantage over 99% of the Photoshop user base...I saw the debate and arguments "for and against" on the CS6/7 beta forums. The fact that I agreed with the Photoshop engineer that explained why the feature sucked is beside the point. I encouraged that engineer to keep looking for a way to implement a more useful View Print Size feature–one that didn't require diving down into an obscure and mislabeled preference to correctly set up. BTW, that engineer also argued for (and was successful) in removing the No Color Management from the Print dlog (also something I agreed with).
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2012, 06:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't help pointing out that there is one pretty accurate way to see an image at actual print size:  Print it to your printer.   Wink

Actually, Soft Proofing has limitations that some folks find difficult to understand, and the difficulties in setting up (and interpreting) View Print Size seem to me to be somewhat analogous. But I can certainly survive without it.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1987


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2012, 07:14:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't help pointing out that there is one pretty accurate way to see an image at actual print size:  Print it to your printer.   Wink
Hardly a cheap or convenient solution is it ?
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2012, 10:03:01 AM »
ReplyReply

... Actually, Soft Proofing has limitations that some folks find difficult to understand...

Great example!

I am now going to badger Adobe Tech Support with phone calls about how confusing it is, hoping they fill finally eliminate it from both PS and LR. Features like that just poison innocent minds. Actually, might cause a few heads to explode.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 10:04:35 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9221



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2012, 11:46:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's a great example. For one, all the user has to do is pick the correct profile and of course the command to invoke a soft proof. The user who wishes to use the clone tool is also expected to be educated enough to pick the right tool on the toolbar.

With Print Size, the user has to first know how to properly measure and end up with the correct resolution to add in another area of the app that has no obvious link (preferences), then, the big question: What does the end user expect the Print Size to provide? Few here have answered that question. Jeff has pointed out something factual that unless the planets align just right, the interpolation algorithm used to show you the preview is wrong. You can't determine sharpness for one. Hopefully that's obvious to most here. So what does it show you that is supposed to be 'useful'? The relationship of various elements? Possibly if your document is small enough to see the entire 'page' or image on your tiny screen. If not, just how useful is the feature?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2012, 12:03:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?

Who lays out books in Photoshop?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2012, 12:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Highlights mine:

... Both Photoshop AND Lightroom's gamut warnings are not accurate! All you have to do is take an sRGB image into LR, load sRGB and ask to see a gamut overlay. There should be none. But there is some overlay depending on the image. Adobe knows about this tiny disconnect and I don't think they'll do anything to fix it (cause the gamut overlay is kind of worthless anyway). Well it is kind of useful to see what OOG colors are in the image that fall outside display gamut. At least you get some idea on your sRGB display what you're not seeing!...

Just how useful is that feature?

As for your other points, several of us posted how we find the Print Size feature useful, none of which included judging sharpness, yet you keep repeating that straw-man argument. It is certainly not an earth-shattering feature of PS, but it can come handy. It was there for as long as I remember Photoshop, thus not something that a "few weirdos" are asking to be added.

Anyone "educated enough" to use Photoshop, is certainly educated enough to figure out their screen PPI. If not, head over to Google, type "screen ppi" in the search field, and the second top result would be "List of displays by pixel density." Find your model and voilà! Remember, that needs to be entered only once, into Photoshop Preferences. That those preferences are now considered by some as "obscure" is... well, a surprise, to say the least.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9221



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2012, 12:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

As for your other points, several of us posted how we find the Print Size feature useful, none of which included judging sharpness, yet you keep repeating that straw-man argument.

It isn't straw man, it's not useful for sharpening. And I asked about the other functionality and as yet, I'm hearing about 'viewing at print size on a display" which sounds like people must be either printing really low rez images or printing tiny images. Other than viewing the entire image on screen fully at a low rez, explain the other expected and desired functionality.

Quote
Anyone "educated enough" to use Photoshop, is certainly educated enough to figure out their screen PPI. If not, head over to Google, type "screen ppi" in the search field, and the second top result would be "List of displays by pixel density." Find your model and voilà! Remember, that needs to be entered only once, into Photoshop Preferences. That those preferences are now considered by some as "obscure" is... well, a surprise, to say the least.

There's a tad more to it than just that. They have to know they have to figure out the right values and that means they have to measure their display(s) but even so, once done, we end up with just what useful behavior?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1987


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2012, 12:43:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With Print Size, the user has to first know how to properly measure and end up with the correct resolution to add in another area of the app that has no obvious link (preferences),
There are many features in Photoshop that aren't easy to set up, colour management for one, but that in itself is no reason to drop them. The smart thing is to improve them, as previously mentioned it's not impossible to implement well.
Possibly if your document is small enough to see the entire 'page' or image on your tiny screen. If not, just how useful is the feature?
27" screens are increasingly common on desktops and they'll show the biggest page Blurb offer for their books. Even old non-widescreen 19" screens will show a full A4 page.

Just why are you so defensive about Adobe removing features anyway ?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1987


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2012, 12:45:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Who lays out books in Photoshop?
Who said anything about laying out books ?
Just remember that Adobe's solution to their woefully poor book module in Lightroom 4 is to make full page JPGs to drop in to make up for missing features.
Logged
Rob Reiter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2012, 01:16:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What does the end user expect the Print Size to provide?

Just this morning a client sent a low resolution file to me and wanted to know if it would go to 11x14. I was pretty sure it wouldn't, but by looking at it at different sizes, with and without resampling, I felt confident telling him a 5x7 would be acceptably sharp. When I made the print, it looked about the way it did on the monitor using View Print Size. That's all I use it for, but I use it a lot and having it removed just makes my work more cumbersome. I don't use it to gauge sharpening amounts or expect it to be perfect.

If a feature, however flawed, works for me within its limitations, it's annoying to have it removed just because it's not perfect.

To say it was removed because of frustrations within Adobe Tech Support for having to explain it to people doesn't elicit much sympathy. That's what tech support if for, especially with what is arguably one of the most complex and expensive programs the general user will ever buy, that no longer comes with any official printed manual or even an option to buy one at additional cost.
Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9221



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2012, 01:18:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Just this morning a client sent a low resolution file to me and wanted to know if it would go to 11x14. I was pretty sure it wouldn't, but by looking at it at different sizes, with and without resampling, I felt confident telling him a 5x7 would be acceptably sharp.

IOW, you guessed. Which is OK but then just getting the resolution of the actual document would have made so much more sense no?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2012, 01:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Who said anything about laying out books ?

You did–didn't you write this?

Quote
Just imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?

Sorry if you didn't mention book layouts...sure looks like you did.

Quote
Just remember that Adobe's solution to their woefully poor book module in Lightroom 4 is to make full page JPGs to drop in to make up for missing features.

And, this has what to do with Photoshop?
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2012, 01:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Now... for some users its obviously a helpful feature. It is therefore not appropriate to question its usefullness.
Since OpenCL is built into Photoshop you can use arbitrary zoom sizes and the interpolation is at least okay. For my display "print size" for a 300ppi print would be 31,33% ... which looks aweful. But 32% looks pretty good.
Anyway ...

The "print size" feature has been removed in version 13.0.2. This update provides support vor HiDPI displays and Adobe has encountered issues with "print size" when used in conjunction with retina displays: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/missing_print_size_button_after_cs_6_13_0_2_upgrade?utm_content=topic_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification

Adobe provides a workaround through a script: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-print-size-button-zoom.html
But all it does is to calculate the required zoom size at a given DPI of the image. You still have to type in the zoom size manually... which is really annoying.



Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2012, 02:07:12 PM »
ReplyReply

... The "print size" feature has been removed in version 13.0.2...

Can one revert to the previous dot version?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2012, 02:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

... Adobe has encountered issues with "print size" when used in conjunction with retina displays...

So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad