Best place to store business critical documents? Try Outlook deleted items!
-
@ASheridan2 said:
This feature would make Gimp a Photoshop killer, but I understand that implementing this isn't easy.
Blend modes are per-pixel modifications based on a merged view of the pixel below. Adjustments are exactly the same. I don't think it's a difficult/complex problem, even if it may be a lot of work.
@ASheridan2 said:
That said, Photoshop makes so many other things unnecessarily difficult or awkward
Do tell! Perhaps group knowledge can alleviate your pain.
-
@dhromed said:
Do tell! Perhaps group knowledge can alleviate your pain.
Unlikely, but I'm bored so I'll bite!Firstly, I don't know how it calculates font sizes, but what it calls a point is not the same as what any other application does. If you have an image with a DPI to match the screen (i.e. it's for screen and not print) then a font at 14pt size should be close to 14pt font in other software. It ends up being closer to 14px. A minor niggle, but one that just makes for a more trial and error guesswork when turning a design into CSS.
At random points the interface locks up and anything I do won't actually have a visual difference on the screen. I think this is isolated only to 64-bit Photoshop though, as I've not encountered it since using the 32-bit one.
Image dimensions are hidden in a menu option, would be really handy to have them in the toolbar or titlebar somewhere. I know that Photoshop is aimed primarily at print work, but they added web-based image features, so this would be nice to have too
The filesize of images is always huge. Saving out a .png creates an image that's much bigger than Gimp does from the same source, and same goes for .jpg too. I could understand it of the .jpg format, the format allows for different compression algorithms to be chosen and they probably erred for one that gave quality over compression, but the .png being so frickin huge doesn't make much sense.
Copying a layer that contains some sort of transparency into another program gives random results. Sometimes the transparency carries across, other times it it given a white background. This means I end up having to save that out to a temp image somewhere to use later more often than not.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Firstly, I don't know how it calculates font sizes, but what it calls a point is not the same as what any other application does.
It uses the dpi metadata of the image. Standard it uses 72dpi. At 72 dpi, Photoshop decrees 1px = 1 dot.
CSS uses whatever the browser uses, which on Windows is 96dpi, so yeah, 14pt in CSS is much bigger than in Photoshop.
If you set the image's dpi to 96, you'll fix that.
But easier is to never use pt in CSS because stop doing that.
@ASheridan2 said:
Image dimensions are hidden in a menu option, would be really handy to have them in the toolbar
That'll be tricky, because Photoshop doesn't have a toolbar.
If you mean the display of dimensions, check out the little arrow at the bottom of each document > Show > Document Dimensions.
Also don't forget you set your units to pixels in Preferences and the Info palette (F8).
@ASheridan2 said:
or titlebar somewhere
Un until they fucked the UI with CS4 or 5, you could right-click an image's titlebar.
@ASheridan2 said:
The filesize of images is always huge.
Not in my experience. Photoshop's jpeg-100 is near-lossless, so it's guaranteed to be big. 90 or 80 is perceptually transparent and will likely cut your size down in half. 60 and 70 quality starts taking a hit without really impacting file size all that much.
PNGs of little graphics I export with Save For Web are often less than 1KB.
@ASheridan2 said:
Saving out a .png creates an image that's much bigger than Gimp does from the same source
Can you provide an example file? I've always been very happy with my sub-kilobyte 24-bit png graphics.
@ASheridan2 said:
I could understand it of the .jpg format, the format allows for different compression algorithms to be chosen
Not really, but it also doesn't specify a quality scale that programs have to adhere to, so vendors just invent a random scale for themselves. You have Photoshops simple Low/Medium/High, and 1-12; Save For Web's 0-100; Paint Shop Pro's 0-100 where 0 is much more fucked up than PS's 0, etc etc.
-
@dhromed said:
Not really, but it also doesn't specify a quality scale that programs have to adhere to, so vendors just invent a random scale for themselves. You have Photoshops simple Low/Medium/High, and 1-12; Save For Web's 0-100; Paint Shop Pro's 0-100 where 0 is much more fucked up than PS's 0, etc etc.
Actually, Photoshop is the weird one here - it's Save for web feature presents a 0-100 scale, but in the background it affects more than just compression (it changes chroma subsampling depending on compression; in PSP, GIMP and IrfanView the slider only affects compression, while subsampling is controlled separately, which is very useful with certain types of images).
-
@ender said:
it's Save for web feature presents a 0-100 scale, but in the background it affects more than just compression (it changes chroma subsampling depending on compression;
True. It would be cool if one could control that.
@ender said:
while subsampling is controlled separately
Ahhh, I remember this change from PSP 6 -> 7, I think, with a chroma slider, but that was wayyy back and I had no idea what it did.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
@Soviut said:
but really, don't these people read?
No, they're the same people who print out that really long footer you seem to find on so many business emails that says "save the trees and don't print what you don't need", except that footer now means that quite a bit more paper is wasted."Please consider the environment before printing this" is much more entertaining. I always do.
-
@Jack Handy said:
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I ruined my 666 post count to post this.
Was it worth it?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@joe.edwards said:
I ruined my 666 post count to post this.
Was it worth it?I say it's not.
-
@dhromed said:
If I want to do serious file managing, I use Total Commander.
Just taking a minute to say thanks. I'd never heard of Total Commander until that comment, but it came in very handy just now; I think I'll be using it more often in the future. Having said that, the default font the guy uses is really annoying (but can be changed easily, on the plus side!).
-
super features that aren't immediately obvious from the UI:
- file compare & editing
- directory compare & syncing
- file cutting and joining
- copying entire path or just filename of a set of files
- bookmarked folders
- trees in both panes
- FTP built in
- ZIP built in
- flatten a directory tree to show only files (Ctrl+B)
