PDA

View Full Version : Pros and Cons of P.S. 7


john opitz
04-17-2002, 07:28 AM
The following is from Dan Margulis. Mr. Margulis is a beta tester for Adobe and author of Professional Photoshop 6.
Posted with his permission.

Folks,

As Photoshop 7 shipped yesterday (15 April) I will now amplify my earlier
comments about workflow issues with the release.

Photoshop 7 has pros and cons. Depending on how each one of them affects
you, you will have to decide whether the upgrade makes sense. For myself,
the minuses far outweigh the pluses, so I will be sticking with Photoshop
6. However, depending on your workflow, it may be logical for you to make a
different decision.

Naturally, the pluses have gotten all the coverage and nobody is aware yet
of the dark side. Therefore, I'll concentrate on that. But I'll lay out
what I consider to be the five top items on each side.

Dan Margulis

PROS:

1) It runs natively in OSX and Win XP.

2) Adds a huge array of brushmaking and painting features, to the point
that it becomes a rival to Painter. This is a really big deal if you happen
to do this kind of work. If anything, the power of this has been
underrated, but it's not for everybody, either.

3) Liquify tool much better; a Pattern Maker added that can easily create
an entire file based on a single selected object. A nice special effect.

4) A File Browser that lets us point at a given folder and it gives us what
amounts to a contact sheet of what's in it. The thumbnails it shows are not
large enough to evaluate image quality but they're plenty large enough to
find a specific image if you don't know what its name is.

5) A Healing Brush, and a companion Patch tool, that try to do intelligent
correction of damaged areas of an image. The Healing Brush operates
similarly to the clone tool: you click an unaffected area first and then
paint over the damage. With the Patch tool you drag a selection on top of
the damaged area. Either way, Photoshop analyzes the situation and tries to
figure out how to repair the damage based on the patterns it sees in the
undamaged area, rather than blindly cloning. It ain't perfect but it's a
nice improvement.


CONS:

1) Unlike previous versions, if we open a file that contains an embedded
profile in any way other than by honoring that profile, Photoshop 7
considers that it is a change to the file *even if we immediately close the
file without any other change.* Thus, it will generate a Save Changes?
dialog that we must respond to.

The ramifications of this are quite serious if you happen to accept many
files from strangers who embed a profile you don't wish to use (like,
anybody who hasn't changed the Photoshop defaults). You can't open a large
number of these files simultaneously just for a looksee without having to
respond to a warning upon closing each one. For an operation as large as a
service bureau, it's unworkable. Salesmen and CSRs are always opening
client files to see what they contain, and they'll be prompted to save
nonexistent changes, default answer being Yes. Similarly, any large CMYK
operation that accepts profiled files from clients is in trouble.

It sounds like this wouldn't affect a studio photographer who only is
working on his own files, but wait, it gets better.

2) Unlike previous versions, Photoshop 7 reads EXIF data. The English
translation of this is that some digital captures have no embedded profile
for the purposes of Photoshop 6, but they do for Photoshop 7. This was
pointed out late in the beta process so nobody really has a good handle on
it yet, but all the cameras that are known at this point to do this state
that the profile is sRGB. Unfortunately, none of them actually behave as
sRGB devices. At least two Nikon and two Canon models have been identified
as behaving this way, including the Nikon 950 that I own. They say sRGB for
Photoshop 7; in fact they are more like Apple RGB or ColorMatch RGB.

This means that, in order to even open the files without getting an alert
every time, you have to turn profile mismatch off in color settings, which
one would prefer not to do. But at least it's workable. The problem is,
however, how this operates in conjunction with problem #1 above.

If you have such a camera, you are in the same position as the service
bureau--although you have generated the file yourself, it has an incorrect
embedded profile. Therefore, you either have to open in sRGB and deal with
a photograph that's darker and flatter than it should be, or open it in a
correct way and have Photoshop 7 treat the very act of opening it as a
change.

In other words, if you are used to opening a whole batch of images from a
given shoot at the same time just to examine them quickly without changes,
you can't do this in Photoshop 7. Every image will give you a Save Changes?
prompt. You can't even quit the program to close the files.

3) As most of us know, layered files saved in PSD format are much more
economical if the "Maximize Compatibility" option in preferences is turned
off. Otherwise, every layered file saves, in addition to the layers, a
composite flattened version of the file. This unnecessarily bloats the file
size, often doubling it. The original need for this was when Photoshop 3
introduced layers in 1994, a Photoshop 2 user wouldn't be able to open a
layered file at all without the composite, but at least could see something
if the composite was there.

Since there are few Photoshop 2 users left, there's really no excuse for
this option to be checked, and it can be a big deal if it is. If you use,
say, three adjustment layers on one base layer, checking that option
doubles file size.

Unfortunately, Adobe has now decided that this is a needed option, because
InDesign and Illustrator don't read layered files without the composite,
although why anyone would want them to is unclear. Therefore, when first we
uncheck the preference, we get a new warning message saying that we
shouldn't do so. Assuming that we still persist and check this new warning
saying yes, we understand, but we still want to save without a composite,
the suffering is not over. In spite of our having declared twice that we
wish to do the sensible thing that 99% of all users should do, Photoshop 7
won't let us do it in peace. Instead, each and every time we save a new
layered file, it will warn us that we shouldn't be doing it, and require
that we respond. There is no way of turning this bogus warning off.

4) The TIFF format has been seriously degraded. Adobe owns it, so they can
do whatever they like with it, which is unfortunate because so many of us
depend on its stability to make a living.

Some years ago, the spec was amended to permit, among other things, layered
TIFFs or those saved with JPEG or ZIP compression. A layered TIFF, unlike a
layered PSD, *must* carry a composite version. Most but not all
applications can *place* a layered TIFF, but whether they can image it is
unknown. Layered TIFFs can be large. At the very least, they'll clog
networks and strain RIPs. As for JPEGged or ZIPped TIFFs, AFAIK only Adobe
products can even place them.

In Photoshop 6, users were given the opportunity to access these dubious
features but had to check off a preference to do so. By default only a
standard TIFF could be saved. A few people did decide they needed the
features but by and large the world said no, quite logically in my view.

Notwithstanding the clear lack of interest in the market, Adobe has decided
to make these changes *mandatory* in Photoshop 7, even if you are one of
the 99% of users who *never* want to save a TIFF with layers or with one of
these exotic compressions. They'll be in your face every time you save.
And, naturally, thousands of less sophisticated users, who don't know the
difference between JPEG and JPEGged TIFF, will be saving them by mistake,
let alone saving enormous files because they don't understand why smaller
TIFFs are a good idea or don't notice the tiny box in the save dialog box
that "alerts" them that they're saving layers.

5) In certain versions of Photoshop 7, notably OSX, the Custom CMYK dialog
now defaults to 400% total ink, unusable for any printing conditions. As I
haven't been using OSX and the issue is not present in 9.2, I can't give
further details.

Greg Vander Houwen
04-17-2002, 09:08 AM
Thanks John,

Interesting info. Many of Dan's issues aren't things I deal with much but it is good to see what he has to say on it.

Greg

Ammar Midani
04-17-2002, 09:12 AM
actually i like the idea of viewing the pros and cons. good point.

Greg Vander Houwen
04-17-2002, 10:53 AM
Yes, I am looking forward to hearing people's opinions after the release has been on their desks for a while. A software release, early on, has only a few voices and they are the voices that have had access. Adobe has an strong interest in a positive response to a new release and they put their weight behind it. In their position I would do the same. But the result is that a user is left to make the upgrade call based on a sliver of opinions and what they can glean from the descriptions of the feature set.

I like 7.0, but I am one guy using it for my specific workflow. So you can value my take on it with more weight if you have a similar workflow to mine. But many don't work like me, so for them my take on it is of questionable value. That is why other voices, using it in different ways, and then offering their opinions, is so important.

I can't speak well to Dan's comments. He and I are focused on different things. But I am always interested in other points of view. In composite, they help me to widen mine.

In the end, I think it is important not to take anybody's opinion too seriously. I've hung out with a lot of the top "players" and have great respect for them but I can tell you that they don't agree on a lot of things. They are independent users with different needs and goals. When you talk to them it shows. They are advocates of their workflows and... most of them are a little nuts (IMHO) ;).

You don't get to that position without a great passion for your work. Independent, passionate voices make for great discussions and debate. The more the better. That is why I am glad to see the product hit the streets. Now the rubber hits the road and we will soon get a much broader perspective on 7.

Greg

Scott W.
04-17-2002, 11:07 AM
Thanks John. Very informative.


The good news is most "cons" won't effect me. the bad new is that con #5 will be a total mess when recieveing files from OSX users necessitating and extra round of proofs.

Jeff Schewe
04-17-2002, 12:45 PM
The rather ill tempered Dan Margulis has taken this opportunity to try his very best to find something terrible to say about Photoshop 7.0. You should read this to become aware of his rants, but you should understand that with the possible exception of the "Layered Tiif" issue, he's pretty much WRONG about everything else.

He claims, wrongly, that opening a file and ignoring an embedded profile should NOT dirty the file (meaning that the file is in a state of having been changed and thus wants to be saved when closing). While he's right that 7.0's behaviour is different from 6, he's wrong that this is wrong (from his narrow point of view). The vast majority (in fact I can't remember anybody on beta who agreed with him) expects that if you open a file and do ANYTHING to it, such as ignore a profile, it should be considered dirty. This was actually considered by many to be a wrong behaviour in 6.0 and now fixed in 7.0.

As for Dan's contention that Photoshop should NOT respect EXIF color tags, again, he's simply wrong. The EXIF metadata tagging of files MUST be respected by Photoshop if EXIF has any hope of being a viable metadata schema. Dan's just pissed that now his images coming in from his consumer level digital camera are treated as having been embedded with sRGB when he claims the files aren't sRGB. Problem is, Nikon, Canon and all the other digital camera makers ARE treating the images as having come from sRGB. So, should Photoshop ignore the tags? Dan's wrong on this one too.

The "Max Compatible issue is a red herring. While is is true that checking this does indeed make saved files bigger, it's simple to work around. But. . .as far as the usefulness, the Max Compatible DOES have a real value when it comes to the speed of seeing previews and thumbnails in the File Browser. A large multilayered file without a flattened composite will take a LONG time to preview in the FB. With the flattened composite it shows up a LOT faster. So, Dan's barking at the moon again.

As for the Layered or enhanced tiff issue. . .he's right that there may be issues with people saving tiffs with layers and using compression techniques that may cause workflow issues. However, Dan used an old version of Quark (a 64000 pre PPC version) to prove that Quark may have a problem with layered and compressed tiffs. Hardly a real world scenario.

As for his contention that certain custom CMYK dialogs default to 400% total ink, well, that's true. Not sure if that's new in 7 or a hold over default. But, I suspect that anybody with any kind of clue would not be inclined to use a 400% total ink. . .and you have to search pretty hard to find this dialog (you have to click the Advanced Mode in Color Setting and hunt for the old custom CMYK setup).

Dan's up to his old tricks of trying to spread fear and uncertainty. One can only assume that Dan's worried that his relevance in the industry is slipping so he has to make some loud noise to remain noticed. Take what he says with a _VERY_ large dose of salt. ;}

Raphael
04-17-2002, 02:58 PM
wooooooo-ooowoooooooooh.

The big boys get their handbags out at dawn.;}

Nice one guys. It's good to see you lot arguing, it gives the rest of us more insight into the product from all angles.

Go for it!

I only have one question really:

How do I get to be a Beta tester?

}Raphael{

Greg Vander Houwen
04-17-2002, 03:26 PM
Sir Raph,

I am suprised at you, this is an expression of opinions not an argument ;).

Besides, Dan hasn't shown up yet.

Handbag holstered...

Greg

Raphael
04-17-2002, 04:40 PM
Sorry Greg(|}

I did mean "It's good to see you lot having a frank and open debate discussing your varied and insightful differences of opinion..."

Honest;}

}Raphael{

PS I was serious, I want to play with the new toys first, how do I get to do it? (And do Adobe pay?)

I've always wondered about Beta testing, is it some sought of Masonic/Illuminatus thing?

Scott W.
04-17-2002, 04:56 PM
I can't belive anyone who sees this application can find something to complain about. the improvements are phenominal, absolutely amazing. I realiz ther emay be a few things that still need tweaking a bit. But in general all i can say is, wow.

Greg Vander Houwen
04-17-2002, 05:25 PM
"does Adobe pay?"

The contract prohibits disclosure.

As to becoming a beta, I don't know how it works. They pick and choose but I don't know their criteria.

Greg

Ammar Midani
04-18-2002, 01:38 AM
john opitz you start a very indepth thread, now with all the talking, i prefer just to try and discuss.

All, a question:
do you think should the upgrade be in 24 months? or do you still mastering some tools/techniques from 6.0? (or both)

john opitz
04-18-2002, 09:00 AM
I don't mean to start a rumble. Even though it's better than watching WWF smackdown. Just wonder who is Hulk Hogan and which one is the Rock. But I have more of a Mr. Vander Houwens' view on it. But one thing I have to say is that "the camera makers" should carry the responsibility on those tags. To know if their to be sRGB or apple or what ever color space that they may be. Adobe and the camera makers "can" work in harmony. Meaning...... Both can recognize the other. That is being done somewhat.

markzebra
04-18-2002, 01:47 PM
Raphael - I think being a beta tester is probably very hard work, you would have to make copious notes and trials - not as fun as it sounds. I think you get some kind if discount on the release version.

I think the reason this appeals so much may be psycologically because the secret nature of the whole thing, makes people feel a little special. A sort of Masonic Lodge.;} Like I said its practically not as great a great privellege as it sounds.

Hmm yes Mr margulis objections do read a little like he's looking for things. but Sheesh Jeff's been getting agressive recently.

Not so sure about the TIFF thing though, thats going to cause problems. from what I can see youve got to specify each time you want to flatten a TIFF when saving from a layered file. Thats not going to be popular at all!

These changes to the PSD and TIFF format have been made to support the new File browser which needs flattened composites to work quickly. I always used to use Graphic Converter for this and hope the PS browser is as good.

Greg Vander Houwen
04-18-2002, 02:20 PM
As to Jeff,

"recently", like in the last decade ;).

At the risk of his reading this, Jeff is a unique hybred of teddy bear and wolverine. A big heart with a brutal opinion. He is wide open and calls them as he sees them. Right or wrong I like his style. It might be handy to run a dust and scratches on him but I don't think it would work.

Greg

Raphael
04-18-2002, 02:51 PM
Hey, MarkZ,

don't spoil the dream man.;}

}Raphael{

Scott W.
04-18-2002, 03:43 PM
Mark,

I've had the option for the tiff extras on since I installed v6. The v6 dialog is simply a better designed dialog that includes these extra options. it's not nearly the hassle it is being made out to be. it's just a special dialog when saving tiff. You get one when you save just abotu any file type — eps, jpg, etc.

markzebra
04-18-2002, 06:52 PM
Sorry Raph —*didn't mean to shoot your goose

Yes your right Scott—* but these issues can become major complaining points with users. If you've got to check a box or deselect an option 60 times in a day it does begin to p@ss you off ...
If you want to read a thread with 162 posts! about Adobe deciding to add the word "copy" to all other format saves - check this out ...http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@97.nTz8ambxwcT^13@.ef729fb/110

Maybe I'm getting it wrong and there is still a way to get PS to default to flattened TIFFs.

I wont be getting onto 7 for a while, its just not worth it yet. What will probably happen will be that I'll go and use it at work somewhere, and think "wow I cant live without A,B and C" - thats what happened with 6. I think ill stick with OS9 too for a little while longer - let others be the guinea pigs on that one ;}

From my point of view the only things I can see actually affecting the work are the new Blend modes and the background preview with Liquify, I'd like those. I can work around everything else (I think)

Scott W.
04-18-2002, 07:10 PM
Mark,

My name appears several times in that thread at the U2U forums. :)

The copy controversy is different than the added tiff options. The functionality between 6 and 7 is not really any different. I think Jeff stated it well when he posted that it's a non-issue designed to sensationalize and scare (I'm paraphrasing not quoting Jeff directly).

Really, I've been saving non-layered tiff files with PS 6 since day one and had the extra options turned on. The only problem is that word "copy" that's appended to the file name and must be deleted for each file when saving a nonlayered tiff. The tiff files themselves operate just fine.

If it appears as though it will be a problem, I think it's a simple matter to adjust one's workflow to duplicate the document via the History palette and flatten a file before saving as tiff.

If Adobe would figure out a way to stop appending "copy" to saved copies life would be peachy.

On a side note, being the artist that you are, if you used the PS7 brush engine just once you would not be able to live without it. And I'm still in OS9 as well.

markzebra
04-18-2002, 07:45 PM
Aghhh ...don't say that %(

john opitz
04-18-2002, 08:17 PM
Mr. Schewe, take it easy. Been reading the forums. Coming from a big city(New York) myself,(now in Gods' country) kinda lay back a little. And put that energy to that book your writing. With that many computers(workstation) you have(monitors anyway)......... I would never leave the house.

Jeff Schewe
04-19-2002, 12:46 AM
Nessie. . .

Sorry, but one turn with the healing brush and as Scott says the all new paint brush engine (with the return of the brush palette on steroids) ans I suspect you'll find 7.0 a must have, kind figure out how you worked before it sort of upgrade. . .<BG>

Jeff Schewe
04-19-2002, 12:55 AM
Greg. . .

I almost _DID_ miss your "Dust & Scratches" remark. . .yeah, you just try it bud - I'll run the Healing Tool all over your face!
>:}

As to my taking old Dano to task. . .hey, read his diatribe will ya? His opinions are his own, I just happen to share just about _NOTHING_ in common with Dan's opinions-about a _LOT_ of stuff.

And John. . .if you didn't want a rumble, you shouldn't wave a red flag in my nose with a cross posted message from Dan the Man. BTW, neither the Hulk or the Rock have as much hair as I do.

$}

Rick Miller
04-19-2002, 03:20 AM
Greg.

You wrote:
Sir Raph, I am suprised at you, this is an expression of opinions not an argument ;}
Actually, Sir Raphael is correct. According to the Toulmin Model of argumentation (1958 - Stephen Toulmin, British Logician), an argument is predicated on a primary triad: Grounds, Warrant, and Claim as well as a secondary triad: Backing, Qualifiers, and Rebuttals (although the secondary triad is not always required). There are 4 categories of claims:
1. Factual
2. Definitional
3. Value
4. Policy

Both Jeff and Dan engaged in evaluative language in their claim statements (i.e. Photoshop7 is worth the upgrade, or Photoshop 7 is not worth the upgrade), ergo they're Value claims (although there are some claims that deal with verifiable/factual). The reader is left trying to evaluate: is Photoshop 7 > Photoshop 6, or is Photoshop 7 < Photoshop 6? (note: "<" indicates less then, and ">" greater then).

Additionally, Grounds are either factual or opinion based used in the verification process of the claim. Also referred to as "evidence". Both Jeff and Dan used opinion and/or factual evidence in their advocacy of their claim.

As for Warrant, this is the reasoning that both our esteemed Photoshop God's engaged in while trying to justify the step from their grounds to their claims. Additionally, Dan invoked a secondary triad by his qualifier "Depending on how each one of them affects you, you will have to decide whether the upgrade makes sense. For myself, the minuses far outweigh the pluses, so I will be sticking with Photoshop 6. However, depending on your workflow, it may be logical for you to make a different decision". .

So, it seems that both Jeff and Dan made arguments, now it is up to one's workflow to decide the relevancy of these arguments. I have to admit that I too was undecided about the upgrade until ThunderLizard's Photoshop conference where Jeff illuminated me to the benefits of the darkside... uh, I mean the upgrade. (-:
Jeff made some extremely compelling arguments that easily swayed my decision (Adobe should be cognizant of this and give Jeff a kickback 'eh).

At ThunderLizard Jeff indicated that he believes the negative press reviews missed the boat and that six to seven months down the road will prove this.
Having only a cursory examination of Photoshop 7, I'm not in the position to make a quality value judgement - although from what was demonstrated at ThunderLizard, I believe this might prove to be true.

I think it's very important to have strong willed and quite opinionated Photoshop Gods like Jeff and Dan around to thrash around the arguments as this allows us mere mortals to see the reasoning process behind their respective advocacies and determine what works for our workflow.

Rick
Building an alter of worship for both Jeff and Dan.
;)

Raphael
04-19-2002, 03:38 AM
Yep, tha's what I meant.

What He said.

}Raphael{

PS Rick, when you taking the Lawyer type finals again?

Rick Miller
04-19-2002, 06:39 AM
I Couldn't resist.
B)

Rick

Jeff Schewe
04-19-2002, 11:19 AM
Rick wrote: "According to the Toulmin Model of argumentation (1958 - Stephen Toulmin, British Logician), an argument is predicated on a primary triad: Grounds, Warrant, and Claim as well as a secondary triad: Backing, Qualifiers, and Rebuttals (although the secondary triad is not always required). "

Oooooooh Nooooooo. . .not the Toulmin Model of Argumentation TRIAD again :O

Well. . .when I met Rick he seemed a lot smarter than the average "geek". But that's ok. . .it's easy to deal with smart aleck geeky types. . .I just ask them to settle "argumentation" via _ARM WRESTLING_ (that always shuts them up>:} )

Dan's a "butthead", that's my "Claim" and there are sufficient "Grounds" for that I'll "Warrant"!

;}

Greg Vander Houwen
04-19-2002, 12:09 PM
What an entertaining thread. Lots of laughs in this one.

"Oooooooh Nooooooo. . .not the Toulmin Model of Argumentation TRIAD again"

I with you Jeff, that Rick guy... ;)

"As to my taking old Dano to task. . .hey, read his diatribe will ya? His opinions are his own, I just happen to share just about _NOTHING_ in common with Dan's opinions-about a _LOT_ of stuff."

I read it, it's his opinion. None of his downside of 7.0 has much to do with my workflow so I can't speak to it.

I am glad you stepped up and took it to task. Do it again...;).

As to the healing brush threat, I've seen what you can do to people with that, I withdraw my dust and scratches.

Rick,

I as to the terms, I conceed.

---

Defeated, Greg crawls away muttering, "buttheads..."

john opitz
04-19-2002, 10:12 PM
Mr.Schewe,
Dan the Man. That's a good one, Mr. Schewe.......I know what you mean by that. Can't sleep on you, Mr. Schewe. Now I know, how an author feels when someone quotes that author.
The reason I posted it was to get others' opinion on it. Like......in photoshop digest as of Apr.18. Ms.Eismann replied to Mr. Margulis in reference (Pros and Cons) to the healing brush. In all, I like the methods he uses(P.P.S.6). And I like the material that Mr. Fraser,Ms.(Diva) Eismann, Mr. Rodney and you, yourself puts out. "The Deke".......his bible.....that thing has everthing including the Fifteen Comandments in it......that was that third tablet Moses had let slip off the mountain top........that was recovered. If it wasn't for the people I mentioned(and the Adobe people, of course), A.P.S. would not be what it is today.

Rick Miller
04-20-2002, 03:18 AM
Arm-wrestling champ Jeff.

You have me in tears laughing; cheers!
Next time I see you, drinks are on me (not ON me, but paid by me - had to pre-empt any funny comments I knew were coming).

No tension here, I supported Sir Raphael's contention that the two of you (you and Dan) had constructed arguments that met the requirements of the Toulmin model. This was in reference to Greg taking our dear Sir Raphael to task for this; I saw an opening to rib Greg a bit and couldn't resist (sometimes this gets me in trouble - although in this case I thought I was darn funny).
$}

I'm telling ya' Jeff, Adobe needs to give you a kickback on the sales for 7. In addition to me, a couple of people at the conference that I talked to who were still undecided on the upgrade to 7 (funny though, we were at a version 7 conference) had their minds made up by your cogent line of reasoning.

As for arm-wrestling, how about thumb-wrestling instead? I'm pretty good at that!
;)

Rick
Thumb-wrestling champ

el_Brujo
04-22-2002, 06:59 AM
Man that took me forever to read this whole thread.
Ive read a couple of things from Dan M and quit frankly didnt like what he had to say about PS7, I cant see why any "hardcore" users of PS would dis an upgrade, even if there was only one new feature im 100% sure i would be buying it. He has gone out of his way to make it sound like poo, but it hasnt worked on me.

and Jeff
I cant get enough of reading threads that you take part in they're always extremely informative and bloody hilarious...thanks

sPECtre
04-23-2002, 08:38 AM
John, what's the "photoshop digest" you're referring at?

Where does Mr Margulis'quote you gave us come from?

Those, lets's say, discussions, :) are really interesting, and informative!

OT: Maybe should Adobe put a button in the preferences to switch the "copy", or better, put a "patch" in the goodies, like they did some time ago for the zoom tool, especially for Jeff, if I remmeber, so only the users that know that they want it can switch off the copy addendum.

I think right now they fear user complaining that they lost their layers if they saved in the wrong format. They should maybe use Ps elements instead if it is the case...

john opitz
04-23-2002, 12:15 PM
This one:

Photoshop digest [photoshop@sparky.listmoms.net]

This one for Mr. Margulis (color theory):



color theory list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/)

In fact Mr. Andrew(da' dawg) Rodney and Mr. Chris Murphy entered the ring at the color theory list.


sPECtre wrote <
Those, lets's say, discussions, are really interesting, and informative!>

Yes, They are. .............I have trouble picking my favorite one !

john opitz
04-23-2002, 01:13 PM
Btw, I saw something about wrestling(arm,thumb,foot) something like that:




This guy is a national champion; speciality in bill collecting, making people "see the light", straighten out any problems you may have "with others"...........seeing your point of view.

john opitz
04-23-2002, 01:17 PM
Didn't take that time.

sPECtre
04-24-2002, 01:18 AM
Thanks, John! I wonder if they are already on PST, the site...