If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:01:36 -0600, Bill W
wrote: --- vast snip --- It was nothing to do with installation. Photoshop clearly does something which Acronis interprets as a bad actor trying to render files incomprehensible. So Acronis steps in and stops and reverses whatever PS is trying to do. So its an all in wrestling match between them. I think if that were the case, the file would not open at all, as opposed to taking only an hour or so. One would think so but eventually it opens. The process creates a string of errors and has resulted in up to 8 instances of PhotoShop running at the same time. No doubt that explains the slow and sticky response of the sliders if the process has to work out which one responds to the mouse/stylus and which one displays the results. I have only seen 8 instances once. 4 is the most common and never less than 2. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:25:59 +0000, Melanie van Buren
wrote: On 19/01/2021 01:47, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 01:13:35 +0000, Melanie van Buren wrote: As for you photoshop problems: I've been around tech for years and gearhead talk or offering free tech support beyond an occasional minimum doesn't interest me one little bit. Been there, done that. From experience: A.) If you cannot solve a problem in the first 10 minutes in all likelyhood you never will. B.) Most problems are caused by user error. I would also add C.) Most general populations perform at the average hence 99% of the chat in this topic is noise as random levers are pulled. This is often caused by D.) Not having the correct understanding or information at stage one. Which brings us to step E.) Wipe and reinstall. It's not ideal and nobody learns anything and it covers up flawed products but solves a lot of problems. Just don't do it again... I am persistent. I have solved my problems (I think) not within 10 minutes but after several days. If somebody's problem doesn't interest you and you can't help, then just ignore it. Don't let it worry you. But it worried hell out of me. I was wanting to try something new and the damned software wouldn't work! Don't let Savage duck worry you either. He is a technical perfectionist but hardly has an artistic bone in his body. :-) Did you follow up the link to the tree that I gave you? Yes, that's what I did. I don't see any point in gearheading and other stuff when it's just spinning wheels to score points and pass the time away. Mistakes happen and as you note can take days to sort out. Been there. I haven't followed any links up to avoid adding to the nonsense plus I prefer picture links with a description and commentary to give context and saving clicking on junk. I've also been busy glancing through images by the competition to get a sense of where they are at and the market they are creating and anything of technical or artistic merit for ideas. I've had a few things arrive in the post and some things still in delivery I want to try on to see if they work in photos and/or with clients. I bought one skirt because of a Helmut Newton picture but its style is a bit off. I don't know if it will or won't work plus I'm lacking a few other things I need to source and they're not always cheap or sometimes go out of supply. Now I need to work out what can go with what, should I keep it for civilian life or work, and what pictures if any can be constructed from this. It can take a few weeks or months for an idea to come together and be able to shoot it. as an example I discovered I have what I need to take to take a picture similar to one I saw on Getty Images but not before the summer or outside of a studio or staged scene. I think I can use this skirt easily possibly with a pair of seamed stockings and heels but then I need to get the light and scene right and I can't do that yet and that's before whether I can make a collection out of it. I could rattle off a 100 pictures and could use the majority and nobody would complain but I'm aiming for a notch above so lucky if I get a dozen I can use. The rest are filler I can use for other things but long term I'd rather not as I want everything I use to be to a standard and this will take more practice. I also want a few silky tops to show a hint of you know what underneath and not quite sure what I need so it's taking a while to get everything so I can begin putting ideas together. Anyone can wear something glam and show everything off but doing something a bit more subtle is more work. That's before I even touch a shutter. I haven't even touched props or people (if any and likely not identifiable) in the background yet. You sound like a producer! I referred that photograph to you because not only had it been cropped but I had worked hard with the lighting of the tree in the image. The problem is that when I first saw the tree I also saw the image of the tree. All the camera did was see the tree. I had to work hard on the camera image to bring out the image I had already seen in my mind. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: It was nothing to do with installation. Photoshop clearly does something which Acronis interprets as a bad actor trying to render files incomprehensible. So Acronis steps in and stops and reverses whatever PS is trying to do. So its an all in wrestling match between them. I think if that were the case, the file would not open at all, as opposed to taking only an hour or so. One would think so but eventually it opens. The process creates a string of errors and has resulted in up to 8 instances of PhotoShop running at the same time. No doubt that explains the slow and sticky response of the sliders if the process has to work out which one responds to the mouse/stylus and which one displays the results. I have only seen 8 instances once. 4 is the most common and never less than 2. something is *very* wrong. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On 19/01/2021 23:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:25:59 +0000, Melanie van Buren wrote: You sound like a producer! I referred that photograph to you because not only had it been cropped but I had worked hard with the lighting of the tree in the image. The problem is that when I first saw the tree I also saw the image of the tree. All the camera did was see the tree. I had to work hard on the camera image to bring out the image I had already seen in my mind. "Producer" is an apt title. I won't over-inflate things but it can be like this. As an intro there's *pre* pre-visualisation and organising stuff. The heeled shoe and fishnets picture some were hyperventilating over was never a serious picture and stated as such. I just wanted to see what happened when placing the camera in X position and my foot in Y position with Z angle. I got near the picture I was looking for so know the practical issues for taking a better picture with appropriate scene and light. Also better shoes would help. Now moving on to your pre-visualisation etc. I know what you mean about developing an image in your minds eye and things not coming out the same way or needing work. I rolled back and had a look at your picture. Knee jerk impression? Nice tree, shame about the background, and the light made it a bit gritty. Other than that nice find. I'm sure some acknowledged great would produce a completely different photo which would blow us all away but we're not them. Otherwise, yeah, I like it but then I like trees and it was nice tree and the light and composition didn't make it look like a scene out of a horror movie which too many can. -- Melanie van Buren |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On 18/01/2021 5:49 am, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 18, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): [snip] This photograph has been cropped. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyn4s5sjkm...99-br.jpg?dl=0 Does it meet your standards? That tree is not wearing black stockings and stilettos, so other than having been cropped it misses her minimum standard. I think we covered most of the other issues to be found in that image when you first posted it years ago. ;-) What's the story on this photo? I remember the photo very well but none of the details. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:15:31 -0600, gray_wolf
wrote: On 18/01/2021 5:49 am, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 18, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): [snip] This photograph has been cropped. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyn4s5sjkm...99-br.jpg?dl=0 Does it meet your standards? That tree is not wearing black stockings and stilettos, so other than having been cropped it misses her minimum standard. I think we covered most of the other issues to be found in that image when you first posted it years ago. ;-) What's the story on this photo? I remember the photo very well but none of the details. I was just responding to Melanie van Buren's comment about, that except for cropping, there being no role for Photoshop in her work. To many people Photoshop means grafting on and distorting things to create something which one could never see in real life. I did none of that with this image. All I wanted to do was redistribute the light so that I could see in the print the tree that I saw on the site. What the camera had seen was dark and stodgy in comparison. I can't remember the details now except that to achieve what I wanted with the fine structure of the tree and grass I had to make extensive use of channel masks. Quite an educational experience. Was that cheating? It depends on your point of view. The print is the tree I would have tried to paint if I was a painter. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 03:32:55 +0000, Melanie van Buren
wrote: On 19/01/2021 23:54, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:25:59 +0000, Melanie van Buren wrote: You sound like a producer! I referred that photograph to you because not only had it been cropped but I had worked hard with the lighting of the tree in the image. The problem is that when I first saw the tree I also saw the image of the tree. All the camera did was see the tree. I had to work hard on the camera image to bring out the image I had already seen in my mind. "Producer" is an apt title. I won't over-inflate things but it can be like this. As an intro there's *pre* pre-visualisation and organising stuff. The heeled shoe and fishnets picture some were hyperventilating over was never a serious picture and stated as such. I just wanted to see what happened when placing the camera in X position and my foot in Y position with Z angle. I got near the picture I was looking for so know the practical issues for taking a better picture with appropriate scene and light. Also better shoes would help. Now moving on to your pre-visualisation etc. I know what you mean about developing an image in your minds eye and things not coming out the same way or needing work. I rolled back and had a look at your picture. Knee jerk impression? Nice tree, shame about the background, and the light made it a bit gritty. Other than that nice find. I'm sure some acknowledged great would produce a completely different photo which would blow us all away but we're not them. Otherwise, yeah, I like it but then I like trees and it was nice tree and the light and composition didn't make it look like a scene out of a horror movie which too many can. For what it is worth, I had little flexibility in where I could stand. The background is what it is: part of the remains of a 140 year old cement works. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On 20/01/2021 05:11, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:15:31 -0600, gray_wolf wrote: On 18/01/2021 5:49 am, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 18, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): [snip] This photograph has been cropped. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyn4s5sjkm...99-br.jpg?dl=0 Does it meet your standards? That tree is not wearing black stockings and stilettos, so other than having been cropped it misses her minimum standard. I think we covered most of the other issues to be found in that image when you first posted it years ago. ;-) What's the story on this photo? I remember the photo very well but none of the details. I was just responding to Melanie van Buren's comment about, that except for cropping, there being no role for Photoshop in her work. To many people Photoshop means grafting on and distorting things to create something which one could never see in real life. I did none of that with this image. All I wanted to do was redistribute the light so that I could see in the print the tree that I saw on the site. What the camera had seen was dark and stodgy in comparison. I can't remember the details now except that to achieve what I wanted with the fine structure of the tree and grass I had to make extensive use of channel masks. Quite an educational experience. Was that cheating? It depends on your point of view. The print is the tree I would have tried to paint if I was a painter. Things depending and points of view are what matters here and something missing from discussion recently. Things are different when you take this into account. Yes anything I publish commercially is "what the camera sees" apart from the basics including any white balance or exposure if I can be bothered or dodging and burning (rarely) and any film look presets and (mostly) cropping. Pixels are not manipulated. I know how to play the camera and use lens distortion so my ass looks bigger in some shots etcetera but this is about it. It's not "fake" and saves a lot of work. It's a standard like newspapers used to have a standard of what the camera sees with minimal adjustments like dodging and burning and perhaps minimal cropping as long as it didn't change the meaning of the scene. As long as everyone knows the standard and you don't cheat there is no reputational damage. Lightroom is good enough for me. Seriously, I'm too lazy to use Photoshop. I have CS6 somewhere but it's more effort than it's worth. There's also the issue that people can look different in a photo to real life. This can be accentuated when clients feel overenthusiastic or panicky. 50% of the photograph is the woman. 50% of the photograph is perception. It's the same in person. I've had a few social chats with and without wine with clients and just drawn them in. "Seductive". Clients words, not mine. It's nothing I'm doing I assure you! Ok, not entirely but you know what I mean. There's loads of books on art and also on perception and creativity and subjectivity etc. I'm unsure if your end result can strictly speaking be called a photograph but more a work of art. You didn't move pixels but you tortured the light a little from what you say. Is it valid? I guess so although it's digital not an analogue process like what a printer would do. So not too different in some ways just different starting points. -- Melanie van Buren |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On 20/01/2021 05:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
For what it is worth, I had little flexibility in where I could stand. The background is what it is: part of the remains of a 140 year old cement works. Yes, that was pretty clear. It's a bit hard to get a tree and a 140 year old cement works to move, as you say. I have to work with the environment I have which means I can't take the pictures I might otherwise take so have to do things differently which means an entirely different shot even if I can find it. Same thing, really. -- Melanie van Buren |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshop CC problem(s)
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 07:02:12 +0000, Melanie van Buren
wrote: On 20/01/2021 05:11, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 22:15:31 -0600, gray_wolf wrote: On 18/01/2021 5:49 am, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 18, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): [snip] This photograph has been cropped. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyn4s5sjkm...99-br.jpg?dl=0 Does it meet your standards? That tree is not wearing black stockings and stilettos, so other than having been cropped it misses her minimum standard. I think we covered most of the other issues to be found in that image when you first posted it years ago. ;-) What's the story on this photo? I remember the photo very well but none of the details. I was just responding to Melanie van Buren's comment about, that except for cropping, there being no role for Photoshop in her work. To many people Photoshop means grafting on and distorting things to create something which one could never see in real life. I did none of that with this image. All I wanted to do was redistribute the light so that I could see in the print the tree that I saw on the site. What the camera had seen was dark and stodgy in comparison. I can't remember the details now except that to achieve what I wanted with the fine structure of the tree and grass I had to make extensive use of channel masks. Quite an educational experience. Was that cheating? It depends on your point of view. The print is the tree I would have tried to paint if I was a painter. Things depending and points of view are what matters here and something missing from discussion recently. Things are different when you take this into account. Yes anything I publish commercially is "what the camera sees" apart from the basics including any white balance or exposure if I can be bothered or dodging and burning (rarely) and any film look presets and (mostly) cropping. Pixels are not manipulated. I know how to play the camera and use lens distortion so my ass looks bigger in some shots etcetera but this is about it. It's not "fake" and saves a lot of work. It's a standard like newspapers used to have a standard of what the camera sees with minimal adjustments like dodging and burning and perhaps minimal cropping as long as it didn't change the meaning of the scene. As long as everyone knows the standard and you don't cheat there is no reputational damage. Lightroom is good enough for me. Seriously, I'm too lazy to use Photoshop. I have CS6 somewhere but it's more effort than it's worth. There's also the issue that people can look different in a photo to real life. This can be accentuated when clients feel overenthusiastic or panicky. 50% of the photograph is the woman. 50% of the photograph is perception. It's the same in person. I've had a few social chats with and without wine with clients and just drawn them in. "Seductive". Clients words, not mine. It's nothing I'm doing I assure you! Ok, not entirely but you know what I mean. There's loads of books on art and also on perception and creativity and subjectivity etc. I'm unsure if your end result can strictly speaking be called a photograph but more a work of art. You didn't move pixels but you tortured the light a little from what you say. Is it valid? I guess so although it's digital not an analogue process like what a printer would do. Your brain tortures light also. All I was trying to do was extract what my brain had seen from the relatively little that the camera saw. So not too different in some ways just different starting points. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshop problem | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 20 | August 6th 19 08:46 PM |
Photoshop grayscale problem | Scott Speck | Digital Photography | 7 | April 1st 07 02:55 AM |
photoshop dvd problem | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | January 19th 06 06:58 AM |
Photoshop Elements 3 problem | Greg Hazen | Digital Photography | 0 | April 21st 05 02:10 PM |
Strange Photoshop problem | The Duke | Digital Photography | 4 | October 9th 04 04:51 AM |