Talk:Adobe Photoshop

Template:WAP assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jenny.Yu60.

About the banner image

Why the banner image are watermarked? Isn't there are rule that forbid the use of watermarked image in Wikipedia? 202.137.15.149 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)sameer

photoshop touch

what is the difference from a standart photoshop? (Idot (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

Touch is an application designed to work on current tablets - it cannot handle large images, can only handle a few layers, can only read and write a few file formats, and does not have most of the tools or adjustments found in Photoshop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.178.247 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

C++ citation dubious

The citation for the use of C++ as the development language references a forum message where someone with no obvious connection with Adobe responded to a question with the claim - itself having no provenance. Should be removed or referenced to a stronger source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.93.15 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello

I verified your claim and your concern is indeed well-placed. The source in question is not approved by Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources. I will remove the claim immediately.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The source code for Photoshop released by Adobe shows that it was developed in C++ QuentinUK (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Photoshop programming languages used in it development

Can someone with write access please add Objective-C to Programming language used Source: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lightroom_and_adobes_64-bit_road.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.171.137 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I am afraid your source does not say such a thing. It says:

We began training our engineers to rewrite code in Objective C (instead of C++)

Now, whether they have actually released a version of Photoshop that is (at least in part) written in Objective C is yet to be verified.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa

To support 64 bit architecture on OS X, Photoshop CS5 had to be rewritten from the ground up using Cocoa framework (which uses Objective-C language), porting from legacy Carbon framework (based on Toolbox framework written in C/C++ for Mac OS Classic)

Photoshop on Windows & Mac still uses C++, I'm not contesting that!!! I'm just asking for Objective-C to be added

The likelihood Photoshop is written in multiple languages

quote|This means that 64-bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa (as Lightroom is) instead of Carbon.

Source:http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/03/getting-photoshop-cs5-to-64-bit-on-macintosh.html

Source:http://www.pcworld.com/article/144119/adobe_64bit_photoshop_struggle.html

Source:https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/cocoa.html

Source:Objective-C#Objective-C++

Source:Cocoa (API)

Source:Carbon (API)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.171.137 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi again

Quick questions: Do we have any 64-bit version of Adobe Photoshop running on Mac? If yes, since which release?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since Photoshop CS5.

Photoshop CS5 can run in 32-Bit mode or 64-bit mode, Photoshop CS6 dropped support for 32-Bit on Mac OS X.

Source:http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/64-bit-os-benefits-limitations.html

Source:http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2012/03/photoshop-cs6-operating-system-support-and-beyond.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.171.137 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the info. I will ask someone in WikiProject Apple to analyze your sources and add Objective-C. (I'm sorry that I myself am not Mac-literate enough to do that.) So, please be patient a little more. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess, Photoshop was clearly rewritten on the Mac for CS5 release, CS6 is only 64Bit on Mac. and is clearly using Cocoa framework (Objective-C)

Source:http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/sdk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.9.33 (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Photoshop has not been rewritten - just refactored. Photoshop is still a C/C++ codebase, with a bare minimum of Objective-C needed for interfacing with MacOS UI APIs (less than 1% of the code). Photoshop also contains assembly, JavaScript and HTML - but you wouldn't claim those as the language that the application is written in. <Wikipedia won't let me sign this because I actually work on Photoshop>

All i said was Objective-C was used (along side C++) and it should be credited , Adobe themselfs said "Photoshop CS5 is rewritten from the ground up as a 64 bit application" rewritten a far stronger term then refactored (but i'm sure your correct since your Chris Cox at Adobe. so i concede ) source: http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1582934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.90.248 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This section can be deleted, i agree Photoshop is 99% C++ application, would love to hear more facts from Adobe source

Photoshop CS6 for Mac require Mac OS X 10.6.x or newer

Mac OS X 10.5.8 was the mini-requirement for CS5 not CS6

Source:http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2012/03/photoshop-cs6-operating-system-support-and-beyond.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.171.137 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Straighten??

"CS6 brings the "straighten" tool to Photoshop" - does it? I've been using that from the ruler tool of CS5 for a while. Could someone clarify this? Otherwise it's worth a change methinks. --Tom dl (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Russell Brown

The link to Russell Brown goes to Russell Leslie Brown, the Scottish Labour Party Politician. I think they were really referring to Russell Preston Brown (I.e. Russell Brown Show) .... ? There is no page for Russell Preston Brown, though.

Ll1324 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Version history

The version history in the current revision all in all only holds one single sentence for all the Photoshop versions prior to CS1. That is not much. The section should probably summarize the entire version history of PS, not just focus on CS1 - CS6. – Acdx (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that there is a separate page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history for the version history. This main page really should link to that instead of duplicating information. <can't sign because wikipedia doesn't let people who know what they're talking about sign in anymore > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.178.247 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Last version

I suggest adding sentence "The last available version of photoshop is ___, released in ____." in main (first) paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.33.53 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Scott Bakula image

This image looks unnecessary and inappropriate for this article. I'm not sure if it qualifies as vandalism, but it seems like it's more about the self-promotion of the "random man" than about Adobe Photoshop. Thoughts, anyone? Wikipedian77 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott Bakula is a well known actor famous for playing Samuel Beckett in a critically acclaimed movie. QuentinUK (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Puppet warp

"Similar to the content-aware tool, the puppet warp tool reveals Photoshop’s intelligence..." This sounds like marketing collateral. Kortoso (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) om namo narayanaya narayana ia a lord who is the great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.191.148.186 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

is it possible to download at free cost?

is it possible to download at free cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.182.50.26 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Only for a 30 day trial. Photoshop is commercial software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.178.247 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Photoshop for Solaris and IRIX

Hi, Photoshop was available for Unix operating systems Solaris and Irix in the '90s, version 3.0.1 is named. (An Adobe employee says so in the forum at https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1555315?start=0&tstart=0). It would be nice to learn more about platforms supported in the past. Has anyone reputable sources, maybe some book to reference?--109.90.132.122 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

CS6 latest version

Can anyone proove that the latest CS6 version of Photoshop was 13.1.3? I haven't ever seen this version, but saw 13.1.2. Where someone with 175.110.182.177 ip adress got version 13.1.3?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adobe Photoshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120322174850/http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/photoshopcs6/ to http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/photoshopcs6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

file format

Has anyone on this Wikipedia page or its Talk page dealt with the following stackoverflow.com citation? (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5355708/psd-file-format) I would venture that it deserves mention.

Here is the citation:

There's also some Objective-C code on Google Code (should be easily understandable for anyone with a C++ background), also source of this gem, which appears to sum it up nicely:
At this point, I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format. PSD is not a good format. PSD is not even a bad format. Calling it such would be an insult to other bad formats, such as PCX or JPEG. No, PSD is an abysmal format. Having worked on this code for several weeks now, my hate for PSD has grown to a raging fire that burns with the fierce passion of a million suns.
If there are two different ways of doing something, PSD will do both, in different places. It will then make up three more ways no sane human would think of, and do those too. PSD makes inconsistency an art form. Why, for instance, did it suddenly decide that these particular chunks should be aligned to four bytes, and that this alignement should not be included in the size? Other chunks in other places are either unaligned, or aligned with the alignment included in the size. Here, though, it is not included. Either one of these three behaviours would be fine. A sane format would pick one. PSD, of course, uses all three, and more.
Trying to get data out of a PSD file is like trying to find something in the attic of your eccentric old uncle who died in a freak freshwater shark attack on his 58th birthday. That last detail may not be important for the purposes of the simile, but at this point I am spending a lot of time imagining amusing fates for the people responsible for this Rube Goldberg of a file format.
Earlier, I tried to get a hold of the latest specs for the PSD file format. To do this, I had to apply to them for permission to apply to them to have them consider sending me this sacred tome. This would have involved faxing them a copy of some document or other, probably signed in blood. I can only imagine that they make this process so difficult because they are intensely ashamed of having created this abomination. I was naturally not gullible enough to go through with this procedure, but if I had done so, I would have printed out every single page of the spec, and set them all on fire. Were it within my power, I would gather every single copy of those specs, and launch them on a spaceship directly into the sun.
PSD is not my favourite file format.
Just so you are warned. :)

(end of citation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddcs (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adobe Photoshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507131754/http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626182822/http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html to http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507131754/http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Distinctive concepts (e.g. layers) need to be defined/explained

There's a long history of graphics editing programs, and many of them have not used the concept of layers. Nevertheless, layers are presumed to be already understood by the reader throughout this article, as if anyone who ever used any paint program will know what they are and how they fit into the overall scheme. Somebody needs to rectify this (and similar presumptions vis-à-vis any other distinctive concepts that may currently be getting taken for granted.)

--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Early History

There is no mention of what applications people were using before photoshop existed. Does anyone have this information? To me, it seems relevant to the topic and should be briefly mentioned here Truehatch (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Truehatch: People weren't using any application before Photoshop. They did it in actual photo shops. Photoshop came in 1988, when computers with full color displays were still at their infancy. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Thank you for moving this. My mistake putting it in the wrong place. But about this topic: surely there was something. There was already a great number of graphical games and GUI applications available. Truehatch (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am curious to know how great exactly is this "great number of [...]" is. But Photoshop was the first anyway. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adobe Photoshop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050315125811/http://www.macworld.com/2000/08/bc/28photoshop/ to http://www.macworld.com/2000/08/bc/28photoshop/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Run Around

You should beware of false advertising when it comes to the procedure of 'photoshopping.' None of the programs here deliver that ad campaign nor are anywhere near like the program used on my computers and others to "photoshop pictures." Evidently it's called Adobe Photoshop too, however there is a disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:41C4:753F:CCBE:F3CB (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)