Talk:Adobe Photoshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Graphic design (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Macintosh task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

photoshop touch[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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??[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

gg6eynm[edit]

Ñhûňg ŜĭĚǓ ĶĦǓňg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.176.137.207 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

cuteness[edit]

cuteness is so cute≤−−±−− — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.207.94.139 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

file format[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)