Talk:Adobe Photoshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adobe Photoshop article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Graphic design, which collaborates on graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Reference 6

Reference 6 is a dead link.

Hormby, John (2007-06-05). How Adobe's Photoshop Was Born. Story Photography. Retrieved on 2007-06-15.

[edit] Moving title

Why is the title moved from Adobe Photoshop CS to Adobe Photoshop? I think the original title is more specific. 69.216.16.151 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Photoshop CS refers to this program. Adobe Photoshop could refer to Photoshop Elements. Althepal 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, is the current version the third release of Photoshop CS, or the tenth of Photoshop which is just named CS3? ALTON .ıl 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the application itself, and not any specific version. It is absolutely improper to title it after the specific version currently out. And nobody is going to confuse it with Photoshop Elements. DreamGuy 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the Easter egg section removed

I'm curious, why was the Easter Egg section removed? I just want to know because I had a screenshot uploaded for the CS2 Easter Egg that has been tagged orphaned and I want to know if it would still be considered useful. Rgoodermote 11:03 June 19Th, 2007 (UTC)

(That wasn't the only section...) I think it was someone who thought it was not significant to the program. He may also have considered it original research, but I disagree with this, especially since there was a picture to support it. I actually found it interesting and see no harm in its being in the article. Check the archives and see if there was a consensus. If not, I see no reason why you can't add it back. Althepal 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ENC and WP:TRIVIA -- we can't spend all the time talking about totally insignificant information of no importance to the larger topic while the nitty gritty of the topic itself isn't as detailed as it really should be. DreamGuy 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it was interesting finding out about the other easter eggs. I will check the archives when I get the chance. I really just need to know because I want to know if there will be a use in the future for the following image Image:CSeasteregg.png

P.S. I will get on reading those soon Rgoodermote 18:51 June 19Th, 2007 (UTC)

I don't suggest you add this to the article. The information is at best, Trivia, and DreamGuy's already outlined why it doesn't qualify for inclusion. The image would fail Fair Use standards because it is not necessary to illustrate the subject, and adding text just to include it would seem rather counterproductive. It would help, however, if you still have CS2, to get some screenshots of a tools outlined in the "General Features" section. It would be even better if that was Windows, since the article seems quite biased at the moment, image-wise. ALTON .ıl 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do, I still have the windows version installed on my computer in full. By the way I was never intending to bring it back and as it seems it is no longer needed I have stayed my orignal stance on the image. Thanks

Rgoodermote 10:59 June 20Th, 2007

[edit] Features?

Is there a reason why this article centers around PS history, release versions and random folklore? Even the features section starts... with a promo piece on the latest release version! I realise many of the actual features of the program are common to other graphics editors, but they should at least be listed, so that someone coming here to find out what Photoshop is and does don't leave feeling short-changed. If there's a revamp on the cards I'll chip in, but let's start by getting the basics in place. mikaultalk 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree--Ceas webmaster 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing does nothing, because this is no vote against consensus. The articles on "common" things such as this must put much more weight on history and release versions, simply because a list of features no matter how neutral will sound like an advertisement. However, the article must indeed fully explain why the product is so phenomenal. Please help expanding the general features section and history. ALTON .ıl 06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but there's bound to be an unavoidable amount of promo-like feature-listing, especially if we restrict it to describing those features unique to CS3. The main problem is that nowhere is there a basic description of the tools and features common to all raster editors: Raster graphics editor is perhaps the best place for it, but it's currently no more than a stub. There should at least be a basic list of features (layers, tools, palettes) at Photoshop each of which could link to equivalents at the more generic article (better, a short section within that article) to retain a semblance of neutrality. In short, most of the work needed here is actually work needed at a more genereric "definitions" level in a separate article. mikaultalk 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I like that vision, I had no idea the other article was that empty. Let's get to work then. ALTON .ıl 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad: the Raster graphics editor article is cetainly in need of a boost, but it's not the reference I thought it might be. A good range of tools and features are described at Image editing and there's also a good existing comparative ref at Comparison of raster graphics editors#features to link to. All good, but should we still boost Raster graphics editor to provide an easier access reference, d'you think? mikaultalk 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just someone's 2c - I just wrote on the Talk:Maya page urging some to not truncate the features drastically, as they discuss. Otherwise Photoshop just becomes "a graphics program" One of the great things about the old Enc. Brittanica was it's depth about any subject - you actually LEARNED the subject, not just a blurb about it. No, you can't turn it into a manual, either, but it's about the program, I say display it's properties. And yes, I use the ' old style........Habit. Jjdon (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Market Share

I miss information about market share in the entry, and the total number of licenses for the product. Terjen 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link or incorrect word use

color models RGB, lab, CMYK, grayscale, bitmap, and duotone. Photoshop has the ability to read and write Raster and Vector image formats such as: .EPS, .PNG

the word BITMAP links to a BINARY page - change one end of the link for accuracy excuse my formatting - could not find coherent guidelines on how to contribute to a wiki project! 81.99.122.167 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. The Help link on the left-hand sidebar is a good starting place for editing guidelines. Chris Cunningham 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reverts

So it seems that in the interests of compromise, a revert of a series of copy edits was partially accepted. I can't see any actual justification for this, so I've rolled back to the latest version. Discussion would be nice. Chris Cunningham 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say "latest version" you really mean "not really the latest version but it sounds better that way." How about this for discussion: You aren't discussing anything, and ignoring the discussion that has happened in edit comments solely to revert to your version, as you said "revert to mine".... This shows a clear intent to WP:OWN this article, especially as you are reverting sections of the article that have been on this article for ages and discussed previously and having a clear consensus to be there. DreamGuy 06:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The amount of time a section has been in an article has no bearing on whether it should be changed or not. You can't go around saying "Well, it's there in the article already, so we should just leave it." Anyways, most of Chris's edits are grammatical in nature. The only thing I can see that shouldn't have been removed was the commented-out note about not adding more external links. Yes, it seems a bit redundant to have it there (since anyone who's read WP:EL would know not to add non-notable links), but I can understand the reasoning behind it.
And saying "back to mine" is not evidence of ownership. I mean, come on. It's saying "back to my previous version," which is similar to saying "reverted revision whatever to previous version by so-and-so." Ownership is something completely different. It's not clear to anyone but yourself. And considering your history with this "problem editor," it's hardly surprising you're so willing to jump on his back again. Have you even looked at his edits? The only thing removed (which I have added back) was the link comments. --clpo13(talk) 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to repeat this, as a "problem editor" I've got roughly the same amount of edits in the article namespace under my belt as DreamGuy (~8000) and I've never interacted with him at all previously to my knowledge. As for the statement that I'm reverting "sections of this article which have... a clear consensus to be there", this consensus doesn't appear to be have formed on the talk page through inspection of the archive, and I simply don't have the time to check if the comments made on historical edit summaries have any bearing to reality (as exposed by his two RfCs and the recent ANI, DreamGuy's edit summaries are frequently misleading). Considering that the edits in question are trivial copyedits, and that exactly the same claims of bad-faith editing were made against my earlier reordering of the article's sections and templates per the manual of style, I'm not inclined to believe that anything has changed. Chris Cunningham 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, what is your rationale for reverting the edits made by Chris and others? Considering that there is no appreciable difference between the two versions (seen here) other than simple grammatical or copyediting issues, consistently reverting and accusing other editors of "blind reverts" is clear evidence of ownership, especially if you don't explain yourself. --clpo13(talk) 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, so "back to mine" supposedly isn't clear evidence of WP:OWN violations but restoring to the longstanding consensus version is? You can't be serious. DreamGuy 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am being serious. "Back to mine" means "back to my last (good) version." I thought I had made that clear. However, claiming a longstanding consensus when there isn't one is most certainly ownership. Chris's edits (the ones I was referring to) weren't going against consensus; they were copyedits. Reverting them without specifying a reason is bad form, considering no appreciable amount of content was changed, other than in a grammatical sense. --clpo13(talk) 08:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

While actually reading that article cited in the Trademark section, Adobe says merely using "Photoshop" to refer to the application is incorrect. Does Wikipedia comply with their guidelines, which would make this article extremely tedious to read? ALTON .ıl 10:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In short, the current use is correct for Wikipedia. If you have a few days to spare you could lose yourself in WP:NAME and its associated subpages for a more detailed breakdown. :) Chris Cunningham 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screen shot at the top

I've been thinking about the screen shot at the top of this article. I'm not sure that it is a particularly clear example of the PS interface. While novel and kind of funny to see the image window overlaying an image on the desktop which matches, for those who are not particularly knowledgeable on photoshop, or the floating window interface of Mac, this could be confusing. I think that for the sake of clarity an image against a more plain desktop would be more informative to the average reader. Crocadillion 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous image had sort of that motif going, so I wanted to be consistent. I don't particularly like the way it looks in OS X, but I'll redo if it someone doesn't get a better version. ALTON .ıl 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I say re-do it... clarity is key with these images. I use Photoshop everyday, but if my sister came to find out about it, she would not have any idea what that interface was all about, or have the first clue as to why the image looked like that. Crocadillion 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Check it, I changed it. I don't know what the Windows one looks like, but I think it would look better as a screenshot. ALTON .ıl 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to re-do the screenshot. The icon in the dock and the menus in the menubar ("OS X elements") are parts of the program, and a solid gray background is too dull (how about just using the standard aqua background?). You could get a good idea of how it would look in windows by checking out Image:Photoshop.gif –Althepal 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha, you're right. This screenshot is the Mac 'full-screen' which makes it like that, with the grey, only covering full screen (Incidentally, the background I had for the shot is the Aqua). ALTON .ıl 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's perfect! I thought the owl picture from before was fun, but just not as clear as it could be, this is great and to the point though!

[edit] Photoshopping as a verb

DreamGuy has unlinked photoshopping from the article section that discusses its use as a verb. Everyone agrees that Adobe discourages this, but DreamGuy has been on a compaign to pretend it's not done, or to hide the evidence of it, or something like that (going so far as to argue that a reference in evidence of it in the other article is "not needed" in light of Adobe's policy). Rather than revert his unlinking, I figure I should just ask here and see what others think is appropriate. Dicklyon 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link to see if anyone cared, and he said it's not done to have a section link and an article link in the same sentence, which I agree is a little usual, so I fixed it to have just the more specific link to the photoshopping section since that's the topic of the sentence. Anyone got a better idea? Dicklyon 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again because it's absolutely improper. It gives entirely the wrong idea of what the verb means, as explained over and over and over again -- in fact it was that very issue that got the Photoshopping article removed in the first place, so you certainly cannot be unfamiliar with it. Photoshopping means "to use Photoshop" which is this article so doesn't need to link anywhere. For those people who use the term loosely to mean "to edit with any program similiar to or including Photoshop" the correct link would be Photo editing, and that's already linked to in this sentence. Linking to an article that's not an article that redirects to a subsection of another article that only spends one sentence giving the real defintion and then goes into great detail in some very minor subset of the definition ("to edit with any photo editing program to fool around and make joke images")is an abuse of the linking policies and is a transparent attempt -- as you have been trying for months -- to personally redefine the verb in a misleading and neologistic way. DreamGuy 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong idea? Yes, you've asserted that repeatedly, but without sources to rebut the sources listed at photo editing#Photoshopping. And yes you know full well that I am very familiar with the issue, but that is distinctly NOT why I merged the photoshopping article into photo editing. We had a consensus that that article would be a better place for the information, not that the information was wrong. Dicklyon 00:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing what you stubbornly believe despite all evidence and consensus. The sources listed there do NOT say that the term means "editing around for mere entertainment purposes" is the definition, they include that as an example within the larger definition. You seem to purposefully misread any and all sources and lie about what they say just so you can have your way. More to the point, the very first line of the "Photoshopping" section says it means to edit in general, therefore linking the term to the section that means screwing around for fun is clearly wrong, even with what the article itself says. DreamGuy 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, good, we do agree at least that "The sources listed there do NOT say that the term means 'editing around for mere entertainment purposes' is the definition." Linking to "the very first line of the 'Photoshopping' section (where it) says it means to edit in general" sounds like a good place to me. Dicklyon 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm a bit confused. When has anyone said photoshopping is only for entertainment purposes? I was under the impression that the idea of photoshopping encompasses both professional and non-professional usage. --clpo13(talk) 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics on program titles

I removed all the italics from program titles (such as Photoshop and ImageReady, etc.) per the Manual of Style, which states that computer software other than games should not be italicized. Just a note to future editors. --clpo13(talk) 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... So the Manual of Style is screwed up, so what else is new? There's absolutely no rationale for italicizing game titles and not other titles. DreamGuy 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make it up so don't shoot me. The only rationale I can think of is that video games are kind of like books or movies, both of which are italicized. But that's just my guess. --clpo13(talk) 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HerrSchnapps's grammatical edits

What's the difference? I can't see any possibility interpretation of English in which HerrSchnapps's version is wrong if the original is correct, but the reverse could be true. In any case, neither "one disk" version is supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference except that HerrSchnapps's version has slightly better grammar. Come now, you know we're all "problem editors" who are spending our Friday nights in specifically to annoy other Wikipedians. Chris Cunningham 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that HerrSchnapp's version switches the perfectly fine "one floppy disk" to the cliched "a single floppy disk" and unnecessarily capitalizes the v in version 2.0 and overall makes the whole section less readable and with more errors than what it was before. From the edit comment on the article edit by Arthur Rubin and Thumperward's highly uncivil comment above, along with the problems in the edit itself, it's pretty clear that people are reverting just for the sake of reverting or just not looking at the edit for actual content. DreamGuy 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there were content differences, as well. The prior version said "fit on one floppy disk" (implying it was actually distributed on a single disk ... if that's the case, we should say so) and HerrSchnapp's version said "could fit on a single floppy disk". As neither of those statements is corroborated by that source, we shouldn't have either one there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone could take Thumperward's comment as uncivil. I also don't see what possible problems there were with HerrSchnapp's edit. Reverting it only shows WP:OWNership problems. No significant amount of content was changed, the section didn't become unreadable, and no harm was done (unless we're including pride in the equation). At the very least, good faith should have been assumed. --clpo13(talk) 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it was deliberate snark, and everyone knows that snark is the highest form of incivility on Wikipedia. I should imagine smelling salts were needed. Anyway, I'm not wasting my beautiful mind on the motives in question any more (if I ever really did), I'm just making sure copyedits survive. That's quite easy these days what with so many people having been drawn into our vast conspiracy to vandalise the Photoshop article "against consensus". Chris Cunningham 10:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photoshop / Photoshop Elements

I've started a discussion at Talk:Adobe Photoshop Elements as to whether two separate articles are justified. I'd be grateful if anybody with views on this could join the discussion over there. B1atv 11:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think they should be merged, you should place Template:mergeto and Template:mergefrom tags in them and start the discussion where those point you. Dicklyon 15:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed eye reference

i took out This version's logo also introduced the "eye" motif seen until version 8.0 of the program.<ref name="reiven">{{cite web |url=http://www.webdesign.org/web/photoshop/articles/photoshop-history.10917.html |title=Photoshop History|accessdate=2007-06-16 |author=Reiven (alias) |date=[[2007-01-25]] |work=Web Design Library }}</ref> talking about photoshop 3.0. the link given as reference clearly shows an eye in the logo for photoshop 1.0, and the about box artwork for version 2.0 (the Mac version at least) also had an eye.

[edit] Features Section

I think that we should expand the features section of this article so it reflects possible filters, and other functions of Photoshop. This section could also show the growth of the program, as it could show the growth of the features from the first version on. I feel that this would greatly increase the usefulness of this article. Let me know what you think!

We could also merge the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop_plugins with this one...

Perhaps we could either create a new plug-ins section, or else alter the info in the plugins page to better represent information in the features section.

Milton88 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this recently and didn't get round to acting on it, because I found a lot of what you're suggesting on other, very comprehensive pages. Basically, this article would be huge if we started adding in details of that sort of functionality, and so much of it is available with other software. It does, I think, make sense to look at it generically, as per Comparison of raster graphics editors, which links to yet more articles detailing these common features. There's something to be said for including anything unique to PS here, I suppose, though I cant think of anything not already there. Photoshop plugins is already linked via {{see}} from that section, and I've now added a similar link at Features to Comparison of raster graphics editors, which was the omission which I was originally interested in fixing. As this was linked at the See also section, I've replaced that link with Image editing. --mikaultalk 14:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)