«

In article <CC4192AF.8C18B%>, George Kerby
<> wrote:

> > there is no need to resize anything to drag windows on a mac. that's
> > how it's been since 1987, when multiple monitor support was added to
> > the system, and actually 1986 if you count a third party product, which
> > was designed to work with a mac plus that didn't even have any
> > expansion slots at all.
>
> Radius, as I recall...

yep, it was the radius full page display. radius was founded by ex-mac
design team members, including burrell smith and andy hertzfeld.

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:24:34 -0400, nospam <>
>however, i can guarantee that elements *does* have image processing
>capabilities. to claim otherwise is ludicrous. what do you think it
>does, if not image processing?? more importantly, it uses the same
>camera raw engine as the full photoshop and lightroom.

Actually it uses a cut down version, not as many controls.

Trevor.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:55:51 +1200, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 14:32:58 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:24:34 -0400, nospam <>
>>>however, i can guarantee that elements *does* have image processing
>>>capabilities. to claim otherwise is ludicrous. what do you think it
>>>does, if not image processing?? more importantly, it uses the same
>>>camera raw engine as the full photoshop and lightroom.
>>
>>Actually it uses a cut down version, not as many controls.
>>
>That's what I would have expected. I'm not aware that Adobe actually
>says this anywhere. I expect that someone will now come out of the
>woodwork and explain to me that they do.

From the woodwork...

If Trevor was saying that the RAW processing module of Elements is a
cut-down version of the RAW processing module of (full) Photoshop, I
disagree. It's the same control panel on both for me. (CS4 & E 9.0)

Once the image is "opened", the tools available in Elements are not
the same as the tools available in Photoshop. There's very little you
can't do in Elements compared to PS, but there are restrictions for
very advanced users.

This subject is best understood by a comparison of what *isn't* the
same rather than what is the same. There are so many options in both
that you don't want to bother with a tick-off list that says that both
contains tools like crop, clone, erase, etc. Here's what isn't in
both:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/pho...ntscompare.htm

Note that this compares CS5 with Elements 9. Elements 10 is now
available and it might have something that wasn't in 9. I have 9, but
not 10.

Some of the points in this are not well presented. It says, for
example that E9 doesn't have some "advanced" things. I'm not sure
what that really entails. I do know that at my skill level (I would
describe it as "moderate" to "advanced moderate") I could do
everything I currently do in PS just as well in Elements. I use CS4
primarily because that's what I'm used to, and I'm used to how CS4
accesses each tool and feature.

I apologize in advance if some of my terms are non-geekish. I don't
know if the geeks call it a "RAW processing module". I do know that
if I open a RAW file, there's a panel of settings that I can change.
It's the same panel in both CS4 and E9. When I've changed what I
want to change, I click "Open Image", any further adjustments are in
Photoshop or Elements.

You can call it the RAW engine, or the image processing control, or
whatever, but in practice it acts like a separate module because you
leave it when you click "Open Image".

I also apologize if someone's system is different from mine and what
they see or have is not the same as mine. All I can do is explain
what I have and know about. I don't know what's on your machine.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 14:32:58 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:

>
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:24:34 -0400, nospam <>
>>however, i can guarantee that elements *does* have image processing
>>capabilities. to claim otherwise is ludicrous. what do you think it
>>does, if not image processing?? more importantly, it uses the same
>>camera raw engine as the full photoshop and lightroom.
>
>Actually it uses a cut down version, not as many controls.

No, my memory card has never worn out.

Wally

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> I apologize in advance if some of my terms are non-geekish. I don't
> know if the geeks call it a "RAW processing module". I do know that
> if I open a RAW file, there's a panel of settings that I can change.
> It's the same panel in both CS4 and E9. When I've changed what I
> want to change, I click "Open Image", any further adjustments are in
> Photoshop or Elements.
>
> You can call it the RAW engine, or the image processing control, or
> whatever, but in practice it acts like a separate module because you
> leave it when you click "Open Image".

it acts like a separate module because it *is* a separate module.

that's adobe camera raw, and it's a plug-in for photoshop and photoshop
elements (same plug-in), while it is integrated into lightroom. it's
the same code in all three.

that's one area in which lightroom has an advantage. since camera raw
is integrated into the app, you can easily invoke the camera raw
controls again and make changes, long after you've made your initial
adjustments. everything in lightroom is non-destructive.

you can get photoshop to invoke camera raw again, but it's an extra
step and a non-obvious one at that, as i said a few days ago. it's not
the default and many people don't know there's even an option.

although the camera raw plug-in is the same for both photoshop elements
and the full photoshop, elements may not expose all of the controls
that are available in the full photoshop. that's the only difference.
it's still the exact same code underneath, so anything you do in
elements can be done in the others, with the exact same results.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >the point is, when you get two (or more) displays, you calibrate all of
> >them so they match. the above problem (if it even was a problem)
> >becomes a non-issue.
>
> I know that calibration is not sufficient on its own.

it usually is.

> If the two
> screens do not have the same optical characteristics they will look
> different and I am concerned that I will find that disconcerting.

don't get anything drastically different and it shouldn't be a problem.

> My present screen is a Dell U2410 which is a 24" screen from their
> Ultrasharp range. I like it very much. It's far bigger than is needed
> for most editing tasks on a single image, even when all the palettes
> etc that image processing software generates are crammed on to it.

i've found that to be the case too. two displays are nice in many
circumstances but it's not an absolute requirement.

what's amusing is that one big display today is several times the space
of multiple monitors of long ago. 25 years ago, i used to have two
640x480 crts. one big lcd display now is almost 4x as much space as
*both* of those crts were then.


> I don't want to buy a second screen identical to the first. The two
> would be far too large and far too expensive. What I am considering is
> buying a second and smaller screen from the Ultrasharp range and,
> possibly, mounting it vertically so that it doesn't take up so much
> room on my desk. However, I find that lots of applications don't take
> kindly to anything but the landscape orientation.

why would they care? apps look at the dimensions of the attached
displays and size their windows accordingly. at least non-crappy ones
do.

some apps might be explicitly designed for landscape (e.g., games with
custom artwork), but most apps don't care. apps such as browsers and
word processing actually work better in portrait than in landscape.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> >>> >I've seen that page and certainly its better than nothing. But, for
> >> >>> >example, is it really true that, as implied by the page, that CS6 and
> >> >>> >LR4 both have the same "State-of-the-art image processing controls"? I
> >> >>> >suspect not.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >At least Elements is excluded from that claim.
....
> >what adobe said was that the image processing controls are the same,
> >and that is a true statement.
>
> I don't think they actually said that at all. Can you identify the
> site you are referring to?

*you* are the one that posted it. it's still quoted above.

> >> Could it be because CS6 has controls/tools not available in LR?
> >
> >why yes, it is!
>
> Then what are they? What do they do?

lots of stuff. cmyk, lab, filter plugins, smart objects, 3d and lots
more.

"George Kerby" <> wrote in message
news:CC41941B.8C18D%...
>
>
>
> On 8/2/12 12:15 PM, in article ,
> "tony cooper" <> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:36:04 -0400, nospam <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <>, tony cooper
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I use two monitors attached to my laptop running windows 7 at work,
>>>>> and everything works seemlessly. Objects can be partially on one
>>>>> screen and partially on the other, and you can drag them back and
>>>>> forth at will, no need to minimize or maximize. I often work in a
>>>>> single window spanning both screens. The two montiors I have are
>>>>> identical and same resolution, so maybe that is the issue, not sure.
>>>>
>>>> That seems the most logical explanation of why you can do what I
>>>> can't: two identical monitors.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect this to be the case with Macs, too.
>>>
>>> it's definitely not the case.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait for a Mac user who uses two screens of
>> different sizes/ratios who has experience with this to tell me. You
>> have no credibility.
>>
>
> Tony, I do that with a Apple Cinema 30" and a later model LED 24" Cinema
> Display. When oriented correctly in System Prefs, it is a seamless
> operation
> moving windows around. Nospam is absolutely correct here.
>
>
>> Whether it is or isn't the case is unimportant. It's a minor thing.
>
> Well, you are certianly making something out of it then.

I use dual LCD Monitors, a 24" and a 25", KVM switched between one computer
running WinXP and another running Win7. All my programs open in a minimized
condition, which is to say either less than full screen or full screen but
adjustable by dragging a corner. All of those windows can be moved from one
screen to another at any time with a simple drag. (Just like your MAC) It
is only if I click the maximize box to cause the window to "lock" to the
full screen that the window cannot be dragged from one monitor to another.
I see no disadvantage to this system.

Steve King

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:12:02 -0400, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> I apologize in advance if some of my terms are non-geekish. I don't
>> know if the geeks call it a "RAW processing module". I do know that
>> if I open a RAW file, there's a panel of settings that I can change.
>> It's the same panel in both CS4 and E9. When I've changed what I
>> want to change, I click "Open Image", any further adjustments are in
>> Photoshop or Elements.
>>
>> You can call it the RAW engine, or the image processing control, or
>> whatever, but in practice it acts like a separate module because you
>> leave it when you click "Open Image".
>
>it acts like a separate module because it *is* a separate module.
>
>that's adobe camera raw, and it's a plug-in for photoshop and photoshop
>elements (same plug-in), while it is integrated into lightroom. it's
>the same code in all three.
>
>that's one area in which lightroom has an advantage. since camera raw
>is integrated into the app, you can easily invoke the camera raw
>controls again and make changes, long after you've made your initial
>adjustments. everything in lightroom is non-destructive.
>
>you can get photoshop to invoke camera raw again, but it's an extra
>step and a non-obvious one at that, as i said a few days ago. it's not
>the default and many people don't know there's even an option.
>
>although the camera raw plug-in is the same for both photoshop elements
>and the full photoshop, elements may not expose all of the controls
>that are available in the full photoshop. that's the only difference.
>it's still the exact same code underneath, so anything you do in
>elements can be done in the others, with the exact same results.

Again, I will take the position of a non-geek. To me, a "plug-in" is
something available that will work with a program, but is not included
in the program as initially installed. It is "plugged into" what you
have. This may not be the understanding that all have.

The Camera RAW module in my version of CS4 and Elements 9 were
integral with the programs when I purchased them. I didn't add Camera
RAW processing ability to either.

Once in Photoshop, I don't re-invoke Camera RAW. Ever. If there is
some change that I feel should be made, and can only be made in the
RAW file, I'll start over from the .dng. This is a pain, but it's my
fault for not carefully processing the RAW file in the first place.

The implication of an "extra step", though, being some sort of
terrible thing escapes me. When you open a file for processing,
everything done is an extra step. Changing the WB in the RAW module
is an extra step after the opening step that requires placing the
cursor there and moving the slider. Several other extra steps may be
taken. After the step of opening the file in the Photoshop mode, any
edits are extra steps.

There's no heavy lifting required. How is one extra step different
from another, but acceptable, extra step?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> I apologize in advance if some of my terms are non-geekish. I don't
> >> know if the geeks call it a "RAW processing module". I do know that
> >> if I open a RAW file, there's a panel of settings that I can change.
> >> It's the same panel in both CS4 and E9. When I've changed what I
> >> want to change, I click "Open Image", any further adjustments are in
> >> Photoshop or Elements.
> >>
> >> You can call it the RAW engine, or the image processing control, or
> >> whatever, but in practice it acts like a separate module because you
> >> leave it when you click "Open Image".
> >
> >it acts like a separate module because it *is* a separate module.
> >
> >that's adobe camera raw, and it's a plug-in for photoshop and photoshop
> >elements (same plug-in), while it is integrated into lightroom. it's
> >the same code in all three.
> >
> >that's one area in which lightroom has an advantage. since camera raw
> >is integrated into the app, you can easily invoke the camera raw
> >controls again and make changes, long after you've made your initial
> >adjustments. everything in lightroom is non-destructive.
> >
> >you can get photoshop to invoke camera raw again, but it's an extra
> >step and a non-obvious one at that, as i said a few days ago. it's not
> >the default and many people don't know there's even an option.
> >
> >although the camera raw plug-in is the same for both photoshop elements
> >and the full photoshop, elements may not expose all of the controls
> >that are available in the full photoshop. that's the only difference.
> >it's still the exact same code underneath, so anything you do in
> >elements can be done in the others, with the exact same results.
>
> Again, I will take the position of a non-geek. To me, a "plug-in" is
> something available that will work with a program, but is not included
> in the program as initially installed. It is "plugged into" what you
> have. This may not be the understanding that all have.

your understanding is incorrect.

a plug-in is an independent module that adds functionality to a host
program. whether a plug-in is included or not does not change what it
is. it can also be removed if the user doesn't want its functionality,
perhaps to save some disk space or reduce interface clutter.

camera raw happens to be included with photoshop, as are many other
plug-ins. in fact, quite a bit of photoshop's functionality is done
that way, including many of the filters in the filter menu, supported
file formats, hdr, contact sheet printing and other functionality. take
a look at the plug-ins folder inside the app folder. camera raw is a
unique plug-in, so it lives somewhere else.

having the app be modular means any of the plug-ins can be updated
without needing to update the entire app. that's how adobe adds support
for new cameras in camera raw. all you need to do is update the camera
raw plugin.

lightroom, on the other hand, has camera raw integrated, so you have to
download a new version of lightroom for new camera support, but
lightroom is a *lot* smaller than photoshop so it's not a big deal and
having it integrated offers a lot of advantages. also, unless you
actually get a new camera, you don't really need to update it (unless
it fixes a bug that affects you).

> The Camera RAW module in my version of CS4 and Elements 9 were
> integral with the programs when I purchased them. I didn't add Camera
> RAW processing ability to either.

it's still a plug-in, just bundled, and if you get a new camera, you
will need to update camera raw. adobe updates it every couple of
months. they also fix bugs and sometimes add new functionality.

> Once in Photoshop, I don't re-invoke Camera RAW. Ever. If there is
> some change that I feel should be made, and can only be made in the
> RAW file, I'll start over from the .dng. This is a pain, but it's my
> fault for not carefully processing the RAW file in the first place.

it's your fault for not knowing how to best use the app.

you can't always anticipate what processing you might want in the
future. having the ability to go back but never using it is a lot
better than not having that ability and needing to.

that 2 second savings or whatever it was that you found with lightroom
in that test of yours suddenly becomes a several minute savings the
very first time you have to start over, perhaps much longer depending
on the image, because lightroom lets you go back and change things very
easily. you don't have to start over.

> The implication of an "extra step", though, being some sort of
> terrible thing escapes me. When you open a file for processing,
> everything done is an extra step. Changing the WB in the RAW module
> is an extra step after the opening step that requires placing the
> cursor there and moving the slider. Several other extra steps may be
> taken. After the step of opening the file in the Photoshop mode, any
> edits are extra steps.

the point is that if you adjust white balance, exposure, etc, and click
'open' in the camera raw window, those edits are locked in stone.
they're destructive. you can't go back and change them anymore, outside
of starting over and who wants to do that all the time?

for those edits to be non-destructive, you have to plan ahead and make
a smart object every time (which is not the default and not even
obvious that you *can* do that).

this is what i said early on, and something you still fail to grasp. in
some cases having that ability is not needed but in other cases it
might be.

how you work is not how everyone else should work. it's also amusing
that you use that against others yet you don't understand it yourself.

> There's no heavy lifting required. How is one extra step different
> from another, but acceptable, extra step?

because it's not obvious that it's even available.