Adobe has released the CS3 suite today.
http://www.adobe.com/
There will be two versions of Photoshop and six packages.
Pricing is as usual: expensive.
Adobe has released the CS3 suite today.
http://www.adobe.com/
There will be two versions of Photoshop and six packages.
Pricing is as usual: expensive.
Expensive bloatware aimed at architects this time.
I'm wondering if Adobe has put currency checkers into the 3d system they have bodged in? CS2 was slow enough but the CS3 beta was appaluling on the intel apple, not tried XP/Vista. I imagine XP fine and Vista painful.
Steven
I know - that fraking currency checking system just cripples CS2.
Wonder how Chris J manages with those massive composites of dollar bills he's been making...!
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Adobe Quote:
"Process raw images with increased speed and superior conversion quality using the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in..."
I'm interpreting this as meaning that the same plug-in works better in CS3 than it does in CS2 - any thoughts?
I always thought of ACR as an application rather than a plug-in. The ACR that comes with CS3 has a different interface than the one that comes with CS2, also with more refined controls (although found in Lightroom).
After running CS3 beta on MacIntel for a couple of months, it looks as if it is what marketers would call "new and improved" version of it. But whatever one decides to call it, there is a ton more (useful) features than in previous versions.
And I wouldn't call it slow either, the thing positively flies compared to CS2 under Rosetta. All this still in beta, as I will wait until Mac OS X 10.5 comes out so I can upgrade both at the same time, but I doubt they've made it slower and less feature-rich in the final version.
I'll wait for my Beta version to expire first. Maybe I'll get lucky.
I hope they fixed Bridge. I find that it has a heck of a time with TIFF files, and is slow with large files. My Mac "Finder" does a better job generating thumbnails than Bridge. They probably call out to the OS for that anyway, so why not just use the OS for browsing anyhow.
If I had zillions of small files, perhaps I would appreciate it. Instead, I have a small number of huge files. I'll bet they never spent much time optimizing for that.
I pretty much hate Bridge. I really can't understand why anyone would want it to do what it does and so slowly. Why not the finder? (I think the answer is to rope us into their way of working to keep us dependent while convincing us its a "feature")
I use Photo Mechanic (which screams) for digicam files and/or where there's lots to keep track of but for other files like big film scans its so easy to simply look at the icon of the file or the file name or the folder name.
Q.T. probably needs more sophistication than that, but then he probably needs more than what Bridge does as well.
I actually find Bridge adequate and Lightroom only a slight improvement. It crawls only while generating the previews, which Photo Mechanic also does. Can you use the finder (or any other software) to view at nearly full screen size, flag/rate images, batch rename, and open in Photoshop with an action lauched ?
Bookmarks