| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2006 04:45:12 AM · #1 |
I just got my copy of cs2 today and am dissappointed to find that features like sharpening or anything that involves a pop up box similar to the sharpening box where you can select areas of the image to magnify, just don't magnify. All I see is pure white in the magnification box, clicking on other portions of the image doesn't do shit. This happens with unsharp mask, smart sharpen, and when I tried to apply a film grain it just loaded a completely white image in the film grain box that popped up. To top this off the sharpening functions and maybe many more functions I haven't used yet don't appear to be working at all (I do know how to sharpen an image). I think the problem might be related to the fact I'm using one of the new intel macs. If it makes a difference, and I doubt it should, I'm editing a tiff file from a scanned b+w negative.
Anyone else had this problem? |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 04:54:28 AM · #2 |
Kerry ,
Are you sure you were applying the filters or effects on the correct layer (background or background copy) ?
What you describe happens to me if I apply a filter on an adjustment layer (selective color by example) , then only a white background appears.
Message edited by author 2006-05-04 04:59:26. |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 05:01:54 AM · #3 |
Yeah, That "might have" been the problem.
I'm fairly new to digital and while I understand photoshop as far as workflow, layers, editing, and so on, I have logged little time actually using it (up to now I've been reading lots of tutorials and books so I understand how to use it) but little things like this I don't always catch, and apparently forget about.
Thanks Mambe |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 05:11:34 AM · #4 |
Have you tryed to apply filters now ?
Does CS2 work now ?
I'm not an expert at all , there're surely people here who can help you .
In case it was just because of layers , now it's time for you to enjoy it ! |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 05:21:09 AM · #5 |
| Sorry to hear that, but what did you expect from an intel chip? besides that, when the intel macs were announced, adobe had a press release saying, they won't make any changes til CS3 is ready. Sell your intel mac and go for a motorola, it is NOT REALLY slower |
|
|
|
05/04/2006 06:21:34 AM · #6 |
Yes, i just heard today about CS2 with the new intel mac, i was thinking of buying it, and i was told to wait until CS3 came out as some things don't work with it....
I know how frusterating these things are, sorry to hear it matey...
|
|
|
|
05/04/2006 09:23:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Sorry to hear that, but what did you expect from an intel chip? besides that, when the intel macs were announced, adobe had a press release saying, they won't make any changes til CS3 is ready. Sell your intel mac and go for a motorola, it is NOT REALLY slower |
LOL, blame it all on Intel. It can't be blamed on the hardware, it's due to porting the OS to the different hardware. Apple went to Intel for one reason; Motorola clearly had lost ground compared to other µP manufacturers (Intel, AMD) and was highly unlikely to ever catch up. Apple did what they hd to do.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2006 10:17:32 AM · #8 |
And Intel has vast resources for code re-compiling. Hence, though AMD led performance, Intel could offer more support resources for the transition. Then after said transition in 5 yrs or whatever the exclusivity Apple could choose top dog. And who's to say it won't be Intel again.
It was an intelligent business move on Apple part... |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:23:12 AM · #9 |
| Sorry, I guess I was unclear in previous post about "might have" been the problem and not catching little things. The problem is that I didn't have the background image selected. As Kirbic said it's not the hardware its the software needing to be recompiled for a new chip architecture. While adobe hasn't released a universal binary of photoshop for intel macs, you can still run photoshop thanks to an automatic built in emulator in os x called rosetta. I have two gigs of ram and Photoshop is running fine and unnoticeably slower than it does on G5s. Keep in mind that those speed tests involve something like 20 automated actions, and yes G5s currently can run these automations quicker than the intel chips. However, in the real world our photoshop workflow is maybe ten steps or so, and not automated since we are manually adjusting an image. While each individual change may be a couple seconds slower you won't notice. It's only when you combine many actions that are slighlty slower that a "speed decrease" becomes apparent. The point: while a clocked computer automation could dectect a speed decrease, in reality you would see very little working difference. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:17:15 PM · #10 |
OK so whats the bottom line here?.. im about to buy a new laptop, and to me the macbook was my choice, i have heard from two different poeple that if your into photography workflow, i may be better with the G4?? anyone give me some insight on why? you will have to explain it in really plain ( blonde) english, as i dont know a lot about computers.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 09:19:31 PM · #11 |
Roadrunner-
Here is your insight from someone who owns an intel mac, that also uses G5 macs on a regular basis
The change to intel chips also involved rewriting the mac os and mac programs to run on a different chip architecture (meaning the new chip doesn't read programs the same way the old did).
Currently all apple programs have been rewritten in what apple is calling a universal write- meaning it will run on powerpc chips (G chips) or intel chips without a hit in speed.
The hitch is not all programs that run on macs have been rewritten as a universal-
But not to fear-apple realized this and included a built in automatic program that converts the program from a powerpc only format to one that will run on intel.
But this extra step to translate the program means it also slows it down.
This is where the opinions kick in- Automated tests show that programs running through the apple translator run slower than they would on a G5.
I own an intel mac, and use a mac G5 at my college paper and I see no real difference in speed.
In my last post I was trying to make the point that these tests to evaluate speed while accurate are somewhat misleading for these reasons.
The tests are fully automated meaning the testers click go, start a stopwatch, and time how long it takes the computer to run through a predetermined list of steps that usuall involves opening a file-adjusting it in photoshop using auto functions I'm guessing (maybe auto levels, curves, etc) and then saving a file.
Keep in mind that since this is automated the computer is doing things seamlessly with no pause between actions (by seamlessly I mean faster than you or I could).
Its not that the new chips aren't faster-its that the translation slows the program down
However-I don't see a noticeable difference between the two because I am a person (not an automated script) and I can only make adjustments so quickly. So basically I can't work faster than the computer can.
The automated test script has the computer working constantly so yeah you see a difference in speed. When running though the list of actions each action might be a second or so slower ( so when all is said and done these 30 test actions might end up being 30 seconds slower when all combined).
But we humans have to do things one at a time, adjusting it, analyzing it, then on to the next step- so that 1 second or so of difference in speed we really won't notice on whatever current action we are doing-
Bottom line-powerpc chips aren't even around anymore unless you buy a used mac
The intel macs run solidly and include a translator that will run any old powerpc era software you already have
Most companies have already rewritten their programs so that they run on intel macs without translation meaning they run really fast
Adobe is one of the few who hasn't with the exception of lightroom which is universal and which runs with no delay on my machine.
They aren't planning on releasing a universal copy of cs2 since cs3 is already in the works and it would be easier to just write it from scratch to be intel mac optimized.
Macbooks are sweet, fast, and have beautiful displays, get one I almost did. I sprung for a 17 imac instead with 2 gigs of ram to have a larger screen to work on (the 17" macbook wasn't out then").
The way to go would be a macbook, and a 20" cinema display to connect it to at home.
If you need things futher explained let me know and I'll try my best to help as I researched this issue ALOT before making my purchase.
Kerry
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 21:25:26. |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 12:29:46 AM · #12 |
ok, cool, that makes way more sense to me. I actually already have a 20inch screen, so half way there. Realistically no matter what, the macbook would have to run faster than what i already have, so i will notice a huge difference with it. I am using a second hand powerbook G4 with a 867 mhz and only 512 mb memory, and it's real slow when i have my external HD pluged in. ill just pinch the kids 20 in screen everynow and then to use with my macbook!!
thanks so much Kerry, really appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 02:03:24 AM · #13 |
I am quoting David Pogue on the NY Times here:
"The biggest change of all, though, is in the MacBook's speed. It's nothing like the 4X or 5X speedup measured by Apple's benchmarks. .......
Note, though, that all of that speed is available only when you're using programs that have been revised to work with the Intel chip - so-called Universal programs. .........
Unfortunately, Most of the big-nameprograms, like Microsoft Office and Adobe everyting !!!! (My !!!), won't be released in Universal format for quite some time. These older programs still run acceptably on the MacBook, thanks to the magic of Apple's smooth, invisible translation software. But they run slowly, with pauses here and there. Even Photoshop runs all right, although photo editors won't want MacBooks as their primary Photoshop machines."
This article is called: Apple Laptop Has Looks and Brains and appeared in The NY Times in early March. His column always appears on Thursdays, so it would have been March 2nd.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 03:31:29 AM · #14 |
With 2 gigs of ram my imac hasn't had this problem yet. I completely agree that If I was a professional I would probably already have a g5 machine and I would wait to upgrade until the universal writes come out. Then I would definitely upgrade as adobe lightroom (which is the only universal photo program they have out thus far) runs blazingly fast. Photoshop cs2 runs plenty fast for me so far, but then again I'm on an intel imac (which may be slightly different from a macbook), and I have a ton of system memory. Alll these reports are completely subjective and you can't always go by specs alone.
My suggestion- anyone interested go to an apple store and test one out yourself and see if it will work for you.
However, If you're in my boat (or Kel's) where any upgrade will be faster than what you have previously been working on then you've got nothing to lose, and even more to gain when the universal binaries come out.
Message edited by author 2006-05-07 03:32:33. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 12:08:21 PM EDT.
