Talk:Adobe Photoshop/Archive 2

This section describes the way Photoshop works, without a single citation and appears to be complete OR, so I've tagged it as such.

• Although Photoshop is a raster-based editor, it does have vector creating and editing capabilities (you can create "shapes" and "paths").
• An image doesn't necessarily need to be made up of millions of single colored pixels. Greyscale images have no colour. Duotone images have specific colours. Not necessarily millions.
• Individual colours can be made of 3 channels, RGB. But the alpha channel should be noted. A pixel in RGB is likely represented by 4, RGB+A, not just RGB. Who says that CMYK images are comprised of RGB in Photohshop?

If this stuff isn't soucred soon, I'll probably delete it because it's seems wildly inaccurate. It would be nice to have a paragraph similar to this with correct, sourced information. Agree? _{TKGD2007|TALK} 03:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph is to point out that Photoshop is primarily a raster editor. That meaning should remain, but the color information is unncessarily constrained and specific. I'd dump everything but the first sentence, and then reword that sentence to something akin to, "Photoshop was historically a raster-based image editor, in contrast to Illustrator's emphasis on vectors. As Photoshop has evolved, more recent versions have incorporated the ability to edit simple vector and shape elements." If you want to briefly describe the difference between pixels and vectors, or simply link Wiki's raster graphics article, I'm sure that would be sufficiently illuminative. Alexdi (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary market leader

I think I know what "It is the current market leader" would mean, but in "It is the current and primary market leader" does the word "primary" add anything to the meaning? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Giving this article a C, I would recommend some parts of the article, such as the "Plugins" section, be lengthened. -download | sign! 18:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Killer PC application

The article states photoshop was "one of the early 'killer applications' on the PC.", which is a bit misleading. The referenced article states it became a must have for design professional on the [IBM] PC in 1994, which is not early in the development of the PC. It says it had been a killer application on the Mac since 88, which is arguably early.

I suggest changing the term 'PC' to either 'Mac', 'Desktop Computer', 'Microcomputer' or another term that does not imply an IBM-compatible Thelem (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I didn't want to start a Mac vs. PC debate, but Macs have been, are, and always will be industry standard design hardware. "Killer PC application"...honestly... --DanzaBarr (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cost?

How much does this thing cost, cuz I want to buy one.--Matematx 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matematx (talk • contribs)

It costs 5 bucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.53 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind i found it out it's 700$--Matematx 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pixel-based image editor?

Re. the following: "Photoshop is a pixel-based image editor, unlike Adobe Illustrator, which is a vector-based image editor." 1) Is there consensus in calling Photoshop pixel-based as opposed to raster-based? The "dots of color" don't necessarily represent pixels (for images intended for print for example). 2) Is there consensus in calling either application an "image editor"? Editing images is only one of the things you can do with either. Better might be, "Photoshop is primarily a raster editor, as opposed to Illustrator, which is primarily vector-based." Something like that. Focomoso (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ACR, Camera Raw, Adobe Camera Raw

I just added a paragraph about this to the Plugin section. This is so that searches for terms such as "Adobe Camera Raw", "ACR", etc, can be directed here rather than the DNG page they were redirecting to, which was completely inappropriate. I wondered whether the paragraph should have gone into the Photoshop plugin page, but it appears to be a special case. ACR is freely available and comes with Photoshop automatically. (I suspect it is by far the best known plugin, but typically not as a plugin). The reason it is a plugin isn't for the normal reasons for plugins noted there, it is so that it can easily be replaced a number of times during the life of a single version of Photoshop, to cater for new cameras. It isn't intended that anyone else ever provides an alternative, and as far as the user is concerned it hardly appears to be a plugin at all. It is more like part of Photoshop. Barry Pearson 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Adobe CS5 features

http://cs5.org/?p=415 is a video preview of what Adobe Labs are currently experimenting on with Adobe Photoshop CS5. Check back there for more info, just thought the link would be useful for the article in the future. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision 324679488

This is more about articles in general. Usually I notice that articles which have anything that is obvious vandalism get reverted in seconds or just a few minutes. It wasn't until 36:09 hours later that another user reverted this article instead of a Bot reverting it. What happened there? Mechamind90 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

How come is the main screenshot about the Windows version?--151.64.235.142 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)