 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / May 2004Photoshop CS issues
Hi, I'm looking for some photoshop CS help. I like many of the new features, but so far 3 things are a problem for me. 1) I set the paper to best photo paper, but after I print, and go to the next image, the paper is back to plain paper. This never happened in any other version of photoshop. Any ideas on how to make CS work like older versions? 2) Edit -> Transform: where did numeric transform go (it went away in 6.0)? Sometimes I have a number of layers that need resizing or rotation a precise amount. It seems like now the only way is to use the mouse, thus you can't do different layers precisely the same except by luck. 3) Histogram. Older photoshop versions you got a bigger histogram window with some data. Now just the little icon. Can you get the "older" histogram info another way? Thanks for any help, Roger >From: "Roger N. Clark >1) I set the paper to best photo paper, but after I print, > and go to the next image, the paper is back to plain paper. > This never happened in any other version of photoshop. > Any ideas on how to make CS work like older versions? On my two Epson printers (1280, 2200) it works like before, ie, keeps the same paper type and other settings for as many sheets as you print in a session unless you change something. I think you have a Canon ... see if there's a new printer driver, which may address this issue? Or come over to the dark side and buy an Epson 4000 so you can print 17x22" with long-lasting Ultrachrome inks :) >2) Edit -> Transform: > where did numeric transform go (it went away in 6.0)? > Sometimes I have a number of layers that need resizing > or rotation a precise amount. It seems like now the > only way is to use the mouse, thus you can't do different > layers precisely the same except by luck. Maybe not what you want, but you can arbitrarily rotate the entire canvas with Image > Rotate Canvas > Arbitrary. If you just want to do it on a layer you can copy the layer to a new file and do the rotation there, then move it back to the original file. Or if you have a selection (probably closer to what you're doing?) then do Edit > Free Transform and in the context-sensitive menu bar there are boxes for entering the angle you wish to rotate. You know the trick with the Measure tool to get the precise angle for leveling horizons, etc, right? >3) Histogram. Older photoshop versions you got a bigger > histogram window with some data. Now just the > little icon. Can you get the "older" histogram > info another way? With the Histogram palette active click on the chevron-like icon on the top-right of the palette window and choose Expanded View or All Channels View instead of the default Compact View. >Thanks for any help Hope this helps ... now find us one more bear photographer :) Bill Bill, Wow. Thanks. Very helpful as usual. The numeric scale, rotate, etc are all there in the bar at the top of the screen when you go into the transform mode. It just shows how blind I can be! It was there all the time. The histogram tool is way cool in the expanded mode! The printer is another story. I can do 2,3, 5, 7... prints and it is just fine. But occasionally, even very rapid next print a minute later and suddenly its changed to plain paper. Other times I can work for two hours and it stays with the same paper. I use an HP 1220C which has pretty good longevity, and 13 x 19 inch paper (which oddly enough HP doesn't seem to sell), so I use Espon paper for the big stuff. But the new Epson 4000 will be my next lasrge printer. I don't consider Epson the dark side; to the contrary maybe its HP ;-) The last 2 things I got from HP never worked: their first DVD writer, and a little printer for my wife. HP wants money to get new drivers, so I'll look elsewhere for products now. Roger >>From: "Roger N. Clark > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Bill >From: "Roger N. Clark > >HP wants money to get new drivers, so I'll look >elsewhere for products now. Wow, that seems strange that they charge for driver updates ... all my Nikon, Canon and Epson digital products offer free driver updates via the net. Bill "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote > >From: "Roger N. Clark > >HP wants money to get new drivers, so I'll look > >elsewhere for products now. The customer always pays for new drivers, either implicitly or explicitly: o The money for product support was reserved from original product's revenue stream to support it in the future (Your retirement in the past); o The money is hidden in the revenue from current sales (your retirement now); o or it's "cash on the barrel" & "no free lunch", all the money has already been spent in bonuses/Enron deals/stock bubbles/ mutual fund scandals/... the company jet (your retirement in the future). See, support - it's the same everywhere. > Wow, that seems strange that they charge for driver updates ... all my Nikon, > Canon and Epson digital products offer free driver updates via the net. h/p will charge for support for as long as they can get away from it. If Nikon, Canon, Minolta ... keep offering free drivers h/p will reverse its policy. Or possibly, Nikon, Canon, Minolta... join h/p and also start to charge for drivers. To be truthful, pay-as-you-go support, with no support cost hidden in the product cost is the equitable way to go: o 10% of the customers use 90% of the support; o By the time new drivers are needed 90% of the customers will have gone on to a different product (something about the driver not working being a big cause). Driver development costs are the same whether just one driver is distributed or 1,000,000 drivers are distributed.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>> From: "Roger N. Clark >>> HP wants money to get new drivers, so I'll look >>> elsewhere for products now. >From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com > >The customer always pays for new drivers, either implicitly or >explicitly: <snip> See, support - it's the same everywhere. If this were true then you'd expect to see higher initial prices for products from companies who don't charge for new drivers (Epson, Canon, Nikon etc) compared to companies who do charge, like HP. I don't see this at all, printers seem to be priced similarily even though Epson has higher rated photo models and scanners seem to be priced similarly too. So I see your point in theory but in practice where's the proof? Current products aren't priced higher by those companies offering free drivers and updates. >> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote >> >> Wow, that seems strange that they charge for driver updates ... all >> my Nikon, Canon and Epson digital products offer free driver updates >> via the net. >From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com > >h/p will charge for support for as long as they can get >away from it. True, but they won't get Roger's printer dollars anymore ... and I see a fair number of tales of woe on the newsgroups about people with older HP scanners etc who can't use them anymore because they have a new operating system and HP won't support their hardware with updated drivers ... >To be truthful, pay-as-you-go support, with no support >cost hidden in the product cost is the equitable >way to go: As a former engineer I agree that would be nice, but as a current consumer I prefer getting free updated drivers and ICM files and firmware updates myself :) I think HP sells a lot to businesses, often with a service contract attached, so they are more used to this model than companies selling mostly to consumers. > o By the time new drivers are needed 90% of the customers > will have gone on to a different product (something about > the driver not working being a big cause). So you only piss off 10% of your customer base? Nice job of maintaining customer relations :) >Driver development costs are the same whether just one >driver is distributed or 1,000,000 drivers are distributed. Many if not most driver updates require little more than recompiling C or C++ code, with maybe a few changes to the computer interface side ... the device side code (the more difficult stuff to write) probably didn't change at all. The guys who used to work for me could do it in a few hours (recompiling and verification on a test suite) for drivers for our products running on X86 machines, for example. And distribution over the net is relatively cheap. Bill Bill Hinton: > Nicholas Lindan > >The customer always pays for new drivers, either implicitly or > >explicitly: <snip> See, support - it's the same everywhere. > So I see your point in theory but in practice where's the proof? If the money doesn't come from the customers then where does it come from? Do the stock holders pay for product support? You always _pay_ for what you get, you have to, no one else will. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Bill Hinton: > > Nicholas Lindan [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You always _pay_ for what you get, you have to, no one else will. Not too difficult to pay a few programmers to update a driver for millions of customers you want to keep. SignaturePhilippe Boite http://philippe.boite.free.fr >> Bill Hinton: >> > Nicholas Lindan [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Not too difficult to pay a few programmers to update a driver for millions > of customers you want to keep. So you're offering? Nick > > You always _pay_ for what you get, you have to, no one else will. > > Not too difficult to pay a few programmers to update a driver for millions > of customers you want to keep. And where does that pay, whatever it's amount come, from? And what's this "millions of customers"? Try a few hundred. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > > > You always _pay_ for what you get, you have to, no one else will. > > > > Not too difficult to pay a few programmers to update a driver for millions > > of customers you want to keep. > > And where does that pay, whatever it's amount come, from? HP is not supposed to lose money, I think. So they can reinvest a few bucks. > And what's this "millions of customers"? Try a few hundred. HP printers having only a few hundred customers ? SignaturePhilippe Boite http://philippe.boite.free.fr "Philippe Boite" <philippe.Idontlikespam.boite@free.fr> > > And where does that pay, whatever it's amount come, from? > HP is not supposed to lose money, I think. So they can reinvest a few bucks. Oh, come on. This is getting ludicrous. If money goes out, it has to have gone in. A company gets money by selling products to the customer. With a Marxist mind-set the view and rhetoric are different. On this side of the pond, though, we (most of us) are not Marxist. The money comes from customers. Point. Accounts receivable equals accounts payable. No argument or dissension. No point arguing any further. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > "Philippe Boite" <philippe.Idontlikespam.boite@free.fr> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With a Marxist mind-set the view and rhetoric are different. On > this side of the pond, though, we (most of us) are not Marxist. Oh, I see. You think I am a marxist because I have a .fr domain. That's a bit simple, isn't it ? > The money comes from customers. Point. Accounts receivable equals > accounts payable. No argument or dissension. Yes, money comes from customers, but the equation "accounts receivable equals accounts payable" is a bit simplistic. If you disgust customers with asking money for everything, you won't have any customers anymore, and you will be out of business. Printers manufacturers make money by selling inks and papers, not printers or drivers updates. SignaturePhilippe Boite http://philippe.boite.free.fr "Philippe Boite" <philippe.Idontlikespam.boite@free.fr> > You think I am a marxist because I have a .fr domain. > That's a bit simple, isn't it ? I am trying to find some polite reason for your point of view. > > The money comes from customers. Point. Accounts receivable equals > > accounts payable. No argument or dissension. > Yes, money comes from customers Ah, finally. > but the equation "accounts receivable > equals accounts payable" is a bit simplistic. That's funny, it's the fundamental principle of accounting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting And is an Italian invention, no less, so you don't have to worry it is tainted with American Capitalist Greed or English Perfidy (though we are pretty good at adding a topping of both). > If you disgust customers with asking money for everything, you won't have > any customers anymore, and you will be out of business. If the customer is dumb enough to think he is getting it for 'free' and is happy, why dissuade him? You are right: product support comes for free. "Don't Worry - Be Happy!" > Printers manufacturers make money by selling inks and papers, not printers > or drivers updates. Ever had a computer manufacturer for a client? Ever worked in a business where the money is made from the disposables? I'll give you a few hints: they don't lose money on _anything_ sold, and profit margin on the device and the disposable are pretty much the same. Don't be so quick... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> but the equation "accounts receivable >> equals accounts payable" is a bit simplistic. > > That's funny, it's the fundamental principle of accounting: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting I have to ask. How is A/R equals A/P a principle of accounting? Other then by accident how often does it happen? Nick > Nicholas O. Lindan <nolindan@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Somebody in France wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have to ask. How is A/R equals A/P a principle of accounting? Naked ye come, Naked ye go. What goes in must come out - what comes out has to have gone in. By the definition of what a/r (input and pending input) and a/p (output and pending output) are. > Other then by accident how often does it happen? It happens always. Every time. If it doesn't then someone is stealing from the pot and not jiggering the books to cover for it (or there is an error in the books). Look at the balance sheet of any annual report: $0.00 = assets - liabilities - shareholder equity Shareholder equity is how much is owed to stockholders - what they would get if the firm was liquidated. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Naked ye come, Naked ye go. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Shareholder equity is how much is owed to stockholders - > what they would get if the firm was liquidated. I think you need to understand that A/P and A/R are not at all related to each other. A/P is the amount of money owed in the near term. Usually trade payables. A/R is the amount of money that you are owed. Also usually trade receivable. A gas bar that does most of it's money in cash will have no A/R. A business that pays for it's inputs in cash up front will have no A/P. A company that takes out a long term loan to buy inventory will have most of it's debt not in A/P but in longer term paper. Share holders equity is a bit of accounting fiction. It represents the historical cost of things. It rarely equals the liquation value. Hopefully the company is worth more but liquations are not always done at book value. If you're trying to say the money coming in must equal the money going out. In the long term I hope the money coming in is greater then the money going out. Nick > > By the definition of what a/r (input and pending input) and a/p > > (output and pending output) are. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Shareholder equity is how much is owed to stockholders - > > what they would get if the firm was liquidated. > I think you need to understand that A/P and A/R are not at all related to > each other. You are right: I am playing fast and loose with the terms: assets and liabilities and equity always balance. And I am mixing them in with cash flow: a/p + $ out == a/r + $ in, with dividends, retained earnings and all that thrown in, ignored and misplaced for good measure. Dug myself a pit. Should have stuck with cash-based. > Share holders equity is a bit of accounting fiction. It represents the > historical cost of things. It rarely equals the liquation value. Hopefully > the company is worth more. Agreed - it's the _computed_ value of the firm. What the firm is worth is what it is sold for and that is what the buyer is willing to pay: maybe more or maybe less than its true worth - in the 80's it was often less. > If you're trying to say the money coming in must equal the money going > out. In the long term I hope the money coming in is greater then the money > going out. But yes: when the company is all over and done with and all that is left is a plot of contaminated land the money that went in is equal to the money that went out. In a given period in a cash system in = out + the change in cash-on-hand (equity). Money is conserved (unless you are the mint). What started this whole mess was arguing that the cost of product support does not come from a money tree, it comes out of the revenue stream from sales to customers: i.e. the (or some) customer always pays. He may not know how he is paying or what he is paying, but he is paying. I take it I have been caught stumbling over this pons asinorum by an accountant? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ Did it again: > In any given period in a cash system in = out + the change in cash-on-hand > (equity). Money is conserved (unless you are the mint). Did it again: for cash-on-hand substitute "assets" SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Ever had a computer manufacturer for a client? Ever worked in a business > where the money is made from the disposables? I'll give you a few hints: they > don't lose money on _anything_ sold, and profit margin on the device and the > disposable are pretty much the same. > > Don't be so quick... Here in marxist France, you can get a phone cell for one euro. Don't tell me it's the real price. Cellphone companies make their money from the monthly fees. Got it ? It's more or less the same for printers. Some printers cost less than the ink cartridge in it. SignaturePhilippe Boite http://philippe.boite.free.fr >> Ever had a computer manufacturer for a client? Ever worked in a business >> where the money is made from the disposables? I'll give you a few hints: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Got it ? It's more or less the same for printers. >Some printers cost less than the ink cartridge in it. The cost of the cell phone is factored into the monthly rates charged. If you paid $121 for the phone and $20/month base fee or $1 for the phone and $30/month base fee, it still comes out the same over a year. The cost of the "low-ball" printer is factored into the charge of the consumables. Similar to grocers using a loss leader to get you in the store. Don't know if this is applicable in France. Could be price controls or government subsidies that effect the price. Later, Rob >True, but they won't get Roger's printer dollars anymore ... and I see a fair >number of tales of woe on the newsgroups about people with older HP scanners >etc who can't use them anymore because they have a new operating system and HP >won't support their hardware with updated drivers ... I bought an HP scanjet 4300C (I think it was) a few years ago, running Windows 2000. The driver interface never materialized on the screen when launched; instead of launching the interface, the driver attempted to read *every* file on my hard disks, in their entirety. Back to the store it went, as the most recent drivers on the website were the same ones on the CD. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.