In my mind, there really is a bug, but it is not what I thought it was. There is no inconsistency in the previews at 100% using any of the methods. The inconsistency is in the smaller sized previews, which must either be calculated differently or be based on different data sets depending on the method.
Of course it's a bug, as in "non-designed, non-expected and non-desirable behaviour".
However, since it's a "preview-related only", it now may be considered as a "minor" as opposed to "critical". I mean, your actions would work anyway:-)
Hopefully Adobe will be able to get its ducks in a row and will fix it in some future upgrades. And if not, at least we know now:-)
With all the blazing fires going on all over CS3. I'd say this fix has a long wait in line.
This Adobe release is kind of like the Vista release. Well anticipated, but they pulled the trigger a bit early IMO. I've been lucky w/ all my software (BIG knock on wood) but there are huge problems out there. Mainly licensing.
I don't envy software companies though. You have to make your software so flexible to fit so many OS's; while keeping performance and output up to the insanely high standards of picky ppl just like us!
However, since it's a "preview-related only", it now may be considered as a "minor" as opposed to "critical". I mean, your actions would work anyway:-)
I consider it quite important. After all, we are making our adjustment decisions based on the preview. It would be OK if I knew that the pre-flattened version was the more accurate of the two, but the jury is still out there. In my workflow, I don't even look at the flattened preview, though I guess I might have to change that if it turns out that the flattened preview is the truer version.
I don't envy software companies though. You have to make your software so flexible to fit so many OS's; while keeping performance and output up to the insanely high standards of picky ppl just like us!
Tell me about it. I'm proud to have my S*E compatible with pretty much all possible flavors of 32-bit Windows (except original 95), but even in this tiny app I'm already bumping into the concrete walls, since some of the neat features are only available on XP or higher.
And Adobe's Creative Suite is
1) multiplatform, and
2) humongous
If my experience with a similar product (CAD documents management system: hundreds of file formats, 4 target OS: win16, win32, solaris and os/2) is any indication, it's a tremendous PITA...
Yes, I wouldn't hold my breath for a quick resolution of this one.
If my experience with a similar product (CAD documents management system: hundreds of file formats, 4 target OS: win16, win32, solaris and os/2) is any indication, tt's a tremendous PITA...
In my mind, there really is a bug, but it is not what I thought it was. There is no inconsistency in the previews at 100% using any of the methods. The inconsistency is in the smaller sized previews, which must either be calculated differently or be based on different data sets depending on the method.
That certainly sounds like a "gotcha" to me. Maybe a software engineer's idea of a joke:D But to me it does sound like a defect or a bug! Thanks for this heads up, Richard. Now I do want that 30 in display.
That certainly sounds like a "gotcha" to me. Maybe a software engineer's idea of a joke:D But to me it does sound like a defect or a bug! Thanks for this heads up, Richard. Now I do want that 30 in display.
FWIW, I did report the preview inconsistency as a bug to Adobe. I'm sure we can expect a fix Real Soon Now.
The problem occurs in a when the preview is less than 50% of it's actual
size. You can see the image change appearance as you zoom in and out of the
document without even flattening the image.
It's a known issue with previewing the image at resolutions other than 1:1.
The actual pixels don't change when you do a flatten. (Make sure your image
resolution is set t0 1:1 View>Actual Pixels.
In my mind, there really is a bug, but it is not what I thought it was. There is no inconsistency in the previews at 100% using any of the methods. The inconsistency is in the smaller sized previews, which must either be calculated differently or be based on different data sets depending on the method.
:nah :nah Nope, not a bug at all.
This is what is known as a UDF - Undocumented Feature
:hide
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac
Since it's not an issue with the actual pixels of the image, does the preview fix itself if you save a PSD, close it and re-open it?
No, but the actual pixels are fine in any case. And preview remains screwed under 50% or less (51% is fine:-)
I'm still bitter about WHY, though... Why identical set of final pixels renders itself differently depeding on what method was used to obtain them?
No, but the actual pixels are fine in any case. And preview remains screwed under 50% or less (51% is fine:-)
I'm still bitter about WHY, though... Why identical set of final pixels renders itself differently depeding on what method was used to obtain them?
They must be using some sort of shortcut to calculate the peview from previous previews and that shortcut creates different errors depending upon the steps you took to get to the result. Further, they must be persistently saving that information rather than regenerating it. It is certainly not how someone would purposely design the behavior so, in that sense, it is a bug. Nobody would stand up and say, it is supposed to work that way. They might say that they made a bunch of design tradeoffs that resulted in this behavior and they decided to accept it.
Whether or not Adobe will do anything about it probably depends upon the usual things for a bug: how severe is it relative to other things that need working on, how often the situation occurs, how hard the fix is, what kinds of performance problems are involved in the fix, how many people complain, etc...
Whether or not Adobe will do anything about it probably depends upon the usual things for a bug: how severe is it relative to other things that need working on, how often the situation occurs, how hard the fix is, what kinds of performance problems are involved in the fix, how many people complain, etc...
I agree with your take on this.
I also got a response from Adobe to my bug report:
That's a known limitation of the preview mechanism in Photoshop we hope to improve in a future release.
As you note, the best way to ensure you are looking at the 'true' representation of the image is to have the image at 1:1 or 100% for the zoom factor.
No surprises there, though it is not altogether clear that they understood that I was complaining about the inconsistency of the previews, not the difference between the preview and the 100% view.
The main problem that remains for me is to understand which reduced size preview is more accurate, pre- or post-flattening. While I do use a 100% view to examine the effects of sharpening and a few other things, there are other adjustments--overall contrast, say--that I don't know how to do well without seeing the entire pic. I guess I'll play around some more to see if I can figure out which preview is more reliable. I would also love to hear everyone else's take on this question.
I also got a response from Adobe to my bug report:
No surprises there, though it is not altogether clear that they understood that I was complaining about the inconsistency of the previews, not the difference between the preview and the 100% view.
The main problem that remains for me is to understand which reduced size preview is more accurate, pre- or post-flattening. While I do use a 100% view to examine the effects of sharpening and a few other things, there are other adjustments--overall contrast, say--that I don't know how to do well without seeing the entire pic. I guess I'll play around some more to see if I can figure out which preview is more reliable. I would also love to hear everyone else's take on this question.
Cheers,
I guess if you were in serious doubt about a preview, you could do a Save As JPEG and then open that JPEG as a separate image to see it's preview. Since Photoshop has to build that preview from scratch when you first open it before you've done any editing, it should conceivably be pretty accurate initially.
In my mind, there really is a bug, but it is not what I thought it was. There is no inconsistency in the previews at 100% using any of the methods. The inconsistency is in the smaller sized previews, which must either be calculated differently or be based on different data sets depending on the method.
Yes it is indeed. Another issue is trying to get various Adobe applications to show the same preview rendering when you're not at either 100% view or higher. Lightroom users are always asking about this with respect to Photoshop and Bridge, all preview a bit differently at various zoom settings.
Comments
However, since it's a "preview-related only", it now may be considered as a "minor" as opposed to "critical". I mean, your actions would work anyway:-)
Hopefully Adobe will be able to get its ducks in a row and will fix it in some future upgrades. And if not, at least we know now:-)
This Adobe release is kind of like the Vista release. Well anticipated, but they pulled the trigger a bit early IMO. I've been lucky w/ all my software (BIG knock on wood) but there are huge problems out there. Mainly licensing.
I don't envy software companies though. You have to make your software so flexible to fit so many OS's; while keeping performance and output up to the insanely high standards of picky ppl just like us!
I consider it quite important. After all, we are making our adjustment decisions based on the preview. It would be OK if I knew that the pre-flattened version was the more accurate of the two, but the jury is still out there. In my workflow, I don't even look at the flattened preview, though I guess I might have to change that if it turns out that the flattened preview is the truer version.
And Adobe's Creative Suite is
1) multiplatform, and
2) humongous
If my experience with a similar product (CAD documents management system: hundreds of file formats, 4 target OS: win16, win32, solaris and os/2) is any indication, it's a tremendous PITA...
Yes, I wouldn't hold my breath for a quick resolution of this one.
:tough That's why they call it work.
That certainly sounds like a "gotcha" to me. Maybe a software engineer's idea of a joke:D But to me it does sound like a defect or a bug! Thanks for this heads up, Richard. Now I do want that 30 in display.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Cbeers,
:nah :nah Nope, not a bug at all.
This is what is known as a UDF - Undocumented Feature
:hide
-Fleetwood Mac
Since it's not an issue with the actual pixels of the image, does the preview fix itself if you save a PSD, close it and re-open it?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I'm still bitter about WHY, though... Why identical set of final pixels renders itself differently depeding on what method was used to obtain them?
They must be using some sort of shortcut to calculate the peview from previous previews and that shortcut creates different errors depending upon the steps you took to get to the result. Further, they must be persistently saving that information rather than regenerating it. It is certainly not how someone would purposely design the behavior so, in that sense, it is a bug. Nobody would stand up and say, it is supposed to work that way. They might say that they made a bunch of design tradeoffs that resulted in this behavior and they decided to accept it.
Whether or not Adobe will do anything about it probably depends upon the usual things for a bug: how severe is it relative to other things that need working on, how often the situation occurs, how hard the fix is, what kinds of performance problems are involved in the fix, how many people complain, etc...
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I also got a response from Adobe to my bug report:
No surprises there, though it is not altogether clear that they understood that I was complaining about the inconsistency of the previews, not the difference between the preview and the 100% view.
The main problem that remains for me is to understand which reduced size preview is more accurate, pre- or post-flattening. While I do use a 100% view to examine the effects of sharpening and a few other things, there are other adjustments--overall contrast, say--that I don't know how to do well without seeing the entire pic. I guess I'll play around some more to see if I can figure out which preview is more reliable. I would also love to hear everyone else's take on this question.
Cheers,
I guess if you were in serious doubt about a preview, you could do a Save As JPEG and then open that JPEG as a separate image to see it's preview. Since Photoshop has to build that preview from scratch when you first open it before you've done any editing, it should conceivably be pretty accurate initially.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Yes it is indeed. Another issue is trying to get various Adobe applications to show the same preview rendering when you're not at either 100% view or higher. Lightroom users are always asking about this with respect to Photoshop and Bridge, all preview a bit differently at various zoom settings.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/