Don't "upgrade" CS6 on MAC to 13.0.2 unless you know why!

<p>Not so much a question as a FYI.</p>

<p>Adobe have released an "upgrade", 13.0.2, for Mac platform users that includes better integration with Retina displays, if you have one get the update, however, in doing the code rewriting it seems they have tripped over themselves with the "Print Size" option in the zoom menu, it has gone. I do not know the situation for Cloud users, I believe you can decline the update too but I don't know for how long.</p>

<p>If you know how to use the Print Size option, and it seems many do, then be warned if you upgrade then you will no longer have that option, and it seems there is some effort from Adobe to leave it dropped. I do use the feature a lot and am reinstalling my earlier version.</p>

<p>Now I know who will jump to Adobe's defense, I often have, but to drop a feature on an incremental update with no warning seems stupid.</p>

<p>The Print Size command was removed because it never worked properly <strong>even</strong> assuming you actually knew how to figure the exact resolution of your display and then knew how and where to input the values. Hopefully Adobe will produce a Print Size function that actually works. </p>

<p><strong>"Now I know who will jump to Adobe's defense,"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>And right on time!</p>

<p>Look, you might not have liked it, or thought it worked well, but many people did. Working out how to use it is not rocket science, indeed it is one of the less convoluted controls available (ex-available) in PS, if every control that required such minor input was deleted there would be no PS.</p>

<p>It worked fine for what it was. But my real gripe is the fact that it was just killed mid version with no warning. I was simply giving others that warning and an option Adobe decided to not inform people about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It worked fine for what it was</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why don't you tell us what you believe this 'feature' is supposed to provide for you. </p>

<p><strong>"Why don't you tell us what you believe this 'feature' is supposed to provide for you."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>If you are so obtuse and divorced from the reality and value of showing people a low resolution reproduction at the actual size of the print then I don't really know where to begin.</p>

<p>We all know the limitations of screen resolution and rendering at very odd percentages, but when you are charging people for the paper and ink it really helps if they can "see" what they will get beforehand. Scenes printed at different sizes give very different spacial perspective, in my experience, often times, a smaller print will need a closer crop where a bigger print can be printed looser, Print Size was perfect for gauging that.</p>

<p>But, aesthetics aside, the feature is important enough to me to go back to an earlier version of CS6 where I have it, I know from the Adobe and Luminous Landscapes forums amongst others, I am not alone. </p>

<p>The feature was dropped because it became too convoluted to implement with Apples new screens, not because it didn't work or was a danger to stability, if it had been then it would have been pulled from the PC version too, but it wasn't. But why drop anything mid version without documentation warning of such? Why have they left Screen Resolution in the Units & Rulers Preferences, what can that option affect now? They did it because they just took the easy way out and killed the Print Size option because they were too slow to implement it better on one platform.</p>

<p>Oh, and the pathetic script that Adobe have put out to "address the issue" is such a clunky workaround it is a joke.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We all know the limitations of screen resolution and rendering at very odd percentages, but when you are charging people for the paper and ink it really helps if they can "see" what they will get beforehand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the feature actually did this <strong>correctly</strong> and <strong>accuracy</strong> it would but it doesn't, never has unless you're working with a pretty low rez (screen sized) capture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, aesthetics aside, the feature is important enough to me to go back to an earlier version of CS6 where I have it, I know from the Adobe and Luminous Landscapes forums amongst others, I am not alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly why I asked the <strong>same question</strong> there as I did of you and basically got the same lack of reply in terms of the specifics of what this feature is <em>supposed</em> to provide. So yes, you're in good company while those of us (a pile of Adobe Engineers, Jeff Schewe and the late Bruce Fraser who's Real World Photoshop books have consistently and over many years have said '<em>ignore the feature</em>') are in my company. Heck, stick with CS4 and get Print Size and No Color Management. Who needs ACR7 or the new content aware features, they pale in usefulness next to those missing 'features'.</p>

 

<blockquote>The feature was dropped because it became too convoluted to implement with Apples new screens,</blockquote>

<p>Go back to LuLa and read what Chris Cox wrote. That's only part of the issue. But the bigger reason was, it don't work.</p>

<p>Your superiority is exasperating, and entirely misplaced.</p>

<p>The feature can be assessed two ways, is it an accurate WYSIWYG? Or, does it display the file at the size of your print and is that useful?</p>

<p>For the first, no, but it never has and was never supposed to especially bearing in mind screen resolutions, that, paradoxically, have only gotten ever closer to print resolutions! But it has never been deleted because of that, all criticisms of the feature have dwelt on the fact that it is not an accurate WYSIWYG, due to screen resolution and rendering issues with odd percentages, and they are fair points, though bearing those limitations in mind, which were always there, the true advantage of the feature is being missed by your engineering experts.</p>

<p>However for the second the answer is a resounding <strong>yes</strong>, and whilst you and your experts have made it your latest kicking bag, it still did what it always did just as accurately as ever, which was to display a low resolution version of your image at your chosen print size. You patently make prints for printings sake, I don't, I make prints for aesthetic reasons for myself and paying clients. As I explained earlier, being able to assess reasonably accurate renditions at actual print size is a huge boon, especially for people comparatively new to larger prints.</p>

<p>Further you trying to tell me a feature I really like doesn't work, when it clearly does, is pathetic. I didn't start the thread to be treated like a child, I did it to point out the undocumented consequence of upgrading, something Adobe chose not to do.</p>

<p>The size may be WYSIWYG in terms of <strong>only size.</strong> So what? You can't evaluate anything in terms of sharpening. IF the image happens to be small enough to fit, you'll see a preview like you seen other previews. Just how is seeing a crop at print size useful? If it isn't a crop, it's a pretty low rez file. At least in terms of the resolution of the captures I make.<br>

Hence the question you still haven't fully answered. Just what do you hope to see and what do you hope it will tell you at Print Size? <br>

Adobe has traditionally never removed a feature when they should have. Don't know about you, but I've been using Photoshop since May of 1990 (version 1.07). Been a beta since version 2.5. So when I say questionable features that only confuse or worse, don't work are kept around (until recently), I speak from long experience. <br>

I guess I have to file this with "<em>I don't really know what the feature does but it's gone and I want it back</em>". </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I explained earlier, being able to assess <strong>reasonably accurate</strong> renditions at actual print size is <strong>a huge boon</strong>, especially for people comparatively new to larger prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reasonably accurate sounds like inaccurate to me, but more importantly, even if totally accurate, what stops you from using a zoom ratio (which probably isn't ideal) such you can fit a reasonable small image to show up on our rather small and low rez display? You're "soft proofing" what? A huge boon? If so, tell me what I'm missing (along with Fraser and Schewe to name a few)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Further you trying to tell me a feature I really like doesn't work, when it clearly does, is pathetic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can, with a pretty small image make it show up on my PA271 about the same size as a print (which would be pretty darn small: In full screen mode, I can just get a 13" high print size on the short axis.) And that tells me exactly <strong>what about the image before I print it and how is that useful if I'm going to make anything larger than 13"? </strong><br>

You are either unwilling or unable to tell me what huge boon I'm missing. You want me to go to bat for your team and talk to Adobe, explain how I can't live without seeing an image on-screen that is the same size as a print (assuming I'm making a small print) OR how seeing part of the image on-screen that's bigger than it helps me. I'm all ears! <br>

I'm really trying to understand what everyone wants this 'feature' to do, but no one's explained it as yet. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't start the thread to be treated like a child</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then don't act like one, try to explain your point. As yet, I've not heard anything remotely useful about seeing an image on screen that may fit the size of what I'll print (assuming I'm making a pretty small print). Again, you see this and it tells you what? </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"Now I know who will jump to Adobe's defense,"</strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>And right on time!<br /> If you are so obtuse and divorced from the reality and value of showing people a low resolution reproduction at the actual size of the print then I don't really know where to begin.<br /> Your superiority is exasperating, and entirely misplaced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you spent as much time explaining your POV as being insulting, you might actually get somewhere. So yes, if you stop acting like a child, you might not be treated like one.</p>

<p>Dear oh dear Mr Rodney,</p>

<p>Is your ego now getting in the way of your superiority?</p>

<p>You need to learn to read before offering your bloated opinion.</p>

<p>Scott: <em>"Not so much a question as a FYI"</em><br>

Andrew: <em>"try to explain your point"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Scott:<em> "The feature can be assessed two ways.......does it display the file at the size of your print and is that useful?"</em><br>

Andrew:<em> "The size may be WYSIWYG in terms of <strong>only size.</strong> So what?"<br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>You are so hell bent on offering your opinion you are steamrollering over people that do understand the feature, do know how to use it, do use it, and do find it useful. I was merely pointing out the fact of the feature drop in an incremental update that Adobe chose not to mention. I am not interested if you find it accurate enough for sharpening, though why you brought that up I don't know, it was never intended to do that.</p>

<p>Andrew: <em>"I guess I have to file this with "I don't really know what the feature does but it's gone and I want it back"."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

If that is your self important take on a public information announcement from a user who does know what it does and uses it often, then it is just a reinforcement to my decision to not come to Photo.Net anymore. I was trying to help people make an informed decision, you just chose to cross examine and insult, I stupidly rose to the bait. <em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are so hell bent on offering your opinion you are steamrollering over people that do understand the feature, do know how to use it, do use it, and do find it useful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell us (me). I keep asking, you never answer a simple question. I have to wonder <strong>why</strong> at this point! <br>

I can easily use the version of CS6 I have (without Print Size) and make the image on-screen the same size as my print. OK, when oh when will you describe to us <strong>how</strong> this is useful? I keep asking and you never answer (telling). <br>

I clearly <strong>don't understand</strong> the feature and what it is supposed to 'tell me'. But apparently you can't either. For the last time, <strong>just what am I supposed to gain</strong> from seeing the image on-screen the same size as a print? <br>

You say it's a huge boon. Sell me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>and it seems there is some effort from Adobe to leave it dropped.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you perhaps a prerelease tester? I suspect not. And if I'm correct, then the sentence you made is based on pure speculation. That too is oh so telling! IF you knew what I know, you would have never posted such a silly sentence. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not interested if you find it accurate enough for sharpening, though why you brought that up I don't know, it was never intended to do that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What IS it intended to do? </p>

<p>Scott, is there any reason why I didn't answer your email you sent me when I mistaken someone else with your same name as being you just by going on your posting M.O.? </p>

<p>Is my silence deafening now? Cuz' I can get real loud now if you want.</p>

<p>I'm not learning one thing from this thread except just how much an A-hole you're making yourself over such an obscure printing feature I never bothered using either. I just have rulers turned on and pick a zoom preview percentage in Photoshop so an actual ruler placed next to the image lines up.</p>

<p>That zoom percentage still makes a 6MP image too big on a 1680x1050 resolution 22" display to make any meaningful assessment on how it looks printed mainly because it require stepping so far back from the display that all the sharpness and detail will blend together just as it would viewing the print at the same distance.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br /><br />I will humour you one last time. <em>"What IS it intended to do?"</em><br /> <br /> Truth is I don't know what was in the original programmers mind, but a logical guess would be that it gives you a <em>"WYSIWYG in terms of <strong>only size</strong></em>"<strong>, </strong>after all that is what it does! And we both agree on that! So it appears the only difference of opinion is you say that, in and of itself, that is a useless feature, I maintain that I do find it useful for exactly the same reasons as other posters do in the numerous threads around the internet and I have already pointed out here. Now you can maintain that we are all wrong, though I really don't understand why you would, but that is all you are doing.</p>

<p>Tim:<em>"Is my silence deafening now?"</em><br /> <em><br /></em>YES. Don't think for one second I could care in the slightest about how loud you might get, it isn't difficult to gauge the sort of person you are, but anytime you want to email a reply feel free.<br /><br />With regards the thread you would fit into the category of people who don't find the feature useful, I have no issue with that, but many do find it useful, many people are running 27" and even dual 30" monitors, plenty good enough to use the feature to full effect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So it appears the only difference of opinion is you say that, in and of itself, that is a useless feature, I maintain that I do find it useful for exactly the same reasons as other posters do in the numerous threads around the internet and I have already pointed out here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's pretend that a totally new PS user comes here and asks you "<em><strong>why</strong> should I use the Print Size command"</em>? Anytime you are ready to tell this person what they would accomplish by viewing this, I too would like to hear your answer. Anytime now.<br /> <br /> I originally wrote, you are either unwilling or unable to explain what one is supposed to see and gain from the feature, you haven't answered that yet. I told you in my version of CS6, I CAN make the image on-screen the same size as my small print. <strong>Why</strong>?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now you can maintain that we are all wrong, though I really don't understand why you would, but that is all you are doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF you tell me the feature is for observing sharpening on a print, I'll be happy to tell you that you are <strong>wrong</strong>. I don't know if you're wrong about what the Print Size feature does as yet, either here or on LuLa, <strong>no one has explained it.</strong><br /> <em>Using Print size allows you to see</em> ( Scott, fill in the blank). HOW hard is that to do, this many posts after you came here to <strong>warn</strong> users not to upgrade because they will lose a feature that as yet has <strong>no explanation of what it does to help the user</strong>. Can you do this? How many times do I have to ask? <br /> Without an explanation of what I'm supposed to do and gain after clicking on this button, the only reason I can see your original post is to slam Adobe. You've certainly not provided an ounce of reason otherwise NOT to upgrade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...plenty good enough to use the feature to full effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To do WTF? <br /> I can understand your pissy tone towards me if you had a legitimate reason to use the feature taken from you. But you can't.<br /> I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.</p>

<p>Your ability to read has not improved:</p>

<p>Andrew:""<em><strong>why</strong> should I use the Print Size command"</em>?"</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a>, Jan 03, 2013; 04:58 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"Why don't you tell us what you believe this 'feature' is supposed to provide for you."</strong><br /><br /><strong><br /></strong>...... but when you are charging people for the paper and ink it really helps if they can "see" what they will get beforehand. Scenes printed at different sizes give very different spacial perspective, in my experience, often times, a smaller print will need a closer crop where a bigger print can be printed looser, Print Size was perfect for gauging that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See? I answered that the first time you asked.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 03, 2013; 09:12 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>..........I don't know if you're wrong about what the Print Size feature does as yet, either here or on LuLa, <strong>no one has explained it.</strong><br />

<p><em>Using Print size allows you to see</em> ( Scott, fill in the blank). HOW hard is that to do,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is easy, and I have done so several times, we have both said "<em>"WYSIWYG in terms of <strong>only size</strong></em>" why couldn't I, nor anybody else, possibly find that useful?</p>

<p>Having said all that, I really don't care for yours, or Tim's opinions, I have reverted to 13.0.0 and have my Print Size option back and I am very happy.</p>

<p>Goodbye Photo.Net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>See? I answered that the first time you asked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I see <strong>now</strong>, the copy of Photoshop you have doesn’t show a preview of the image <strong>unless </strong>you set it for Print Size? How stupid of me! On the copy I have (and all copies since 1990), I'm able to zoom into or out of any resolution image. I didn't realize the copy you use only shows your customers a preview of the image you'll print if you have this feature. I can now see how you must have that feature, how else could you or your customers see the Photoshop image (apparently in total with the tiny files you print) without having the image on the screen exactly match the print. You either make pretty small prints are have a very huge display!</p>

<blockquote>we have both said "<em>"WYSIWYG in terms of <strong>only size</strong></em>" why couldn't I, nor anybody else, possibly find that useful?</blockquote>

<p>And the version of CS6 I have, missing this feature allows me to <strong>still </strong>zoom and thus show my customers (and yours) what the image would look like on-screen. At the print size (either so large they can't see everything or for the small prints you make, a 13" print). Got it.</p>

<blockquote>I have reverted to 13.0.0 and have my Print Size option back and I am very happy.</blockquote>

<p>As my dear friend Bruce would say: <em>If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!</em></p>

<blockquote>See? I answered that the first time you asked.</blockquote>

<p>Sure you did Scott, sure you did.<br /> Excellent job of explaining what the feature does with that odd version of Photoshop you have been using...</p>

<p>This thread has become a flaming war.<br>

Moderator...Can we shut it down please.<br>

A better and overlooked issue is lurking. And that is Adobe Creative Cloud. Our Adobe rep told us that Adobe want to migrate users to Creative Cloud. And to encourage that, they will do updates/versions/patches to Cloud customers first and after that to traditional licensees.<br>

And just when you thought the world was nice. Heavy CS6 users, read this:<br>

https://creative.adobe.com/plans?locale=en&store_code=au</p>

<p>Blegh.</p>

<p>Enough.</p>