Actually, no...if you look at the way Lightroom handles presets you'll see the way per doc will go. Being able to save a variety of settings based on printer, paper and CM would be very useful and tagging an image with print settings and save will also be useful particularly if one could save multiple presets.

You may not always know or understand _WHY_ the Photoshop engineers do something...but they don't do _ANYTHING_ without good reason and in the vast majority of cases, they are right-that's my experience anyway.

Sometimes it upsets some people...they understand that. But for the benefit of the totality of Photoshop and its user base, sometimes they have to do something that makes things just a little more difficult (or different)...generally when they do that they are even more motivated to do something else that's really nice for users. Kinda spreading around both the pain & pleasure.

The Photoshop engineering culture (and now by extension Lightroom) is really tough for people outside of Adobe to understand...heck, it's sometimes hard even for Adobe to understand. Michael has met a lot of the engineers including spending a lot of time with Thomas Knoll and interviewing Mark Hamburg. Most people simply don't comprehend just how fanatical they are about making what they work on the absolutely best they can. The only think I can compare it to is the drive for excellence and competitive nature of pro athletes. Michael Jordan, back when he was on the Bulls had a clause in his contract that unlike most athletes allowed him to play basketball anytime and anywhere and the Bull paid for the insurance to allow that. It was called the "for the love of the game" clause.

And while you may not believe it (anybody who HAS met any of these guys will) they do this stuff, day in and day out, for the love of the game. And...they are the super stars of digital imaging. You should see the people who apply to become an engineer at Adobe. They are the brightest and best because they want to work on Photoshop. Some of them can be a little, uh, uncivilized (or should I say un-socialized) and they can be curt and even rude at times...they don't mean anything by it. But the Photoshop engineers really do eat, drink and even poop Photoshop.

You should meet some of their wives...I have a deal with Ann Hamburg (Mark's wife)...If I come over to the house for a visit or dinner, the deal is, fully one half (1/2) of the conversation MUST be about ANYTHING other than Photoshop (or now Lightroom) or I don't get invited back. Fortunately, she only keeps track of the %'s in a "general way". I'm still welcome...

:~)

Check my earlier postings from May3rd. No, I did a clean install which worked perfectly for a few days, got me through a couple of jobs before Bridge started screwing up royally this morning.

Kirk, not sure what this tells Carol. I just went back to your May 3 post. You say you "followed the instructions" and it all went well - fine. Specifically which ones? Did you or did you not use the CleanScript tool? Are you on Windows or Mac? You also say your computer was giving you problems with both CS2 and CS3 Beta. If that's the case it would seem the problems you started facing this morning (not clear what they are - you didn't specify) may have more to do with your computer, not with Photoshop. What do you think?

That sounds like a very useful approach. When we have multiple presets, I'm willing to put some effort into changing my workflow.


Seeing Bruce Frasier in action at a workshop gave me a little taste of what these guys must be like. I am indeed impressed with what they are able to do. Since PS6 I have been astonished that PS has always seemed to be much more stable than the underlying OS (in my case, varieties of Windows). It sounds as if that is still true with CS3 and Vista ("read-only margin settings," indeed! )

Again, thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this project.

Eric

Ok Mark, I'm on my way to Chicago so I need to make this quick.

My answers were confusing I grant you. This is spread over two threads. Sorry. I have both PC and MacBook Pro. Previously Bridge CS2 sucked, crashed slow etc, but on a different PC. New PC with XP, Bridge CS3 worked fine but painfully slow at generating thumbnails etc.-generally accepted problems on PCs.

Remove Beta-I used script on MBP no problem. I followed instruction on both to the letter. Problem is on PC. It worked perfectly for three days, PS still works perfectly. LR works perfectly. Up to 2am last night fine, screaming fast. This morning Bridge won't load. I reinstall and now PC crashes every time I try to load Bridge. Everything else works fine including PS. Reinstalled a couple of times from download-doesn't help. I am not only person having problems with this. As Jeff and Digitaldog have commented.

Kirk - not sure how "generally accepted" a problem Bridge thumbnail generation is on a PC. On my PC it works pretty darn fast. I'm using an Intel Core Duo Xeon 5160 (3 GHz processor) with 4 GB of RAM (only 2 really work because of the 32-bit OS constraint) in a Dell Precision 690 Workstation. I've also had the no-start problem with Bridge, but it came back after rebooting the computer. As I was saying previously, it seems there is something in there that doesn't like some other application or function of the O/S, but God only knows how much work to sleuth it. Meanwhile continuing to use the latest version of Bridge for CS2 is both fast and safe. This is something I hope the folks at Adobe are looking into. Sorry it has given you such pain.

re: center print CS3

On my Epson 4000 (driver v 5.52), Print Area MAXIMUM is only available if Plain Paper is selected. Not available for any art paper.

Paul this is strange because I once owned a 4000 and at that time the driver clearly allowed one to select Maximum using Enhanced Matte paper (and others). Perhaps you should call Epson and ask them if they have a previous version for the 4000 which supports Maximum print area for use in CS3 with photo papers, or indeed whether they are planning to produce revised drivers that work-around the new complications with CS3.

I'm not having the problem of painfully slow generation of thumbnails on my PC system Kirk (Intel Core Duo E6700 2.67Ghz/4Gb RAM/Windows XP x64 Pro). They appear virtually instananeously when Thumbnails are set to 'Convert to HQ when previewed' and are no slouch when set to 'HQ' - coming in at roughly 2.5 to 3 per sec.

As this is a new PC which hasn't had the beta on, it obviously cannot be remnants of the beta causing problems. Does this crash occur if you load Bridge on its own?? Do you have any other applications running at the same time (MS Word/Excel etc)?? There have apparently been a few reports that MS Word interferes with launching Bridge, but I haven't seen this on my system (but then I'm using a much older version of Office).

Have you tried the Adobe User 2 User Forums where some of the engineers sometimes visit??

Thinking this may be the gem of knowledge that de-mystifies the launch issue, I'm on Office 2003 Professional Edition, so I am now launching MSWord to see whether it prevents Bridge from launching. Nope - Bridge launched. So I still don't know why it periodically fails to launch.

I was talking about slow loads on Bridge CS2 not Bridge CS3. BCS3 was screaming right up to meltdown. Cannot get it to load even after numerous reinstalls. Did not try just installing Bridge. Nothing else was running.

I am in Chicago for awhile at SAIC doing final critics and do not have access to the PC with Bridge problems.

There seems to be an issue using MSFT's Intellamouse 6.1 driver that is causing all sorts of CS3 problems on Win. Rolling back to driver 5.5 (or whatever was before 6) resolves the issue. Adobe & MSFT are aware and working in it.

Hi Jeff,

While that could be part of the problem, it may not be all. I say this because I don't use an MSFT Intellamouse (those mice aren't intelligent enough for me ). I'm using a Kensington Pro Optical Track Ball with its own software/driver and I have had a couple of instances where Bridge simply refused to load unless I restarted the computer. [Not impossible, perhaps this driver has something in common with the MSFT driver - yet another angle]. Anyhow, I thought this may be of interest if you are in a position to pass it along to those you may know of working on this issue. Could mean one also needs to look further for the causes.

Bridge CS3 departs from Bridge CS2 in how it organizes thumbnails. If you use colour labels for sorting images and you label some images but not others, in CS2 by default (and there was no user option) if you select to sort by label, all the labelled thumbnails come first, and the non-labelled ones follow. In CS3 (at least on my WinXP computer) it is the reverse and I have failed to find an option for changing it. I think this kind of a regression, because, for example, one of the key reasons to label certain images is to prioritize them viz a viz the remainder, so one wonders why the prioritized ones should follow the non-selected one. Sounds trivial, but with a folder containing many images, not too many of which are selected, it means scrolling through the unwanted to get to the wanted. Maybe the solution in Bridge CS3 is to label the trash and leave the good stuff unmarked! But if you have multi-purpose labelling conventions, that wouldn't cut it.

Mark,
On the Mac at the top of the View>Sort By drop down, you can select "Ascending Order" or "Descending Order". DO places the labled images first, ahead of the unlabled. Perhaps in Windows that menu item is not the same?

Regards,
Ed

Ed, yes same on Windows and I had tried that too, but because I process files in mainly in order of capture for a couple of reasons, I prefer Labels first with Ascending order, like worked in Bridge CS2.

What are the 'issues' it causes?

Bridge not loading? Bridge still running in the background after you close it? Bridge crashing? Bridge running preventing PKS from running smoothly? The memory leaks?

Wish I could say I had an Intellimouse

Hang on just a minute! Aren't we all supposed to be photographers first and not technicians, computer programmers, hackers or beta testers? Isn't the learning curve with any version of Photoshop steep enough without having to go through this nonsense just to get a successful installation of what is, after all, a very expensive product. I think you'd take a very dim view if you bought a new fridge and then were told you'd have to re-wire the house because the machine had a bug. Adobe should get real - consumers have rights and the fundamental right is that the produce works, first, last and always. We photographers are a forgiving lot.
When Adobe issued a free edition of Lightroom to previous Raw Shooter Premium users, we had another fiasco involving endless, fruitless calls to Adobe Customer Support et al. Two Adobe nightmares within a few months of each other is two too many. Apart from that, Lightroom is slow, and the sliders and both LR and CS3 seem very sluggish. In fact, everything seems sluggish and my hardware is as up to date as the next man's. My version of Bridge crashes quite often, my prints seem to have radically disimproved in both applications and I am now thinking of re-installing CS2 and using it exclusively.

Not a happy Adobe camper!

Seamus Finn

Seamus, as I made clear way-up in this thread, and lest anyone reading this forget or misundestand what I said, I write from a purely independent consumer perspective without regard to any software or hardware vendor, so I call a spade a spade, but that's from my own experience - readers will know that's all I usually discuss - and other peoples' experience and insight can and often does differ. That's the spice of life and so be it.

So with that disclaimer out of the way, I'll make a few observations on what you are saying:

(1) I'm using Windows XP on a Dell Precision 690 workstation with a 3 GHz Core Duo Xeon 5160, 32 bit mode and therefore 2GB of operational RAM. The two HDs working for Photoshop are 10,000 RPM units. I'm not having speed problems with Lightroom or Bridge, or CS3. I have both CS2 and CS3 in active use. I'd say CS2 Bridge loads a bit faster than CS3 Bridge, but CS3 Bridge is a different animal - it has capabilities that CS2 Bridge doesn't have. Maybe that extended functionality has a price in terms of slightly - and I mean slightly - longer load-up time. Anyhow for perspective, not a deal-breaker on my set-up.

(2) My installation of CS3 was seemless without "rewiring the fridge" simply by following the instructions Adobe issued. I too was very concerned about the prospects of having to use their CleanScript tool with all the CYA warnings they supplied with it, so I called Adobe first to discuss it - my phone call - and I'm no-one special to them - was answered rapidly, the discussion was professional and to the point - they told me not to worry about it and what to do if I ran into problems. I did it, there were no problems. End of story - for me.

(3) My version of Bridge CS3 does not crash. I've had a couple of instances when it failed to load. This is a known issue and I can only assume Adobe is working on it. But once it loads, it works. I don't like the way it sorts thumbnails so I'm still using Bridge CS2, but CS3 has features for which I'll also use it. I like the way the cache and the programming insure that whatever you do in the one is conveyed in the other. This is smart and convenient.

(4) Using CS3 so far has been "eventless" - again no rewiring of the fridge - not even the toaster - except for two issues relating to the Print module, which has already consumed pages of dialogue and some useful outcome in this thread.

(5) When I observe the recent raft of major printer and software releases, I can't help thinking that there is a general tendancy in the industry to release things to the market a bit prematurely and let the customers finalize the testing through experience. Again, it is a matter of judgment how much of this consumers should be expected to tolerate. You'll get a whole range. Some people are quite willing to grin and bear it while the bugs are fixed because they want the new features as fast as possible. Others are more conservative and want a fairly seemless operating experience even if it takes longer to reach them. I find myself somewhere in-between. One needs to distinguish between major issues and minor issues, deal-breakers from non-deal breakers and work through or around accordingly.

(6) Sometimes, it must be the case that not everything in software design is win-win except after a long period of development time. What I mean by that, for example, is that nifty new features we all like could come at the expense of more complexity that causes say, unexpected instances of incompatibility with something else (remember each of the 100s of millions of computers out there is somehow a unique environment) or slightly slower operating efficiency.

So bottom line: I think you're over-reacting some, but I also think there is merit to the view that aspects of basic functionality (especially things that worked well before) should be thoroughly protected and carefully verified as such pre-release - except of course to the extent that sometimes there are simply these trade-offs when better judgment says release now and improve later.

Absolutely! I refuse to be intimidated by such issues. Computers always have mystifying issues due to their complexity. One has to preserve one's sanity and just roll with the issues or work around them.

I got a free first issue of Lightroom because I was a registered user of RSP which Adobe took over, but I don't need it and don't use it.

I downloaded the beta version of CS3 because I was interested in the new stitching capabilities of Photomerge. It's a big improvement over CS2, but I don't need it. Autopano Pro is better.

I still use RSP when I want to give a RAW conversion a certain 'punch' and vibrancy. I know ACR in CS3 now boasts a 'vibrancy' slider, but it's quite tame compared with RSP.

I think we may be suffering from a surfeit of goodies here.

Thanks, Seamus. I'm glad one visual artist had the ability to "see" and speak the truth.

As much as I enjoyed Schewe's Hallmark rendition of his Adobe-family experience, all I know is Adobe has my money and Michael Jordan was notorious for NOT tipping the service personnel who waited on his every need. For me, there's something repulsive about a gifted, wealthy man who behaves so cheaply and so greedily.

To simplify everything (which is my preferred workflow), I guess nothing is perfect. I certainly don't want to go back to dirty-lab/darkroom days and retouching middlemen. Having total control of my art, from capture to print, justifies the painful learning curve (for me). At least the left side of my brain is getting a stronger workout. I worry that it will eventually beat the shit out of my right side and then I'll have to dress like a nerd and be rude (or morph into a Schewe look-a-like).

I don't "beta" or "test" anything and I wait one year from official launch dates before I upgrade. So, in my world, Adobe rocks!

Hi all,
The point I'm trying to make, probably badly, is that photography is our first love, and technology comes a poor second. Having emerged from the traditional darkroom after many years into the blinding light, I wouldn't be without Photoshop etc for any money and look forward to each upgrade with great anticipation. It's a wonderful tool enabling us to do things we could never achieve with chemicals. My only complaint is that when a product is shipped, it should be so thoroughly tested, reliable and bug-free that we shouldn't need to go poking into its inards trying to use programming and other high-tech skills that most photographers do not possess nor have any wish to do so.

When, for instance, Bridge inexplicably crashes, I have neither the time , the patience nor the knowledge to find out why - yet I have no choice. What follows is a complete waste of time devoted in a hit and miss fashion trying to solve the problem - time spend on the web looking for people with similar problems who may have an answer, time we all could use working more productively on making good prints and enjoying our hobby, or more seriously, serving our clients. It's fine for photographers with a deep knowledge of the technology involved, but I suspect the vast majority of us have only a rudimentary awareness of how complex applications actually work. That's why we have to rely on forums like this where, in fairness, a vast amount of information is presented - but it takes time to unearth and implement it.

My experience is that since 'going digital' a few years ago, I find myself spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to solve purely technical problems than I do working on pictures. And please, don't anybody reply asking why I don't shut up and buzz off back into the darkroom where I came from. We have reached the point of no return - it ain't an option.

Now that I have that off my chest, I have to to back to Lightroom and find why it suddenly can't find the database it's being using ever since the day I installed it. More wasted time, more high blood pressure and more scouring the web looking for clues. Nobody ever said it would be easy, but nobody ever said it would be such a pain in the ass either!

Regards to all,
Seamus Finn

You certainly don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car and, if you've just purchased a new one, let's hope it's years before you need to hire Midas. Many car owners do take the time to figure out what's going on under their hoods and often save hundreds of dollars when maintenance is needed. I'm not one of them.

Upgrades are about money and it's important for companies who "develop" to keep their bank accounts flush. Adobe hasn't much competition but they haven't lost their focus on growth, either. We Photoshop users/lovers are at their mercy.

Beta versions are for feedback. A necessary final step because no software company can think of everything. If you're not tech savvy, you should avoid anything beta or Version 1. One must accept the nature of this beast and temper your need to be first in line. For me, there are easier and more fun areas of my life where I can be au courant.

Yes, it's expensive, but I keep a Mac/Photoshop techie handy. I have limited desire to learn, teach, or write about tech. My sex life suffers enough from the joys of shooting. (Don't touch that!) My heart goes out to Photoshop users in the hinterlands.

Thank goodness for the internet and forums like these. Most of us are in the same digital boat, trying to do it all because now it's possible. I sincerely appreciate the smarter folks who feel our collective pain and are willing to share their brilliance in an effort to help. A big kiss to Jeff Schewe et al.

Referring to the discussion of print centering in the above, I received a private email from a Forum member using WINXP and an Epson 9800 telling me that the fix of selecting "Maximum" in the Paper tab of the Epson driver did not work satisfactorily, because when printed this way in CS3 the image came out looking "cropped" or "enlarged" by about an eighth of an inch. I assume the print size was large but he did not specify.

Therefore I considered it necessary to verify whether the fix that emerged from the work Jeff and I did - mine reported in post 81 - had this side effect on my set-up, WINXP with an Epson 4800. I snapped a shot of my bookshelves, so I could see very closely from the subject matter whether there would be any difference of material printed, and I ran two letter-size prints (coverage of 9 inches by 5.988 inches from a Canon 1Ds file at native resolution redimensioned but not resampled) as follows:

[a] print from CS3 with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Maximum and
[b] print from CS2 in the usual way with the Epson driver Paper tab set to Standard.

I am pleased to observe that both prints are centered, identical with each other and identical with the image shown in Photoshop on the monitor.

It does appear to be the case however that the fix in Post 81 may not work uniformly well with every version of the Epson driver within the pre-3800 X800 series printers.

I have now given-up printing with Photoshop CS3, because I cannot automate the Print Module given the consummate foolishness of its changed operational features from CS2, in regard to Printer Default behaviour and print centering.

In CS2 I have an Action which resizes the image to 360 PPI, applies PK Inkjet Output Sharpener at 360 PPI, commands Print using the Epson Driver settings that I made my default and spools the file to the printer; thereupon, the Epson Preview comes up (my default for a final check, but this can be by-passed) and I click print. This whole sequence takes about 7~9 seconds for a file in the range of 90~150 MB. The default paper orientation is Portrait. As long as I am printing in Portrait mode I can let this Action run without interruption. If I know I am next printing a Landscape, I place a stop-point in the Action beside the Print command before launching the Action, which allows me to change the paper orientation to Landscape in the Epson driver. This works reliably with a few quick short-cuts and always centers the print.

Well, I tried re-creating this Action to work with CS3. Complete disaster and no workaround.

Whether or not the Epson is selected as the default printer, unless Maximum is selected in the Paper tab of the Epson driver by getting to it through the Page Set-Up of the Photoshop Print Dialogue, the print will not be centered; however the stop-point in the Action beside Print in CS3 does not pull-up the Photoshop Print Dialogue allowing one to do this; rather, it bypasses that dialogue and pulls up the Windows Print Dialogue for the Default printer. This allows one to enter the driver preferences and select Maximum in the Paper Tab, but selecting Maximum that way will NOT center the print. As well, Maximum paper coverage in the Epson driver does not appear to be a reliably sticky setting. It can revert to Standard after printing even if one created the Epson driver default setting for paper coverage to be on Maximum, especially if one makes a change of orientation between Portrait and Landscape. Therefore with a perfectly straightforward print Action of the kind I created, one can never be guaranteed a centered print with an Epson 4800 in Windows XP using Adobe Photoshop CS3.

I shall continue using CS2 for printing, where everything works so smoothly and sensibly I can almost print with my eyes shut. If one bright day I wake up to see that Adobe has cleaned-up its kaka in the Print module, I'll print in CS3. Adobe can clean it up by: (1) reverting to an application-based printer default behaviour so the printer selection once chosen stays the same until the application is shut (this only makes sense for the more usual situation in which one would be printing file after file from the same application to the same printer) and (2) cleaning-up the mess with centering prints for Epson drivers on Windows operating systems. I have serious trouble believing Adobe software engineers can’t find a way to do it, regardless of whatever operating system changes occurred between Windows and Vista. They have the brains - all they need is the time, effort and perhaps some collaboration with Microsoft.

Which is why I use Lightroom...while I can't print with my eyes shut, it's a lot easier and less prone to user error.



Jeeeesh bud, I gave you the reasons sent by the engineer in charge...sure seemed like a well reasoned and thoughtful result of OS system requirements, no "foolishness" involved that I can see.

You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but it's pretty darn impossible to please all the people all of the time.

:~)

Jeff, I'd print from Lightroom if it were possible to softproof from Lightroom. It's just extra steps doing the final work-ups in CS3, then sending the files back to Lightroom for printing. Opening them from Bridge to CS2 for printing really doesn't cause any errors and works well. But I may try it in Lightroom anyhow. Thanks for the suggestion.

I read what the engineer told you and I don't dispute he has a point - for now. But I also think they can move beyond that. Those guys are good and they're dedicated, etc, but managerial judgment and the fact that time is money on both the expenditure and income side of the ledger probably plays a role in outcomes as well.

To me, something is foolish if it worked well before and got wrecked in the process of trying to make it "better". It's not a matter of how many people get pleased or not pleased. Some things make obvious good sense and others just don't. This stuff doesn't and I think it's time to simply recognize it. I didn't hear complaints about how CS2 handled printing, but there's a fair bit about issues with CS3, and it's not just people resisting change or being too lazy to find workarounds. Speaking for myself, I've spent much more time experimenting with this stuff than should have been necessary, expecting if I could get it working well in CS3 I'd be just as happy to delete CS2; however after all is said and done I'm still reverting to non-CS3 printing solutions. This is the first time I've experienced such screw-ups since up-grading from Elements to 6, from 6 to 7 from 7 to CS and from CS to CS2.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Vista...even if you don't use it, the implications are there for Windows users.

As for having printing problems, well, you don't use Mac so I guess there's no sympathy from you there. But things have routinely changed for Mac users on every major OS "upgrade" from drivers that don't work to changes in ColorSync to issues regarding the "default" system level print drivers not having a "No Color Management" mode. Then there's major changes to plug-ins required by Apple's change to MacIntels.

But NONE of this legitimately comes under the heading of Adobe being engaged in "consummate foolishness".

As for using Lightroom...it's really pretty easy-even if you aren't working on raw files and you've got a bunch of images already prepped for output. Just make sure they're a tiff (or psd saved with backwards compatibility on)...you can even keep all the layers. If you need to edit something-run actions, soft proof, etc, just do an "Edit with Photoshop-edit original and your layers open up in Photoshop. Do your tweaks-even resize (without resample), soft proof and or run final output sharpening and hit save.

Then back in Lightroom all the changes are in the file. Then hit print-after you've saved out the various printer/driver settings-which can all be captured and saved in templates.

This works really well....as long as your files are 10,000 pixels or less.

*grumble*


Yes, that's been a bunch of fun. I've saved my PSDs to a network drive and printed them from my Windows PC with CS2 as a matter of course.


Thanks for that tip, this may actually solve my woes.

Jeff, fine - there have been serious issues of software compatibility between Apple and Adobe; however, regardless of whether we're talking Apple or Microsoft I'm not interested in the lowest common denominator of operational systems' integrity as a benchmark for perceiving and correcting the issues now at hand. Consumers are not well-served by the lack of adequate co-ordination and programming to provide for maintaining pre-existing core functionalities from one version of software to the next as the developers make "progress". Centering prints seemlessly is a core functionality. As I mentioned above, I'm not disputing Dave's advice that Vista has caused them a problem. I would just like to believe they have the smarts, given the will, time and effort, to get it resolved in a more satisfactory way.

Thanks for taking the trouble to lay out the workflow for using Lightroom as a substitute print module. As I read it over, though, I'm strongly tempted to believe that using my Action in CS2 which involves pressing F3 and then about 8 seconds later pressing PRINT is much less labour-intensive. However, I shall retain your suggestion on-hand in case of need.

Well, on one hand you have XP SP/2 that DOES allow an app to adjust margins....and on the other hand you have Vista, which has read only margins...so, you're the application...whatcha gonna do? Write two different behaviors-one for XP and one for Vista? What is the Right Thing to Do™?

Centering prints SHOULD be easier...and whose fault is that? I don't know...could it be the PRINT DRIVER? That by default reports unequal margins-like that's a good thing?

You folks seem hellbent on blaming everything on big, bad Adobe when in fact, not only do you have to share the blame accurately among all participants, it would actually be useful to place the blame directly on the correct party. Wonder why the newest Epson driver for the 3800 has-wait for it-equal margins all the way around?

Back in the early days, Epson NEEDED to have more gripper space at the bottom of the page. That requirement went away when they redeigned the grippers for being able to do borderless printing...but it seems nobody told the guys writting the driver that they no longer needed more page matin at the bottom. Now, with the 3800 driver, by default, centering the image in the Photoshop print driver does what? Centers the print....(you can thank me for pointing out that littel gem to Epson)

And your contention that the "default printer" should be ignored is a prime example of the Photoshop engineers being damned if they do or if they don't. Even if that is the Right Thing to Do™.

Well, at least we can all agree that those two items aren't "bugs"....right?

:~)

Ya see...that completely lets Epson off the hook...and that's wrong...the real conflict is between Apple/Epson and MSFT/Epson with Adobe caught in the middle trying to do the Right Thing™

Yes, apparently, coding two different behind-the-scenes behaviours is the right thing to do.

This is one of the fundamental headaches for those who wish to do cross-platform development; you may have to have different code for different platforms.

I know it sounds awful, but programmers have to live with it.

Oracle went to a pretty big step, and implemented their own virtualization layer (I'm pretty certain that's not the name they use, although they called it their "Oracle OS" rather jokingly) to help in this process.


Yes, the print driver is certainly one of the players here.


It could have been configurable.

(1) Yes - user-selectable options for the Print Module as a function of the user's operating system - that could well be a suitable approach under the circumstances.

(2) Discussing this whole thing in terms of "whose fault" is not going to progress the issue. Nor is an issue of being hell-bent on bashing Adobe. I've made it abundently clear that I have a huge amount of respect for Adobe and I'm not trying to personalize issues be it at the level of individuals or companies. When I say a behaviour is foolish I'm talking about the results - what the application does - not the people who created it. So let us get off that tangent once and for all.

(3) I've also mentioned before that I don't particularly care whether the behaviour is called a bug or an educated decision. Whatever it is, it is a problem and the problem should be solved.

(4) I agree there are at least three commercial parties involved in this: Adobe, Microsoft and Epson. The nodal point and the main point of contact with the user where it all comes together however is within Photoshop, so indeed yes you have a point - Adobe is the meat in the sandwich - and all the more reason why they need to put the extra effort into getting it resolved - as I mentioned above - collaboratively with others concerned as needed.

(5) Apart from all the stuff above which is largely about centering prints, the default printer business is another issue, and I just happen to think Adobe made an error of judgment on that one, with their change of philsophy from an application to a per document criterion, as you previously explained it. We can agree to disagree on that. True it is not difficult to change the default printer to the Epson every time I go to print, but I multi-task and use the other one as well, so each time I want to print something else while photos are printing, I would need to remember to select what is now the non-default printer. It's a PITA. The CS2 way, once the Epson is selected for printing it stays there as long as Photoshop is open, while the default printer is available for everything else without having to select anything, and without having to constantly remember to switcvh defaults back and forth. So in CS2 I had the best of both worlds with no effort. I liked that and I'm sorry to lose it in CS3.

I've never questioned their commitment to try to do the right thing, but sometimes things can turn out to be not so right, and more often than not with the kind of ingenuity they have, such issues should be fixable. I agree with you that Epson is a party at the table, but that does not dismiss Adobe from going the extra mile to help insure that previous functionality somehow gets preserved. If the responsibility for fixing these things should be shared between three parties, so be it - just let them get it done, and I would argue that Adobe has a primary interest in coordinating it.

Actually, four...you forget (or don't care) that both Adobe and Epson have to deal with cross=platform issues which complicate the whole structure.

Look, I think (I know) Print With Preview _WAS_ an Adobe attempt at bypassing the issue and trying to solve the problem for users (in fact, I know it was cause I was involved with the first iteration of PWP working with Chris Cox because Chris was pissed at Epson/Apple/MSFT) and it blew up in their faces because they were arguably violating the OS APIs...Print with Preview is gone now-it's a combo dlog that is part Adobe and part OS/Print driver.

I'm pretty sure that Adobe caught flack for doing that in the past and in Vista, the printable margins are read only, set by the driver. An application can't bypass them. Which is also why, I think, Epson had to FIX the unequal page margin issue which they did for the 3800. So, let's all get on Epson's back to see if they will address this same fix in updates to current drivers for both XP, Vista _AND_ OS X...

There's only so much an application can and should do and in both this issue and the default printer issue, I honestly feel that Photoshop is doing the correct and only legit thing...following the API's of the OS. I also think it would HELP Adobe if we, as users DID complain to the correct people-Apple, MSFT & Epson. Of the 3, the most likely to listen would be Epson.



See, that's where you are wrong...in order to bring about change, you need to know who is, at the root, responsible...blaming Adobe isn't useful and expecting Adobe to "fix" something that is neither their fault nor their responsibility is fruitless.

Ironically, Photoshop is now platform agnostic with regards to the print centering. So now finally, maybe you Win users will get off your butts and help us Mac users resolve the issue?

:~)

Yeah, well, maybe not huh?

I do care, but I forgot - OK Apple Computer belongs to the party.

Jeff, please get it out of your head that I'm into some kind of blame game. If some of my wording misleads you into thinking that way, I regret it because that is not the intention. The intention is to identify problems and get them fixed.

I focus most on Adobe not because I have anything against Adobe - I don't - as I've said time and again, I have tremendous respect for them. They are a big part of my daily life. I spend many hours a day in Photoshop and marvel at it.

I focus on Adobe because Photoshop is our "point of entree" into the problem. Photoshop has a square radio-button in the Print dialogue that says "Center Image". So I check-mark it expecting a centered image (reasonable expectation - no?) and lo-and-behold out comes a mess. I try to create an elementary Photoshop Action to automate a workaround solution which I spent hours trying to develop and it fails.

So who do I turn to? Photoshop is the nodal point bringing together three elements needed to center a print: Photoshop itself, the o/s (be it OSX or WIN) and the Epson driver. If Photoshop has a button that pretends to center prints I would like to see that function evolve from pretence to reality. As I've said before, it may require more programming, it may well require cooperative work with Epson and Microsoft and Apple, but SOMEONE needs to take charge of doing this, and Adobe is the logical party to coordinate it for the reason I'm stating here. It's not a hostile suggestion, it's a suggestion to effectively do things to solve the problem. Epson, Microsoft and Apple will listen to them before they listen to me, because I'm one insignificant consumer in Toronto and they are a multi-billion dollar corpoation that helps put a good part of their bread on the table, and they need a solution to keep their customers satisfied. Yes, no harm writing all of them, but I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.

I do believe Adobe could have done more work on this before releasing CS3 - but that is their corporate judgment call, and they certainly could have provided documentation about the fact that this is new and could cause stated differences of performance relative to CS2, along with workarounds. They did neither, but that is now the proverbial water under bridge and we need to be forward-looking about solutions. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to explain the whys and wherefores of this problem, but we should not be satisfied to stop there.

I'm not the technical guru that you are in these matters, but as I said before I would like to believe that this issue is solvable in a much more satisfactory manner than has been achieved to this point in time. Looking forward.

Ah, it's YOUR definition of "Center Image" that is at fault...Photoshop is indeed centering the image in the printable area...which for the 4800, unless set to Maximum, IS off center. Photoshop CS2 hacked the margin settings, CS3 doesn't...for reason the print feature engineer mentioned...

If you _DO_ have 4 equal margins set by the printer, Photoshop DOES print in the center of the paper, not just the printable area. The 3800 comes to mind. Seems Epson got that right (just in time for Vista too, huh?)



Ain't gonna happen from the application...it'll have to happen from the OS/print driver...



I am...cause unless we can identify the guilty party, we can't get it fixed...

Jeff, "MY" definition of "Center Image" is the usual results-based idea that most people would expect: A centered image is a printed rectilinear object that sits on a piece of paper such that it is equidistant from the left and right edges and from the top and bottom edges of said piece of paper. Let us not confuse the definition with the reason why it comes out centered with one combination of hardware, firmware and softrware but not the others.

OK, you a have a perception about where the problem will get solved. But first someone needs to be mobilized to get the right parties to do the needful, and I still believe Adobe is a natural for that role regardless of where the solutions will emerge from. It could well end-up being multi-pronged if anyone is willing to do anything in the first place. From that perspective we don't need to provide the analytics - umpteen engineers in those companies can do that; but we DO need to strongly urge them to FIX IT so that "Center Image" will be handy and workable not only for the minority using Epson 3800s on Vista, but by now the far larger numbers using WINXP and all the other X800 professional printers.

re: Win XP Pro, Epson 4000, driver v5.52, letter size paper

Save paper, turn on [Print Preview] in the Epson driver. The preview is not color managed (really bad), but it shows you the true location of the image with respect to the paper. And, you can turn on [Printable Area] to see outline of printable area as defined by the Epson driver. Cancel print to get out without actually printing.

Do this and you will see that CS3 will center image in printable area in Portrait mode. NOT LANDSCAPE. CS2 handles this just fine.

CS3 has print problems. The most bazaar is building a SINGLE print routine for an unproven operating system while abandoning a print routine that works on the most successful operating system in the world. People talk about "slamming margins" as if that's a bad thing. There is nothing being "slammed." Software does not care a wit about poetic descriptions. What works is a 'good thing' by definition.. all software is a kludge somewhere.

XP has had it’s problems. Yes. But trust me, global multi-nationals are in no rush to VISTA. For obvious reasons.

ps: You can not Maximize margins in this driver when using art papers. Only works with "plain paper". Don't believe me, you can try it or read it in Epson user docs. No worky with art paper.

Paul, as long as Photoshop is colour-managed with Soft Proofing enabled I'm not sure why we need the Epson Preview to be color-managed - we can't edit images in the Preview. It does show placement and margin sizes, which is all that is needed from it.

The remainder of the behaviour you are describing is not quite the same for driver 5.51 used in a 4800. For example, Maximize is available for the matte papers, and as long as it is selected, CS3 will center the image in both Portrait and Landscape mode, but it must be verified image by image and set through the Page Set-Up route in the Photoshop Print dialogue to work properly.

So it is clear that to get a new concept of Printer Management centering prints in a manner that is not only cross-O/S, but also cross Epson driver-version. several variants of Print Module algorithms would need to be developed - say a set of user-selectable sub-moodules. To do this, these firms would need to cooperate on who does what to make it all coherent and properly operational. and that needs a coordinator.

It is indeed interesting that Dell found it commercially important to start re-equipping new computers with Windows XP. Not clear to me whether this is just consumer wariness about anything new coming out of Microsoft, or because of poor operating experience/bugs with Vista.

The world has a *huge* investment in XP compatible software. Over time we’ve learned how to make it work, AND have done an enormous amount of work using XP. Do a few googles and read about the swamp that is VISTA. I work for a high tech multi-national, offices around the planet. Our IT people say the best VISTA tip they know is “Don’t Upgrade” ......................... yet.

I can understand the centering issue being caused by a change in Vista's API. But I don't see how letting Photoshop remember a printer would violate any APIs. In fact, Dave the engineer mentioned only that they were "transitioning" from "per session settings" to "per document settings" -- nothing about any requirements in Vista.

Why?

In my world, most people don't have a dedicated Photoshop computer with a default Photo printer. They have one computer with a "Default" printer and a "Photo" printer. The "Default" printer is used for letters, recipes, online receipts -- because you don't want to use the $1/ML photo ink for that stuff.

We use the "Photo" printer with -- Photoshop! It sure would be nice if Photoshop could remember that (like it used to). Instead, with CS3, I have to redo the printer settings: Every. Single. Time.

As an Adobe customer and user, who do I complain to about this? Do I call Epson and tell them that Photoshop now won't remember my printer? Do I call Microsoft?
I'm sorry, Jeff, but I'm putting this one on Adobe.

What frustrates me the most is that Adobe made fundamental changes to the printing behavior of Photoshop CS3. They had to know that it would break the printing workflow of a large number of passionate users. But they said nothing about it, leaving us to bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out what going on.

I'm frustrated and disappointed.

Rick

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! Thank you, thank you, so much for that post Jeff. Uninstalled the wretched little rodent and my computer works sooooo much better. Most expensive mouse I've ever bought at £80/$160 [welcome to Rip Off Britain] and apparently the worst. And now it's going back to shop. Only reason I bought it, was because it was the least worst ergonomically. You try buying a big left handed mouse. Not easy.

I'm using a Kensington Optical Track Ball. It is ambidextrous and just a wonderful, smooth, easily controllable device just using your fingertips.

I may be the only guy on the planet who routinely uses Windows 64 (I mean the XP/64 not Vista--it seems a lot faster to work with large images because it can address more RAM), but I discovered the hard way that the most current version of the Epson drivers for the Epson 4800 NO LONGER SUPPORT the "Maximum" option, which, based on reading through this thread means there is no way to use CS3 to print on an Epson 4800 under Win64.

So, to print centered one has to both only use WinXP not Win64 and CS2.

When I called Epson support they said that the "Maximum" feature had been removed because it was causing too many problems.

If anyone else cares about this and wants specific driver versions please email me at andy@jli.com and I'll provide them.

I *knew* I should stayed with Win2K until WinXP and 64 had stabilized!

Thanks for informing us that the Maximum option has been discontinued in the latest version of the Epson driver. It means therefore that unless printing with CS2 it is necessary to remain with the penultimate version of the Epson driver, otherwise CS3 will be useless to print with (as long as we want centered prints). As I've mentioned in previous posts, it is now all the more important that the key players - Adobe, Epson and Microsoft collaborate on how this print centering issue will be resolved. As it all comes together in Photoshop, because that is the application from which most of us print, I also still believe it would be sensible for Adobe to take the lead in getting it worked-out.

I have a related question that I think will be much easier to solve.

I too am having problems printing, in this case to an epson R380 with cs3.

In cs2, I let photoshop manage colors, choose my profile, and then when I hit print, the epson printer driver pops up and I am able to disable printer color management.

The problem is that in cs3, the epson driver does not pop up for me, so I am unable to disable printer color management.

Is there any other way for me to disable printer color management? If I try to do it in another application first, it doesn't seem to remember it when I get into cs3.

I sense that I am missing a button somewhere, but I've gone over it a couple of times already without any breakthroughs.

thanks,
matt

What platform are you on - Windows or Mac? I'm on Windows with an Epson 4800 so what I'm saying here may not be identical with your conditions. Anyhow, FWIW, if Windows (and I'm sure they have similar in Mac) go to Control Panel, Printers and Faxes, select the Epson printer, (and assuming the 3800 and 4800 driver layouts are similar to this extent) select Printing Preferences, on the first tab select Advanced, then Select "OFF (No Color Adjustment)". Once this is done in that way (i.e. getting to these driver settings through the Operating System) that setting should be sticky in CS3.