Workflow, shmerkflow: what we want to know about is how Photoshop can handle cute pet photos, right?
Er, maybe not–but selecting irregular things like hair certainly is important, and it’s a problem that’s bedeviled both users and computer scientists for many years. CS3 makes some real progress in this regard (hint: check out that mysterious Radius slider in the new Refine Edge dialog), and last week Jon Fortt of Business 2.0 sat down with Adobe engineer Gregg Wilensky to look at the results. You can see his notes–along with well-fluffed puppies–here. [For more on how the technology came to be, see "Male-pattern baldness -> Great Photoshop feature."]
0 thoughts on “Puppies now 30% fluffier with CS3”
Hair may have bedeviled users and scientists in San Jose, but we do it every day over here.
Shouldn’t the developers focus on more high-end selection capabilities involving channels and masks (such as flexible tolerence levels on brushes in alpha channels)?
Refine Edges IS a really great UI for what we call “feathering”, but it shouldn’t be implied that this new edge maker can do it all without going in by hand here and there.
I remember when the amazing Extract tool came out — takes longer to really select hair than starting over with a channel and a brush. As a marketing guy you shouldn’t say This Is The Way, bcause with Photoshop there are many ways.
[Er, I don’t remember saying that it was The Way. I think it’s a useful capability that may not be self-evident. And yes, there are many ways to do various things. We need to do a better job of helping newcomers find their way through the possibilities, without limiting what’s possible. –J.]
Sorry, You didn’t say that. I meant that sometimes Adobe experts are “believed”, even if they’ve never used the app for paying work. This entry reminded me of that kinda thing.
In teaching Photoshop I sometimes find I have to unlearn newcomers from what they may have read. They see a nice dialog box and half an hour later they’re still upset it doesn’t work. Back to basics then.
(sorry about the misinterpretation)
[It’s all good in the ‘hood. –J.]