Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe Updates Photoshop and Illustrator CS6 with Retina Display Support

U

Uplift

macrumors 6502
Feb 1, 2011
465
187
UK
beestigbeestje said:
When saving for web, you have to save 2x the resolution to view it correctly on a rMBP. Say, you want to have a 100px width for an image, you'll have to save it as 200px and use css to make it preview correctly at 100px (best for retina scale). If you save the image for web at 100px, it's 2x smaller when opening afterwards in preview on a retina screen. The photoshop canvas shows you retina quality image, but when exporting you have to make sure you have twice the pixel count, otherwise your actual image wil be smaller on your rmbp. Now, if you just "save as" then the image is as big as it was on the canvas on the rMBP screen. So using that wil make the images twice the size on regular screens.
does this make any sense? :p
Click to expand...

I hardly ever use save for web.

As a test i created 1024x768/72 canvas, this was quite small... when i save this (save as) on retina it will come out as 512x384 ? and on non-retina it will display normal. So to accomodate for retina i need to create my documents at 2048x1536px/72 .. when i save this on retina it will give me 1024x768px, but on non-retina it will be twice the size (2048x1536px) .. to over come this i just need to set the size of the image on the web so that it displays correctly?

Do we keep the resolution at 72?

What about background images, we can only use background-size in IE9+ so thats not a viable solution.

I try to keep image use low and use CSS where possible so i'm hoping it's not going to be a major issue.

Finally, what about print? If i create an A4 poster at 210x297mm/300, is this exactly what i'm getting?
 
JavaTheHut

JavaTheHut

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2010
334
1
Exponent said:
WhaddaYouMean? I've been using the 15" rMBP for 5+ months now, and love it!

I drive it in full resolution mode, and it's like having a Cinema Display on a laptop. I finally have the screen real-estate I need to to all kinds of multiple-window, multiple-program engineering work.
Click to expand...

How do you have more screen real estate by having a 15" with higher res.? You need a larger screen or second monitor for more screen real estate. Or are you working with tiny little icons and tiny little text etc. sharp resolution but small?
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
JavaTheHut said:
How do you have more screen real estate by having a 15" with higher res.? You need a larger screen or second monitor for more screen real estate. Or are you working with tiny little icons and tiny little text etc. sharp resolution but small?
Click to expand...

Screen inches are not real-estate. 1280x800 is 1280x800 whether it's on a 13" screen or a huge hulking 19" monitor. The same content will be displayed on both, you won't fit more text on screen, as text size is mostly fixed to pixel count.

Real-estate comes from upped pixel counts. Running a 2880x1800 screen in normal mode instead of HiDPI mode (which would be 1440x900 points over 2880x1800 pixels) gives you much more room to display things, albeit, they'll all look smaller.

I personally run my 15" rMBP in 1920x1200 scaled mode. I think it's just perfect really.
 
Digital Skunk

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,097
923
In my imagination
huntermaclean said:
If only I had $1000+ to buy CS6...
Click to expand...

I would agree, but I've long since given the Creative Cloud a try, and I have to say that renting it at $50 a month is much better than buying it, and I get WAY more than I would paying for the Master Collection outright.

mrxak said:
Hopefully they get Lightroom updated by the time I get a retina display.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am in the market for a new mobile workstation, and Lightroom is a key app for me.

KnightWRX said:
Screen inches are not real-estate. 1280x800 is 1280x800 whether it's on a 13" screen or a huge hulking 19" monitor. The same content will be displayed on both, you won't fit more text on screen, as text size is mostly fixed to pixel count.

Real-estate comes from upped pixel counts. Running a 2880x1800 screen in normal mode instead of HiDPI mode (which would be 1440x900 points over 2880x1800 pixels) gives you much more room to display things, albeit, they'll all look smaller.

I personally run my 15" rMBP in 1920x1200 scaled mode. I think it's just perfect really.
Click to expand...

I would agree. I remember us going back and forth on the death of the 17" MBP, but I must say that 1920x1200 on the rMBP gives me the same workspace in a smaller package. I say this after 6 years of using 17" 1920x1200 screens.
 
JavaTheHut

JavaTheHut

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2010
334
1
KnightWRX said:
Real-estate comes from upped pixel counts. Running a 2880x1800 screen in normal mode instead of HiDPI mode (which would be 1440x900 points over 2880x1800 pixels) gives you much more room to display things, albeit, they'll all look smaller.

I personally run my 15" rMBP in 1920x1200 scaled mode. I think it's just perfect really.
Click to expand...

Yes this is exactly what I was referring to The screen resolution needs to be set to a comfortable working size for usability.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
JavaTheHut said:
Yes this is exactly what I was referring to The screen resolution needs to be set to a comfortable working size for usability.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Apple always had huge shortcomings in this department. Something they got better on the high-res 15" MBP, right on the 2010 MBAs and now with the scaled modes on Retina MacBook Pros. All their other line-ups have atrociously low pixel counts for their screen sizes. 1280x800 13", 1440x900 15" models, those are just ludicrously bad.

Now, 1440x900 on the 13" MBA is passable, 1680x1050 on the 13" rMBP (scaled) is great, 1920x1200 on the 15" rMBP is just awesome. Those are actual comfortable sizes that provide the maximum amount of real-estate. Before, all we had were Duplo sized pixels.

Heck, Dell had better offerings a decade ago, albeit, as optional panels for their laptops.
 
C

chocolaterabbit

macrumors regular
Nov 2, 2008
243
56
iMikeT said:
Just a useless reply to my useless post. :rolleyes:

Here's a thought... What's worse, a useless post or a useless reply to a useless post? :p
Click to expand...

I don't know which one of you is worse, but I do know that the worst is me making a useless post to reply to the useless posts from the two of you :eek:
 
JavaTheHut

JavaTheHut

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2010
334
1
KnightWRX said:
The thing is, Apple always had huge shortcomings in this department. Something they got better on the high-res 15" MBP, right on the 2010 MBAs and now with the scaled modes on Retina MacBook Pros. All their other line-ups have atrociously low pixel counts for their screen sizes. 1280x800 13", 1440x900 15" models, those are just ludicrously bad.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, since your using 15" rMBP in 1920x1200 scaled mode. When do you use the Hires mode?

Don't get me wrong I am not a detractor of higher resolutions its the future, just interested in hearing the workflow with the small 15" screen and higher res.
Thx.
 
Technodynamic

Technodynamic

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2012
371
81
Updates are a little FUBAR.

I had to update the updater after many failed attempts. Doing so allowed me to run the patches. Photoshop looked no different.

Now I run the updater again and it appears as if EVERY product in my Adobe Suite has an update. So.... letting it download a ton of updates now and waiting...
 
J

jpadhiyar

macrumors regular
Oct 15, 2012
165
23
Ahmedabad, India
Quite a lot of designers have been waiting for this. Perhaps now we can say that this changes everything again. Apple probably can take the credit for (yet again) mass-marketing the Retina philosophy..
 
J

jorgetuix

macrumors newbie
Dec 11, 2012
3
0
my problem is that:

"have not been possible to apply the updates"

Is very strange because with update 13.0.1 I haven't any problems
 

Attachments

  • Captura de pantalla 2012-12-11 a la(s) 17.54.32.png
    Captura de pantalla 2012-12-11 a la(s) 17.54.32.png
    126.6 KB · Views: 71
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
JavaTheHut said:
Out of curiosity, since your using 15" rMBP in 1920x1200 scaled mode. When do you use the Hires mode?
Click to expand...

Hires mode ? I don't use 2880x1800 as a native resolution, that would make things waaaay too small for me (Apple uses a god damn small font in Terminal and my workflow is entirely based around Terminal to begin with). 1920x1200 scaled is fine.

----------
GorgonPhone said:
yeah i would skip the retina macs.. not worth the extra money at this time
Click to expand...

What extra money ? The 15" rMBP is the same price as a similarly configured 15" cMBP and the screen alone makes it definately worth it.
 
derbothaus

derbothaus

macrumors 601
Jul 17, 2010
4,093
30
winston1236 said:
For professional work a retina display is worthless, youll never reproduce those colors on 99% of the screens ib the world
Click to expand...

Pixel density has nothing to do with color reproduction. They are separate measurements. You don't get more color with a retina screen. You get more color with extended/ wide gamut.
 
S

stueee123

macrumors member
Nov 24, 2011
70
0
issues solved!

If you're having problems getting the update on applications acquired through unsavoury means, try reinstalling the applications, and immediately updating them as soon as they're installed. Then replace the amt.framework file after the update (your second time doing it). Don't update Adobe Application Manager with a patch from Adobe's website. Hope this helps :)
 
W

willcapellaro

macrumors 6502
Oct 20, 2011
345
6
stueee123 said:
If you're having problems getting the update on applications acquired through unsavoury means, try reinstalling the applications, and immediately updating them as soon as they're installed. Then replace the amt.framework file after the update (your second time doing it). Don't update Adobe Application Manager with a patch from Adobe's website. Hope this helps :)
Click to expand...

How unsavoury are we talking about and how much do we need to thaw the thumb the original owner's thumb before scanning it?
 
K

Konstruktor

macrumors newbie
Dec 11, 2012
19
19
Rotterdam, NL
beestigbeestje said:
When saving for web, you have to save 2x the resolution to view it correctly on a rMBP. Say, you want to have a 100px width for an image, you'll have to save it as 200px and use css to make it preview correctly at 100px (best for retina scale). If you save the image for web at 100px, it's 2x smaller when opening afterwards in preview on a retina screen. The photoshop canvas shows you retina quality image, but when exporting you have to make sure you have twice the pixel count, otherwise your actual image wil be smaller on your rmbp. Now, if you just "save as" then the image is as big as it was on the canvas on the rMBP screen. So using that wil make the images twice the size on regular screens.
does this make any sense? :p
Click to expand...

Dank u! Thanks!

I don't think I quite understand it yet though ;).
In your above example, is the PS canvas 100px or 200px?
And how is a 100px canvas displayed in PS? With 200 'retina' pixels, or 100 'retina' pixels (e.g. smaller then another screen)?

----------
Uplift said:
I hardly ever use save for web.

As a test i created 1024x768/72 canvas, this was quite small... when i save this (save as) on retina it will come out as 512x384 ? and on non-retina it will display normal. So to accomodate for retina i need to create my documents at 2048x1536px/72 .. when i save this on retina it will give me 1024x768px, but on non-retina it will be twice the size (2048x1536px) .. to over come this i just need to set the size of the image on the web so that it displays correctly?

Do we keep the resolution at 72?

What about background images, we can only use background-size in IE9+ so thats not a viable solution.

I try to keep image use low and use CSS where possible so i'm hoping it's not going to be a major issue.

Finally, what about print? If i create an A4 poster at 210x297mm/300, is this exactly what i'm getting?
Click to expand...

Is your first alinea a question, or did you find it out? The question marks make it a bit confusing :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom