picture package

[digby owen]

i upgraded to Cs6 from CS5 but cant find the picture package option. where do i find it?

[Guest]

Hate to burst your bubble but it also runs on 32bit machines. A friend of mine has a 32 bit Vista machine and CS6 runs on it just fine.

[krinkly2009]

Ah, I'm talking about a Mac...

[station_two]

There's no 32-bit version of Photoshop 13 ("CS6") for the Mac.  It's strictly 64 bits.

[krinkly2009]

Exactly. That's why the CS5 plug-ins can't be imported into CS6 for Mac.

[JJMack]

krinkly2009 wrote:

Exactly. That's why the CS5 plug-ins can't be imported into CS6 for Mac.

I could be wrong for I do not use a Mac. I  beleive there was a 64bit version of Photoshop CS5 for the mac. So please download the cs5 optional plug-in for the Mac and extract the dowmload file look for the 64Bit plug-in folder and see if there is a WebContactSheetII.8LI file in there. I know there is in the CS5 Optional plug-ins for windows.  WebContactSheetII is as far as I know Picture Package.

While my Photo Collage Toolkit was writen on a PC and for a windows system. The package is nothing more then Photoshop Scripts and Photoshop layer styles. The scripts are writen in javascript and I have user using my package on a Mac.

[Noel Carboni]

You're not wrong, there was a 64 bit Ps CS5 for Mac.  But plug-ins for a Mac have the extension .plugin, not .8li, if I'm not mistaken.

-Noel

[JJMack]

However I was wrong Picture package was in ContactSheetII plugin I tried installing CS5 version in CS6 though I had two contact sheet II and on Picture package in menu File>Automate and the CS5 version of Contact shee II looks like it will work Pictute Package pop up a message that presets layouts are not found????

So I copied that folder from my CS5 install and then  CS5 Picture Package worked in CS6 64e bit soi I installed the 32bit version as well

Message was edited by: JJMack

[station_two]

You have the right idea, JJMack, but none of that terminology applies to the Mac. 

You won't find any file with an "8" in its name, such as "WebContactSheetII.8LI"; there is no "64Bit plug-in folder" for CS 5.x either; there is a single binary for Photoshop, not separate 32-bit and 64-bit binaries; etc.

Your Photo Collage Toolkit may be of help, if you can walk the user through its installation and use procedures.

[JJMack]

station_two wrote:

You have the right idea, JJMack, but none of that terminology applies to the Mac. 

You won't find any file with an "8" in its name, such as "WebContactSheetII.8LI"; there is no "64Bit plug-in folder" for CS 5.x either; there is a single binary for Photoshop, not separate 32-bit and 64-bit binaries; etc.

Your Photo Collage Toolkit may be of help, if you can walk the user through its installation and use procedures.

Nole wrote the extension will be .plugin on a mac. I can not beleive photoshop is but a single exe file there must be a tree somewhere. The CS5 plugin works in CS6 on windows.

As for my package download the package extract the zip file. Copy *.jsx files into the tree CS6???\presets\scripts\ folder drop the layer style files *.als on photoshop

and extract the sampe templates zip for som sample PSD templates

Photo Collage Toolkit UPDATED June 12, added Picture Package Support via PasteImageRoll and BatchPicturePackage scripts.

Photoshop scripting is powerful and I believe this package demonstrates this.

The package includes four simple rules to follow when making Photo Collage Template PSD files so they will be compatible with my Photoshop scripts.

There are eleven scripts in this package they provide the following functions:

1. TestCollageTemplate.jsx - Used to test a Photo Collage Template while you are making it with Photoshop.
2. CollageTemplateBuilder.jsx - Can build Templates compatible with this toolkit's scripts.
3. LayerToAlphaChan.jsx - Used to convert a Prototype Image Layer stack into a template document.
4. InteractivePopulateCollage.jsx - Used to interactively populate Any Photo Collage template. Offers most user control inserting pictures and text.
5. ReplaceCollageImage.jsx - use to replace a populated collage image Smart Object layer with an other image correctly resized and positioned.
6. ChangeTextSize.jsx - This script can be used to change Image stamps text size when the size used by the populating did not work well.
7. PopulateCollageTemplate.jsx - Used to Automatically populate a Photo Collage template and leave the populated copy open in Photoshop.
8. BatchOneImageCollage.jsx - Used to Automatically Batch Populate Collage templates that only have one image inserted. The Collage or Image may be stamped with text.
9. BatchMultiImageCollage.jsx - Used to Automatically Batch Populate Any Photo Collage template with images in a source image folder. Easier to use than the interactive script. Saved collages can be tweaked.
10. BatchPicturePackage.jsx - Used to Automatically Batch Populate Any Photo Collage template with an image in a source image folder
11. PasteImageRoll.jsx - Paste Images into a document to be print on roll paper.

Documentation and Examples

Download

[station_two]

JJMack wrote:

…I can not beleive photoshop is but a single exe file there must be a tree somewhere.…

There are no "exe" files on the Mac, i.e. none with an ".exe" extension.  Not anywhere on the Mac.

And, yes, the Photoshop.app in CS5 is indeed a single binary.  You have to select the application icon in the Finder and check the "Open in 32 bit mode" box or it will run as a 64 bit application by default:

There are very few parallels between Windows or MS-DOS and the Mac OS, you can't just find "equivalents".

[station_two]

JJMack wrote:

… I can not beleive photoshop is but a single exe file there must be a tree somewhere…

See for yourself:

[station_two]

These are just some of the platform differences that gave me nightmares and tummy aches when the Photoshop Macintosh and Windows forum were merged.  



[JJMack]

Yes there are differences still there must be some Adobe Photoshop tree about in your Mac file system.  Users install actions, scripts plug-ins and other photoshop extensions It is very hard for me to beleive the each time one add something to Photoshop on a Mac a whole new single Photoshop module is generated.

[station_two]

JJMack wrote:

…As for my package download the package extract the zip file. Copy *.jsx files into the tree CS6???\presets\scripts\ folder drop the layer style files *.als on photoshop and extract the sampe templates zip for som sample PSD templates…

Yes, we can find a similar path (or" tree", as you guys call it ) for this as follows:

As you can see, there's already a ContactSheetII script installed by default in the CS6 Scripts folder.

EDITED to add that last line.

Message was edited by: station_two

[JJMack]

Good on a windows system Adobe changed the structure of its Install tree in CS6 the plug-in tree was split there are now two in Windows. One folder is Plug-in the other is Required. User plugins are now installed in Plug-ins  Adobe does not want users to mess with their required ones I guess that is why they split the tree.  I do not see required in your captured tree.  Yes contactsheetII is now back Photoshop as I wrote when I installed the plug-in in the split tree (you may need to use an additional tree check your Photoshop Preferences for on windows there is an option to add an additional path for plugins) in the Adobe Plug-in path there where two contact sheet II plug-ins install on my machine one in Plug-ins and one in Required.  When I started CS6  menu File>Automate show these there were two contact sheet II and one picture package items. Trying contact sheets II items I saw the CS5 dialog in one with the thumbnail preview and the cs6 diaglog in the other.  Picture package failed for there was a fle missing that was in the folder Layouts in path Presets. Tthere was no such folder so I copied the folder Layouts from my CS5 TREE into my CS6 Tree cs6....\Presets\Layouts then Picture package worked in CS6.......

[JJMack]

TREES its my background I think when it come to files trees have always beed involved once man survied the stone ages. Then man cut down trees and made paper and start file keeping files creating libraries and statcks and stacks of books records accounts there needed to be a fileing system.  Trees were turned into paper tape and card stock we then mechenize it some more with punched paper tape and punched cards. Then we moved onto magnic tape then to dasd direct access stored disk like the RAMAC and operating system got formal names BOS TOS DOS languages as well then OS MFT MVT HASP ASP UNIX TSS VM CMS PCDOS NT Apple OS  NEXT BE oh so many some where along the line files system structure begain beeing call trees I can not remenber when for I'm lost in the forest I can not see past the trees.

[conroy]

JJ, the .app files on a Mac, e.g. "Photoshop CS 6.app", usually with the .app extension hidden in Finder and appearing to be a single file, are not the equivalent of Windows .exe. They are really folders containing multiple nested folders and files, some of which will be executables. In the case of CS6, over 1500 items are inside the one .app file.

[JJMack]

Yes compamy like Microsoft and Apple want to keep their usres in the dark and hide thing on them. I'm 71 and can see thing quit well even though my eye lenses have been replaced. Their sight is still keen and they do not have much of a problem finding the hideing places guided my mind that has forgotten more then it ever knew at any given moment in time. Such is life... I have even used a Mac but that was long ago before Apple gave up on creating their own OS. OS7 and OS9 were the pits. I'm sure now that Apple uses a Unix OS that things have gotten some what better.  Apple still builds the Apple Shell to hide thing on the users and give them a smalltalk like window user  interface Xerox park did some great work and they were well ahead of the time. I bet the savy user has no problem pealing away that Apple skin and getting at the underlying Unix system.  Bell Labs created a versitile mini OS when they created Unix back in the mid 1960es.

[conroy]

JJMack wrote:

Yes compamy like Microsoft and Apple want to keep their usres in the dark and hide thing on them.

In the case of .app folders appearing to be files at first glance, and launching the contained application when double-clicked, I think Apple made the correct decision. This helps reduce the chance of naive users messing around with an application's resource files. To access the .app as a regular folder, simply right-click it and pick Show Package Contents.

[JJMack]

Naive users normally do not mess around but they do make mistake and have accidental mouse clicks and have accidents while dragging and dropping.  Hiding what things are, hiding the existences of files and folders and excluding them from being searches for is a pain in my butt and an insult to our intelligence

[Noel Carboni]

Not that this has direct bearing on the subject material, but I need to vent.

I feel compelled to offer an opinion as this subject is near and dear to me (I have two books published on how to set up all the expert options so Windows is NOT so dumbed-down)...

Someone, somewhere in management (okay, a number of someones) think that systems have to be dumbed-down because users are stupid.

I always thought, in my earlier years, in my naivety, that as we embraced the era of high tech people would get smarter.  That we would be heading toward a wonderful "Star Trek" future, where everyone gets an expert education, intelligence is cultivated, and even teenagers could pilot starships.

Instead we have today's world:  Tabloid journalism, reality TV, and operating system writers in competition to see who can dumb things down more thoroughly.  Then decisions to deprecate features like "backup" because people don't use them.

Grrrr!!!

-Noel

[station_two]

Noel Carboni wrote:

Not that this has direct bearing on the subject material, but I need to vent…

…Someone, somewhere in management (okay, a number of someones) think that systems have to be dumbed-down because users are stupid…

Agree with your sentiments 100%.  In this regard, the current situation at Apple—exemplified to the point of absurdity by their Lion and Mountain Lion operating systems—leaves me with serious doubts as to their long-range commitment to the desktop Mac as a serious computing platform. 

[conroy]

JJMack wrote:

Naive users normally do not mess around but they do make mistake and have accidental mouse clicks and have accidents while dragging and dropping.  Hiding what things are, hiding the existences of files and folders and excluding them from being searches for is a pain in my butt and an insult to our intelligence

I think you are generalising whereas I explicitly stated that I was talking about the singular case of .app folders superficially appearing to be a single executable file. Anyone savvy enough to make use of the contents of a .app folder has absolutely no difficulty in getting access to them. As I said, a Finder menu item is provided for all users of the computer to open these folders. Nobody who is merely using an application has any reason to delve into an .app folder and will have no use for the contents, though. There are numerous search utilities which do not exclude the contents of .app folders.

[JJMack]

It seems that Photoshop users seem to need toooooo......

[conroy]

JJMack wrote:

It seems that Photoshop users seem to need toooooo......

You lost me with that screenshot. Exactly what do Photoshop users need to do?