I agree, it's a complete mess and I don't want to see ANY human's face multiple times a day/week especially when so badly designed. Even without what looks like actual fleshy mesh substrate being stretched off of her I wouldn't like it due to the staring face.
That said, I've disabled it!
Just enter "-nosplash" in the properties of the .exe (Right click and put -nosplash in the target box after the last quote mark containing the programs name.
This also seems to make loading faster (almost instant on my SSD), even if it's just placebo caused by the removal of the disturbing/torture of previously staring at that hideous graphic.
next time Adobe just keep it plain with the app name please.
This only works if you then load PS from it's own icon not if you click on a document or 'open with' to launch PS. Better than nothing! It may also only work on Windows, have no idea if you can do similar on MAC.
On PC/Windows
Find the actual 'photshop.exe' (not the shortcut), if you have it on your taskbar you can right click it, move up to the actual program icon then right click that and select 'properties'
In the top most box you'll see Target: and a box to the left with the path to photoshop in quote marks. AFTER the quote marks simply put in -NoSplash
then apply / ok. Don't put any quote marks around -nosplash and put a space after the last quote mark and the -nosplash.
It’s what Graphic Designers get high on. If you visit the local Digital Artist’s hang out, you’ll often hear the most spaced out of them say, ‘I totally tripped out on PSD last night’, and met with a chorus of replies like ‘Those are heavy pixels man’.
"Very many (I assume most) of us..." seems to leave quite a broad and boldface indication that I'm not speaking for everyone, and the other comments above make it clear I'm not alone, either.
The only remotely unqualified "we" was where I said we open Photoshop as a key part of going to work. If that's what you're all offended about, I do apologize, but reiterate that the sentence directly before it should make it clear it's not intended to be in any way universal.
You do understand that nobody's demanding the change the image, right...? Only asking that we be given a way to do so on our own copies.
Well... whatever my face is... I do demand. In daily life the image is effectively turns into a punchbag instead of being a shiny height to lust (or it was not intended?).
But, somehow, I am almost sure they will not give attention to your or similar pleas regarding PS in the nearest future. Some necks are too stiff to turn to the failure even in humble form.
The only hope is that next time they will think twice.
I'm not sure why you're upset with me, but I agree the image is unpleasant, and I agree it looks violent, and I wish they'd at least let us change it... But I also agree they probably won't listen. 😞
Oh dear, oh dear. I am not upset with you. In fact, whatever my face is...I liked your phrase about faces. It was funny. So I used it too. Hope you were not licensing your content here. 😉
But, indeed, there are many ways to reach the aim. And one of them is buzz zzz zzz (constant and annoying) to make them feel same uncomfortable as I do looking daily at the pic. Remember your moody wives, sticky girl/boy friends, salesman following you for 2-3 kilometres in order to sell something abroad? Yeah... that's it. )))
But it is also true that I speak only for myself. Well.. actually "we" in such a subjective context as art sounds... mm... a bit too pathetic. Sorry if I am being too harsh.
Yeah, that one was horrible, however for me, the image of the anorexic woman in CC 2018's takes the "Most Hideous Photoshop Splash Screen Award" in Adobe's history. I cringe whenever this version of PS opens. For the love of GOD, I wish Adobe would oust the panel who chooses these images. It's clear they lost their ability to discern between the truly worthy and the hideous. Wow!
Clever solution, but that folder contains the icons Photoshop uses for it's interface and all additional views including scaling to 200%. Somewhere in there is the compiled version of the splash screen that you detest so much, but the big question for me would be why are the file sizes of those icon files different between CC2017 and CC2018-the logical conclusion would be the icons pixel dimensions are subtly different and if that is true the Photoshop interface will be out of true . Doesn't sound important I know, but being able to view at exactly 100% magnification is essential for accurately assessing an image otherwise Photoshop averages pixels and creates artefacts that are not really present. Personally I don't understand this paranoia over something that is only on screen for a few seconds-it's not beautiful to look at but it is a serious piece of art and most of us couldn't create it for all the tea in China.
I don't have any artefacts nor problem viewing at 200% but I'm not a specialist
However it's just a workaround to avoid this horrible piece of art and I can understand people hating to see this ugly thing each time they launch PS.
Nobody can impose art and it's been a while now that a brain deranged person in the adobe staff imposes to thousands of people such ugly things, enough is enough and we have come now to a paroxysm of stupidity and ugliness with this version
I have other things to do than find workarounds to avoid this kind of things and I think that I'm not alone
As it was said before, a neutral splash screen is more than welcome here and the final user who's paying hundreds of dollars or euros could expect to avoid such stupid thing, adobe should give us the means to switch these horrible splash on or off
Finally, terri you look pretty and I would prefer your photo in the splash screen rather than this piece of art worthing not even an once of the most disgusting tea in the world (I know I'm sensitive)
chris (very angry after PS splash screens as you can see )
It's probably time to sit back and try to figure out why this splash screen is so offending to so many.
It's a perfectly fine image and it would have worked splendidly in almost any other situation, such as an illustration in a printed publication.
But as a Photoshop splash screen something changes. Maybe because a face is always very insistent, and this one in particular - look at me, listen to what I'm saying. And if that feels irrelevant to your own use of the application, it gets frustrating. It was created in one context and read in another.
Add to that the hyper-saturation (which goes really crazy on a wide gamut display on Windows, where this isn't color managed), and it becomes something you simply can't ignore.
It puzzles me. I use other Adobe applications and don't react to those splash screens the same way. Many of them are excellent, although they should perhaps consider wide gamut users and dial down the saturation a bit.
Add to that the hyper-saturation (which goes really crazy on a wide gamut display on Windows, where this isn't color managed),
....and that is probably the root of it. The image itself is down to taste, but why Adobe would choose to display the one image that they choose to show us daily, in a professional app, but without using the color management that enables this to be a professional app I cannot fathom. If that is a necessity of the timing of the splash screen compared to the loading of the color modules then they need to pick an image, avoiding skin tones, that would look OK whether over-saturated on a wide gamut monitor or under-saturated on a narrow gamut monitor.
Actually I'm not sure this is within Adobe's control. I think some of these UI elements are under OS control, and since Windows doesn't impose global color management, it's just the numbers.
That's why I was extremely happy for the Photoshop UI makeover a couple of versions back. The blue panel highlighting was also not color managed, so the new gray highlighting was a blessing.
I hate distracting strong colors when I work. I can't imagine how the traditional Mac interface - with a visible desktop behind windows - was even workable, unless you had a flat gray desktop.
Whether the splash screen has color management applied is, as you point out, very likely out of Adobe's control. But the choice of using an image that would work whether over or under-saturated is very much in control (and would immediately exclude skin tones).
Incidentally, I am quite happy with the blue panel highlights as I have the panels on a separate screen anyway. But I always chose the light grey "theme" and set the background to 50% grey
Yes. It's down to choice of image. And I don't think a face - any face - is the right choice here, especially since you see it several times a day for one and a half to two years. It's different on a magazine cover, read twice and then stuffed under a coffee-table. An image may be appealing at first sight, and maybe not so much after daily exposure for months.
But the wide gamut issue isn't just skin color either. The previous one, the "ice cave", also looked garish with a horrible purple color cast in the shadows. I wanted to pull up a Levels layer every time it came up, just to correct the shadow cast.
I don't know...maybe we should move this discussion over to the back chambers, where it might also get the attention of staff? I can see what they're thinking, but IMO these splash screens aren't working as (probably) intended. I think they need to be subtler and more low-key. That doesn't mean "dull" - just not that loud.
They already have the customer's attention, or they wouldn't be looking at the splash screen in the first place.
Why not close your eyes for the twenty seconds the splash screen displays for?-life is simply too short to get this upset about a graphic. If you want to suggest to Adobe they make a change a suggestion can be made at the link below
3 seconds load for me, so I guess I've got an even faster processor than yours.
Anyway it isn't actually lost productivity because Photoshop still has to load, no matter the splash screen. Or are you suggesting that Photoshop will load faster when there's a nice pretty graphic heading it up? 🙂
256
Replies
AdChoices