P: Free Transform - ability to set Maintain Aspect Ratio as default

Well, I'm placing Illustrator art into Photoshop, and it MUST maintain aspect ratio, so I've clicked that checkbox dozens of times today! I would pay anyone a good bit of money if they'd make a plugin just to maintain aspect ratios when scaling. I can't wait for Adobe to see how elementary this request is and please, please, please implement this in the next update. Is it difficult to change this? Please just make it sticky!!! It's especially frustrating when working on a large monitor, which I am. Who do I have to bribe?

That's ok, most people don't include that sort of info we need to justify features to management. I think I understand the needs, but don't know for sure - so try to get some conversation going to get the info and make sure we do understand everyone's needs.

Hmm, yeah, packaging design with signature logos, photos, and product shots is something that really, really needs to preserve aspect ratio most of the time. Yep, makes perfect sense.

I'm sorry I didn't give enough detail Chris! I am a graphic designer and most of what I bring into Photoshop has to do with package design. 99.9% of everything that I scale HAS to maintain the aspect ratio, such as logos, photos, products, etc. I'd rather uncheck the box for the .1% of the time that I might need to un-proportionally resize a gradient background, etc. Very little of the art I produce in Photoshop is abstract.

I also usually end of scaling my objects numerically instead of shift dragging. Much as Markus relates, I have to scale photos of products by the same value when placed in the same file. Numerically is the best way to do this. I use Smart Objects for this all the time, which is wonderful for being able to see the scale of the object even after it's been scaled. The "maintain aspect ratio" button is CRITICAL!

Having the checkbox be 'sticky' would indeed solve the problem. Much like the crop tool checkbox of "Delete cropped pixels" does. I have gotten in the necessary habit of glancing up to see if it's checked or not, based on my last usage. Glancing takes WAY less time than having to go to check the box every single time I use it.

I can't possibly tell you how much time it would save me! TONS! Plus the irritation of having to check it every single time. Does all of that make sense and can you see how frustrating it would be to check that box hundreds of times a day?

Thanks for listening!

The reference point is a different issue, not directly related to this topic.

For me it's all about the Reference Point Location during a transform.

Having to manually set it to the top left for every transform (as that's what i do 99% of the time) for me is an even bigger issues than the locking of the aspect ratio.

Say i've got a bunch of images i need to size and align properly to a grid.

I'll start by putting the top left hand corner of the image where i want it to be, then transform to scale to the size i want it by dragging the bottom right corner of the transform handles.

Having to alway reset the Reference Point Location to the top left is frustrating.

So i'd suggest remembering the last set Reference Point Location and the Maintain Aspect Ratio setting is the better approach.

Remembering these settings is what happens in Illustrator by default, and some unification of workflow across the tools can only help.

Rob

Agree with jod-z regarding web-design... I don't touch it as often, but essentially the same pain-points exist, especially when placing a large source image to a smaller canvas (typical when doing web stuff). Bottom line is that resizing almost always involves preserving the aspect ratio. The only time I do not need it is when I try to adapt backgrounds between different size media, like developing a web-banner using the background graphics from our catalog. That's really the 1% of the time I need to stretch and distort. The other 99% of the time, I always need to preserve aspect ratio.

Also, on my layout workflow, ascribing the fundamental issue to a lack of guides misses the point. Firstly, I use plenty of guides as-is. Secondly, (a) my product sizes vary between items; (b) overall sizes vary between pages; (c) grid-style layout is boring; therefore, creating a guide grid is usually not practical. Thirdly, even if I use guides, I still have to either manually check the "preserve aspect ratio" box or use the shift-modifier. The ask is that I don't have to repeatedly do this with every object I select, guides or no guides.

Thx.

-ml

Web design is arbitrary?

In my workflow, I use it all the time and the two main reasons are 1) to consistently resize things; 2) I often place a large image on a small canvas and use the numeric transform to resize (usually with the arrow keys and not numbers).

Suzanne's post is similar to others here that are lacking in the needed details. I responded to start a conversation in order to get details.

Thank you for providing more details about your work. Yes, a photo layout workflow would involve more aspect ratio preservation than, say, a web or phone design workflow (which is more about arbitrary sized rectangles and rounded rectangles). And if you don't have preset grids/guides to follow, you would need to use numeric entry to scale the photos to all match in size.

Having the aspect ratio button sticky (like units and other items) might work - but I actually do have to take all the common workflows into consideration before making such a change. So the more we know about the workflows, the better.

Dear Chris,

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I think the reasons for why we are asking for this feature are adequately documented in this thread already. Just look at Suzanne's post, the essence of which is repeated throughout the thread. While it is true that you did not deliberately call it a bad idea, your response of using the shift-modifier has been offered a few times in the thread already. It gets a little frustrating when the nature of the request keeps getting ignored.

Since you ask for detail, I will offer you how it affects me... I use Photoshop a lot for layout tasks, and that frequently involves placing all sorts of elements (pictures, text, etc) and resizing them. 100% of the time, "resizing" means "maintain aspect ratio." My pictures are product images, which I've photographed. But the photographs typically have one item and usually are done at different times (as new product is released), so the camera setup is always different. That means I have to size-correct my images as part of doing layout, so all the items in one series that are 10" tall are actually the same final size. Similarly, other items on the page that are smaller/larger need to be proportionally adjusted. The free-transform drag to resize just doesn't work for me--I need the precision of pixels. And, yes, it is a pain to always have to check the same "maintain aspect ratio" box every time I select one of the 30-40 images on my page (multiply this by 30+ pages in my case). I can only imagine that the other commentators in this thread also find themselves constantly going back to check this box, hence their frustration.

My request is for a global preference, but you say that this is significant work. You're right that I don't know the Photoshop code base. Another poster suggested just keeping this box checked once selected, similar to how one can change the scaling from "%" to "px" and this is retained between selecting other layers. Both of these suggestions would solve the problem, which is that I have to check this same box repeatedly and often. If you can find another solution, that would be great, but let's leave shift-drag aside as it just won't do.

Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions.

Thx.

-ml

I was responding to specific points by Suzanne.

You may also notice that at no point did I say "no", or "that's not a good idea", or any other phrase that might in any way indicate that I don't agree with the request. I simply responded to a few issues in Suzanne's post.

Also, you really don't know my background. So setting up a straw man argument based on bad assumptions of my background really doesn't help.

(also, your prior assumptions on the complexity of code needed to implement this - are pretty far off)

It would be far more helpful to describe why you need such a feature, and how it would save time/effort. That would make it much easier for me to justify to the product managers while I'm trying to figure out how to implement it with appropriate UI and without a lot of hassle.