• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
208

P: Transform/Resize is constrained by default - Want ability to go back to legacy behavior

Participant ,
Oct 15, 2018 Oct 15, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

When selecting a layer and dragging a corner handle with the shift (or alt-shift) key pressed, the resize proportion isn't constrained. This started with this most recent update.

Bug Fixed
TOPICS
macOS , Windows

Views

13.8K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Adobe Employee , Jun 18, 2019 Jun 18, 2019
With the 20.0.5 update, there is now a user facing preference under Preferences > General... and check "Use Legacy Free Transform"


Use this preference instead of the PSUserConfig.txt method.

Votes

Translate

Translate
replies 778 Replies 778
778 Comments
New Here ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The hubris of Adobe will be their downfall.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Cristen - The convention was shift-constrain.  It was that way for 25 years.  This is a change that wasn't asked for.  Also, there is no reason to constrain (no pun intended) the desktop app to the mobile app's methods.  It's a completely different interface.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Even so, the tool is called “Free Transform” as mentioned above.

I think the best option would be to add an option in PS’ preferences and whomever wants to turn it on, great, and the rest of us can continue working as we did for the last 20 years.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If Adobe has screwed up Photoshop so bad in favor of the upcoming Photoshop for IPad like so many of us think, the issue is that the ‘Real’ Photoshop for iPad isn’t ‘Real’. To completely change the behavior of basic tools that we have used for years rather than to develop a ‘Real’ version of Photoshop for iPad is not accomplishing a quality product for either version. As bad as I may want to use Photoshop on my iPad, I would rather mirror my iPad to my Mac to use for a drawing pad. I still see that the new version of Photoshop is too full of bugs and other bad behaviors that I’m not likely to ever use anything later than the 2018 version.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If Adobe has screwed up Photoshop so bad in favor of the upcoming Photoshop for IPad like so many of us think, the issue is that the ‘Real’ Photoshop for iPad isn’t ‘Real’. To completely change the behavior of basic tools that we have used for years rather than to develop a ‘Real’ version of Photoshop for iPad is not accomplishing a quality product for either version. As bad as I may want to use Photoshop on my iPad, I would rather mirror my iPad to my Mac to use for a drawing pad. I still see that the new version of Photoshop is too full of bugs and other bad behaviors that I’m not likely to ever use anything later than the 2018 version.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I would never use Photoshop on an iPad.

The only other device I will ever use it is on my MacBook Pro (15"). I find it incredibly annoying to edit anything on iPhones or iPads regardless of the version. I have to be able to see what I'm doing, and those screens are too small, and uncomfortable to hold too. 

I enjoy my iMac way too much to ever give up editing on it. And like you said, if this was so it merges with the iPad, then I can only hope Adobe realizes that there are still a ton of people out there who enjoy editing on their iMac's or other type of real computers and not these amateur devices. There's no way in hell I would ever give up editing on my desktop. Plus, I am a power user too; I bounce between Photoshop + Illustrator + InDesign and also Audition and Premiere, and Acrobat, so there is no way I could get my work done on an iPad/iPhone.

I have a bad feeling that this is coming from a community of people who are only hobbyists and who have zero understanding of how professionals use, and have used these products, and this will be very damaging for us pro's if we let it happen. I don't have an issue with having versions of Photoshop for iPad's or iPhones, however, there needs to be a boundary of how much amateurs can alter these professional products before we pros have to look into other software options to get our work done in a timely fashion.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

> The convention was shift-constrain.  It was that way for 25 years>

Alan, yes, I do know that. This change wasn't asked for by any of us who have used PS for decades. BUT, Kenton Smith has made a point that deserves consideration. It goes a long way to addressing the "why" of the change that was made. Adobe doesn't exist in a closed world. And they cast their net far and wide when gathering data from users, asking them what they find trips them up. The fact that the convention inside of Adobe doesn't correlate directly to what many popular current apps outside the Adobe sphere are doing (I've heard MS doesn't follow Adobe's convention, but since I use nothing Microsoft, I won't swear to that) is likely the issue Adobe chose to address.

BTW, Affinity Photo, which so many PS users say they're going to switch to using whenever PS does something they don't like, doesn't use the Shift key to transform an image layer with constraint. They use the Shift key to free transform. On1, otoh, follows the now defunct behavior of Adobe, and uses Shift to transform constrained. IOW, Adobe has inconvenienced many of us, but it hasn't done anything out of step with what everyone else is doing, which is to say, NOT settling on an industry standard for when to use Shift to constrain and when to use Shift to distort.

As far as I can see, no mistake was made in allowing no modifier to produce a constrained transform when working with image pixels, in order to "play well with others." The mistake was not allowing us to opt out. Which I've said repeatedly throughout this endless thread, and just did say in my last message.<sigh>

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I complreely agree! iPad and specially iphones are for watching with fun, but not for serious work. Adapting to touch screens means less options and therefore more steps that mean more and confusing work for profs.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Similar to the move to Lightroom CC from Lightroom Classic, it seems like Adobe is focused on a different set of users rather than those of us professionals using their apps long term. For smart phone photographers, LR CC web based and PS on the iPad seems like a great idea and will make that group of users happy. Why they feel the need to change existing apps rather than just offer a set of new apps for that special group of users is a mystery to me. 

Most of us professionals are using computers with large displays to make editing easier and far more accurate that it ever will be on a phone or iPad screen. If I was making the decisions at Adobe, I would want to capture that new group as well but would work extremely hard to maintain my support from the existing customer base using our products.

Why they put Lightroom CC in the top part of the Adobe Cloud App list of apps and bury Lightroom Classic way down below is an indication of where Adobe seems to be going. For me, this is the bellwether of things to come. I have been a loyal and supportive Adobe customer and professional teaching classes in LR and PS for many years. Even I am worried about where this is all headed.

So far, I continue to be loyal and support Adobe but like the rest of you, I am carefully watching to see where this is going.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I agree in part, but not completely. If you've ever used Affinity for the iPad, you know you can do a lot to start a project, then finish it at your desktop. This can be as necessary in professional settings as it might be fun for personal use. The time is beginning where the line between mobile and desktop is getting blurry enough to transition.

But since I'll have to keep on saying it or you all with think I don't like choice—that doesn't mean I think Adobe should force behavior on us. They should be expanding options for managing our workflow. In the bad old days of limited horsepower, that may have made sense, but today I believe most computers they support can handle more options for how each individual chooses to work.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Lots of mistakes; not identifying how fundamental 'Shift to constrain' is, so not changing it in the 100s of places it needs changing, no fallback, and now no acknowledgement or roadmap for doing it right.

We're pros, we can adapt to fundamental changes but this isn't well-executed. It's low-quality, half-baked work that deserves to be called out. What an embarrassment.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

While I’m convinced this change was made to make the default behavior of this basic behavior consistent between desktop and tablet, tablet has totally different inputs and muscle memory which is what confounds me about the decision to make changes that would ostensibly make Photoshop perform more consistently between platforms. It doesn’t. People have been saying that maybe Adobe is becoming more like Microsoft, but even they maintain experience differences between different types of screens. Xbox is different from pc, and tablet mode is different from desktop in Windows. Adobe is trying to shoehorn a baked product into a different shaped loaf pan.

I’ve been using Photoshop for design work since the mid Aughts and this is the first time I rolled back to an earlier version of an Adobe product.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Agreed, touch is a completely different context - everything works differently so it's totally fine that desktop apps work differently.
But, if you decide to change a fundamental industry-wide convention, then do it properly.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 11, 2018 Dec 11, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There is a video tutuorial for iPad's "Real Photoshop" showing that there is infact another method of using the left hand input.   Its a floating, onscreen, single button that could be used for the "shift/constrain".  IMHO: What a joke, anyone who is willing to use the free hand for input is inevitably going to want a full keyboard.  One extra button cannot turn a novelty hobbie tool into a professional tool, Adobe.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This idiotic change should have started out as a beta test option in prefs with continued development aimed at those who want to experiment and report back on its usage and bugs.

To just change it and shove it down our throats is plain dictatorial.
PS 2019 is a train wreck already happened.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A monopoly that doesn't care and/or is not in touch with its customers. A market ripe for competition.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Expert ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If Adobe didn't care, I doubt we'd have this forum in which Adobe employees participate.  

I suppose some competition could help.  If you don't need the full image editing feature set of PS, there are other choices (not many, but some).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Guest
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied



The swapped transform constraint is a major pain in the ass. Can you please, for once, just put it back the way it bloody was. It still catches me out .. Every. Single. Time. I have 20 yrs of muscle memory with this. Not to mention you left it the other way for literally everything else.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don’t think “Adobe” doesn’t care; what I do think and sort of know to be true is that Adobe is influenced by people who are not actual professionals. Professionals in Graphic Design with a four year degree that is. None of those would decide on a whim to constrain the “free” transform tool.

Photoshop is professional software. They should have done that to Elements which is for amateurs & occasional users.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There are too many good aspects of the software for me to presume that no professionals are involved with the architecture of the software. For the most part, I don't have too many issues overall with the software.

I think this was an ill-informed update, perhaps, as some suggest tied to an overzealous idea to consolidate functionality with iOS. I'm not sure what happened here, but surely they did not consult people who are long time users.

I really have no idea what happened TBH, it's a very odd decision.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mark, I know that. I didn’t say ‘everyone’ who worked on it was an amateur, far from it. However there are certain groups with ties to Adobe who cater to amateurs or occasional users and in my personal opinion I don’t think such groups should influence the development of Photoshop which is a professional software program. Those groups should influence the development of Elements.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I completely disagree that anyone who works with "amateurs" should push them in the direction of using Elements, or that they should themselves use Elements and "influence" it. Some of the best photographers and photo artists I know, or whose work I have seen, are "amateurs." Some people start out as amateurs and wind up professionals. Some professionals go the other direction. It's fluid, since "professional" only implies money exchanged for services or product.

The word "amateur" itself only means "one who loves." Not "one who is too lazy to learn to do anything." They know the software, are less limited than many a "professional" who specializes in a single workflow, and require far, far more from a program than Elements is capable of providing. In fact, many came from Elements. It was far too restrictive for their needs. Photoshop is, in fact, easier to use if you bother to learn how.

So I would respectfully request that "amateurs" be shown a little more respect. There's no meaningful fence that keeps amateurs out. Money earned isn't is. Some of them work harder to learn Photoshop and use all of its potential than designers I've known for decades who still won't use Curves, but have been making a living at it since v2 of PS, and are d*mn good designers.  They're just unwilling, and feel too busy, to learn new workflows—Levels work fine for them. I see professional photographers whose go-to is Levels and Color Balance, and not much more. They're still good photographers.

I sympathize with all who are upset with this. I'm one who is having trouble adjusting. None of us like to be thrown off badly by a "simple" change that isn't simple for us to adapt to. It hurts many professionals the most, short term anyway, because of time constraints on getting product out. But professionals DO use touch devices. Serious artists, whether they get into galleries or sell online, or not, DO use touch devices. Professionals who don't use Photoshop as their main program, but have to use it for their work, DO use Photoshop AND touch devices. And so do a lot of "amateurs." Why wouldn't Adobe do anything at all to accommodate all of them?

These are ALL Adobe's customers, and all deserve some attention. I don't believe that Adobe looks at the person who takes selfies and lunch pics to post on Instagram and FB as their most important customer base—though who knows but what these folk might not be tomorrow's professionals. I think Adobe pays attention to far more of their base than just one element.  I could hope for  more accommodating attention than we got with this feature, but this IS an outlier from Photoshop's usual way of dealing with accommodating as many people as they can. Think of all the "legacy" we have now, which didn't use to be the case in ancient days when a change was a change and that was it. They started introducing "legacy" back with changes to Adjustment layers and Brightness/Contrast, and it's been not quite a standard since then, but very common.

I hope the way this feature was handled isn't the future, but I also hope people don't say "get rid of the amateurs" from being a part of the Photoshop (and Lightroom) family.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've always viewed the PS market as one made up of: Professional of ALL Expertise Levels!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Guest
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I just want to say thank you to Cristen.  Just because I am semi-retired and have income that makes it unnecessary for me to earn money doing Photoshop does not mean I should relegated to using Elements.  I know a lot of so-called amateurs who are very very good using Photoshop.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Dec 12, 2018 Dec 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don’t know that anyone has been saying that amateurs should be treated as second class users. The point is that Adobe made some fundamental changes with no simple way to revert to a preferred legacy setting. Ignoring day-to-day users is insulting. I literally lost money because of their choice. I don’t think enthusiasts are put out economically.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report