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.
@Cristen 'I'm one who is having trouble adjusting'
Adjusting would be the case if Adobe did this properly. i.e. identify it needed to make a fundamental change to all graphics software, then change it everywhere (both within PS and across CC). Then we could simply 'adjust' to the change.
But Adobe didn't do it properly. The implementation is a half-baked embarrassment that creates huge inconstancies fundamental to everything we do. I actually have no issue with changing the behaviour but the way Adobe did this is incompetent on so many levels.
ALL of Adobe's customers deserve better IMHO; 'pro', 'amateur' or whatever.
I absolutely agree ! I am a professional retoucher for the last 15 years. I make my living using photoshop. If photoshop wants to be a professional program it has to focus foremost on it's professional users. I retouch a lot of e commerce and there time and efficiency everything. If for some reason something slows me down I loose money. Creatives who make their living using it have to be the main focus before creatives who don't make a living with it, however super talented or amazing they are.
Everyone who'd like to see this behavior changed back without having to write a custom script to do it (steps are described earlier in this thread) or to revert to an older version of PS, remember to click the "Me too" button at the top of this thread.
I agree re the small efficiencies you mention. I've worked with and trained many people at work and lots wonder why some earn much more money. A huge part of the answer is efficiency when it comes to the small stuff that's done 100s of times per day.
absolutely, I don't have time to fiddle around and get used to changed tools that have over 10 years of muscle memory or however you want to call it. If I have to do 100 images and I get slowed down by 5 minutes each time I loose 500 minutes, more than a days work.
@Cristen: With all due respect, someones's photographic ability does not lie in Photoshop tools as most artists don't photograph something with Photoshop in mind. It's usually the subject, composition and light that they are concerned with. "Photographs" are finished in Photoshop; they do not start in Photoshop.
My remark in regards to amateurs was precisely what was already mentioned after your reply: time efficiency. I retouch, I design graphics, I bounce between programs, and my clients want their images within a specific time frame. "Amateur" is not a derogative word. It isn't an insult either. It is a word that describes someone doing something for personal enjoyment instead of a salary. I know of plenty of amateurs who come up with great ideas, however, in the case of Photoshop and this tool, whomever came up with it failed to see the effect it will have on those who get paid to create images for others, and who have deadlines to meet. It may seem trivial for you, but every image you see in a grocery store went through Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. Images you see in malls, on vehicles, on online shores, all went through these same programs, and there are people who are getting paid to create them, and these people were heavily inconvenienced by this change. Now, instead of focusing on the creative aspects of "X" design, we have to sit there and fiddle with a tool. That is time consuming, and unnecessary for us to do. When I mentioned amateurs above, I referred to those who show no respect towards professionals. Sadly, there are plenty in that category. So, it's hard to have respect for them, when they show no respect for us. I usually ask amateurs to show respect for those of us who get paid to do different design and photo jobs and not meddle unless their idea will actually help us. My husband learned how to do Taxes when he was very young, and he's been doing our taxes for decades now, however, he does not involve himself in the software development teams at TurboTax our of respect for those who work there and know what they need to properly do their jobs. We ask for the same kind of respect. If we don't meddle into your field of work, please don't meddle in ours.
Also, if people frown so badly at Elements and act insulted at the suggestion of using it, then how come Adobe hasn't discontinued it yet? Just curious. If there is so much aversion towards it how come it still exists? To me it seems logical that it would be discontinued if customers were that unhappy with that product.
In my option, I think certain amateurs prefer to brag they are using Photoshop (even if they're only using the Saturation slider) as a way to appear important. I've known such characters in my 20+ year experience with this program.
Also, using curves versus levels as a photographer means nothing, I use what will give me the best result for the photo I am working on, and thankfully there are a million ways to accomplish something in PS. So, I didn't see the point in mentioning that small detail.
Professionals do not have a single workflow. Each image asks for something different unless someone is only shooting shoes on white background. "They know the software, are less limited than many a "professional" who specializes in a single workflow". Professionals aren't "limited" by this software in the least. I use it for work and also for personal stuff. Always. "Limited" is the last word I would ever use to describe using Photoshop.
for those of us who've been using Photoshop for decades, the change to constraint modifiers is a frustrating break to our workflow. It's reflexive to ADD a constraint by pressing modifiers. Pressing to REMOVE them is counter-intuitive. I'm willing to accept that some users might like the new way, but please allow us old lags to turn it off! I've got rid of it by using the text file trick in the AppData folder, but surely it makes more sense to put it into Preferences? Every time you change long-established keyboard shortcuts (and I'm looking at YOU, Ctrl-F), you reduce usability for those who've been supporting you for years.
> someones's photographic ability does not lie in Photoshop tools as most
artists don't photograph something with Photoshop in mind. >
Again, I beg to disagree. I know many photographers who have good composition and exposure, but fail to do well in post and the image fails to be as good as it could be— along with photographers less skilled, perhaps, in the technical issues involved with capturing the image in camera, but who do excel in post. The best photographers are also often aware of what they can do in post, just as Ansel Adams was aware of what HE could do with the negative.
However, I accept that you didn't mean to denigrate the work of amateurs, or how important Photoshop is to many of them. I know that there are plenty of people out there who have no idea what it takes to do a good job, and think their every Facebook post is worth looking at without their making an effort for it. They think the computer does it all, or should, with a single push of a single button, and we here do know better.
I did acknowledge that professionals are usually the most directly affected by changes as they are working to a deadline and still have to produce good product. I work to deadlines, too. I'm not at all unsympathetic, or even completely an outsider. I, too, was trained in graphic design, so I'm also not entirely unaware of what designers do and the many hats they have to juggle with extreme pressure on their time.
> Also, if people frown so badly at Elements and act insulted at the suggestion of using it,>
I don't think anyone frowns so badly at Elements, but they may well be insulted if they're told because they don't work for hire, they should be using Elements and not make any requests to Adobe for features that would enhance their experience with Photoshop. They're not all incapable of judging which application suits their needs best. Elements is great for certain types of creative endeavor, but not every creative endeavor. That's also why we have Lightroom something or other.
> Professionals aren't "limited" by this software in the least>
No, professionals aren't limited by the software. I said their use of it can be so highly specialized, they have no need for many of the features. That doesn't make them any less the professional. I do know some of them. Great work, but don't ask them to vote to combine Calcs with Apply Image in a single enhanced dialog. Don't even ask them to vote to include Scopes or enhance the Actions panel, or the many other features that could do with a boost. They probably don't care that so many ancient filters still don't have a preview, or don't run in 16 bit. I still acknowledge that those features they have need of are extremely important to their making a living—witness the many of us who use Free Transform on a daily basis (do we now change its name to Fixed Transform??), bringing down the house over the change. But just being a professional doesn't necessarily mean you have a need where many others might indeed have a need.
I think Adobe, in general, try not to be this disruptive. And I don't believe they acted in bad faith here, although I expect to be pilloried for saying that. I don't think they really understood how difficult this was going to be, so they missed how easily they could have avoided all this. I don't know their job, either, so I guess that makes us equal on that score.
I absolutely do NOT want Adobe to dumb Photoshop down, or I'll be out of a program I can use. And I absolutely do want to see more flexibility in how we use it, not less. But for that, we all deserve a seat at the table. Good ideas can come from anywhere—just as bad ideas can come from anywhere too.
Dennis, I read the article, but I am not sure what you're specifically referring to. All those marketing campaigns need images, and those emails are designed between all these programs still, and a company like Travelocity will not sit there and wait longer to send out a campaign because designers have trouble with PS' tools malfunctioning.
Myself as a photographer, I shoot for other people's marketing/advertising campaigns. My interior photos go forward to promote the interior designer, or sell a house, none of the photos I shoot for work end up on their walls or my walls as "wall art".
This is why these are professional products; they are designed to create advertising materials and other promotion materials for businesses or educational facilities like schools and colleges.
The fact that amateurs can design different worlds and play with plug-ins is great, but the #1 purpose for these products is business advertising and not someone's personal greeting card. And no one should be offended by that either. Amateurs have a 'choice' in what program to use, they aren't bound to use Photoshop, professionals really don't, especially if they want to produce great work.
All the software we have available today from anyone who makes software can be used by both pro's and amateurs, my earlier point was in regards to the fact that those who use the software for work/business need to take priority when it comes to making major changes like this one. Someone who barely has a handle on Photoshop, and barely knows their way around it shouldn't be the deciding body as to what tools need to change. You won't walk up to TurboTax people and tell them that there needs to be less math in the program. Same here.
@Cristen: >Again, I beg to disagree. I know many photographers who have good composition and exposure, but fail to do well in post and the image fails to be as good as it could be— along with photographers less skilled, perhaps, in the technical issues involved with capturing the image in camera, but who do excel in post>
"Photography" was and still is made from two major components: shooting & editing. Both are needed regardless of what editing steps are taken. Each photo needs something edited be it only contrast, or heavy facial retouching due to acne . In 99% of the professional cases, excluding Journalism where editing is not allowed as to not distort the facts reported, editing is required.
However, the "concept" of a shoot be it a portrait session, a food shot, an interior shot is not done with what editing steps someone will take "later" 'unless' it is going to be a composite shot and not a photo of an actual subject on its own. Here's a visual example of what I am talking about: John Wilhelm. If you go on his website under "Best Off" https://www.johnwilhelm.ch/bestof you'll notice the images being composited were shot with "compositing" in mind. So, the subjects were positioned to where they were going to be placed in the composite shot. The light was adjusted and placed according with the overall light in the images so as to not look stupid. Yes, we can manipulate everything with Puppet Warp but for a composite to look great, you do have to shoot the photos with that in mind first. Now, if you go to Joe McNally's website https://portfolio.joemcnally.com/index you'll see his photos are about the subject and not a later composite shot. He isn't shooting that ballerina in a studio and later places her on that roof, he shot it on that roof and did minor editing in PS.
I went to a proper photography school and not these ridiculous "piece together info" online training places, and the first thing we were taught was to always try to get the photo right in camera in regards to composition and light, and shoot in manual so we have full control of what's in front of us. If someone calls him/herself a "photographer" but relies on Photoshop to make that photo better that's not a photographer. That's just someone who hopes software engineers and "their skills" will help make their photo better. Later, we were taught how to edit different subjects, and most importantly "when" to stop editing. Some people go overboard with editing and it shows. The point is that if you want to call yourself a photographer you need to master both: shooting & editing. They are both needed to produce great work. If someone doesn't know how to edit, they need to learn. If someone doesn't know how to shoot, they need to learn. This is why photography programs should be reintroduced in colleges asap. Too much crap is being perpetuated online and people/new generations can't distinguish a good photo from a bad one anymore.
Yes, if I shoot fine art flowers for example, I am free to decide what steps to make in editing to achieve the image I envisioned in my head before I took my camera out. However, I will not shoot a fine art flower shot until I find the flower I'm looking for = my subject. Sure, anything can be distorted in Photoshop, but then that's not making me a photographer anymore, it makes me a digital artist. There's a difference. Yes, I can paint a flower in Photoshop too if I have painting skills, but that's not making me a photographer anymore, it makes me a digital painter. "Photoshop" is a tool we need as photographers. In Ansel Adams days they used real dark rooms, now Photoshop is our main dark room since most other pro photographers except for sports and journalism photographers, shoot RAW and those images need to be edited. it's not a "want" to be edited" they actually 'need' to be edited.
I don't think Adobe is trying to be disruptive at all, but I do think sometimes a certain community of total newbies and amateurs is having an input and that's a problem for the rest of us who have deadlines to meet. And I mean the kind of amateurs who want to be fed everything with a spoon while they make no effort to actual learn something. I don't have a problem allowing amateurs access to BETA versions and so forth, but like I said before, those who work in PS every single day for hours and hours need to take priority when it comes to making changes that affect our work timelines and efficiency.
I hope adobe puts back this tool to what it was, and focuses on improving other areas we actually need like previews for some filters etc.
I agree, well said. Also don't forget Photoshop is used by many different professions. I'm a digital artist, I use it to paint - never photography. And in my profession this new transform change is annoying as well, and I can't see anything positive coming from getting used to it.
I wrote a looooong list myself of what improvements Photoshop actually need - in my frustration of the cc 2019 update which hardly can be called a v 0.1 update, imho. I wrote up features that would have been great and small improvements of current features that feels unfinished at the current stage. But I didn't bother to send it, because I feel that Adobe only listen to a minimum of requests and need 1000 people to stand up and scream before they even consider anything from the community....sadly.
Heya, Joachim: I’m sure you hve some great suggestions as to how Photoshop might improve.
Take the time to create a forum post for each one, explain it as well as you can, and then encourage everyone you know to come vote for it. Festures requests with a high vote count get the most attention from the PS team.
> because I feel that Adobe only listen to a minimum of requests and need
1000 people to stand up and scream before they even consider anything
from the community....sadly. >
That's kind of like not voting and just hoping the candidate you like wins. I don't know where all Adobe goes to get ideas to work on, or how long our ideas would take to implement, if they chose to, but I'm sure that the more we contribute to the process, the better chance we have of getting something out of this.
No one of us is important enough to make them do anything. No 1000 of us are, either. But the more we act like a community with some shared interests, like we have been throughout this thread, regardless of disagreements over who's an important customer, the more likely we are to get some of our ideas followed through on.
I've seen a few things over time that I kept on about come into being, and lot of things I heard others talk about that I didn't recognize would be so useful at the time, also happen. I don't think they sit around in a locked meeting room and invent all these changes on their own, and I'm rather glad I'm not using v2 of Photoshop.
We forget that they've done a lot when we're focused on what they've not done or what they've done that we don't like. I get frustrated and my language deteriorates rapidly—or maybe gets a lot more inventive—it's how you look at it. But a lot of the good done I'm sure has been due to our incessant complaining about this feature or that. They seem to move slower than a snail much of the time, but the competition is gaining on them, so that might act in our favor so long as we don't give up and we do speak out. Even if nothing comes of it for any specific feature, it's pretty certain that nothing can come of it if we say nothing.
The most interesting thing, is their silence on this. Not a peep.
I wonder if it means they do understand, and are being careful about their response to this.
What I hope does not happen, because I see a lot of folks suggesting this. Is that they go ahead and change ALL relevant scale tools in all programs to behave like this. So in all programs, SHIFT is unconstrain. That would personally blow my mind.
Make this current behavior an option for those that want it, and resort back to the way it was.
Absolutely, I'm glad for the features Photoshop has, don't get me wrong. It's still the nr. 1 program for most artists and photographers for a reason. And a lot of what they have done is amazing. But I still think new features in or even the smallest bug requests to fix takes too much effort to get heard. I don't want to place each feature request and fight with claws and nails to get people to upvote them until eventually Adobe listens. Like the brush palette features that came in 2017 (folders etc), finally!, but that was a feature that hundreds had been crying out loud for for many many years - and you allready go plugins better than what adobe eventually made because people got tired of waiting. Same for color wheel, and same for smoothing brush stroke feature....
So yeah I'm really happy about what Photoshop is, but I wish features were added slightly faster and more bug and features reports were heard or at least discussed!!
Like this complaint about the uniform scale is a good example. Not a single voice from adobe, no arguments or reason or any hint that they care at all what people thinks. From my experience, they will never change this back! Or they will let it stay like this for 2-3 years and maybe consider it IF enough people complains years over years, they might add an option for it....eventually.
...so yeah, it's kinda hard to "act like a community" when this is the general feeling a lot of users have.
I agree with you Cristen. Adobe likely has up to 14M Photoshop users. As you can imagine, as much as 80% of them are not dependent on Photoshop for their daily income. They also are less likely to be impacted by any change. There is another company, Affinity Photo, that is hot on the heals of Adobe. While it will take a long time, years, it is likely that Adobe will redirect some of their resources to growth in other areas rather than fight an uphill battle. I haven't seen it but I know that Affinity also has an ipad product. AI, Artificial Intelligence, for example, offers some great new avenues for software development. Then the question comes, do we go in that direction or somewhere else. Will investing in AI give a good return? Does creating a Photoshop product for iPad have a better return? So many questions! But you are right. A unified effort with many is the best possible way to get their attention.
I doubt this change was requested by anyone in the professional community. My opinion of course.
@joachim: I don't want to sound defensive here, but the way I see this is like if you were working on a 200 layer document and you made a mistake on layer 4, and now you have to go all the way back to layer 4. (Not you Joachim, "general" you/Adobe).
I think Adobe is looking to move forward with the technology and the options added into PS, and this was a mistake they made because they were influenced by a specific group. I am sure we won't know the details of this mistake, but hopefully, they will be able to back track to "layer 4" and fix it for us so we can continue working smoothly. I keep my hopes up because I know these engineers work really hard to create this amazing program for us, so I don't think there is any ill intent towards users considering that users own the wallets to pay for this software, and can zip them up if this goes too further south.
My concern in regards to the iPad/iPhone thing is for Photoshop to not become Final Cut Pro like. I used to have and use Final Cut Pro and then it got chopped to pieces around 2012 and turned into total crap, so I hope this won't happen to Photoshop and the rest of the programs in the suite.
I personally am not on board with AI too much, because that means the "software engineer" is the artist and not me. In which case there will be no need left for artists to provide beautifully designed imagery or exist. There is a point of speeding up certain processes, but when it comes to creativity, allowing AI and the "one button solution" will not help artists and creatives in general. What that will do is have folks unfamiliar and uneducated into graphic design or photography simply apply some option without regard if it is appropriate or not with the image at hand. Like slap a sunset slider to a 12pm shot making it look ridiculous. Editing is decided by the image , and the creator of the photos' original vision; if we take every vision and turn it into a button/slider then we will have no more art or artists.
AI would have its best use in situations where 200+ photos need the same treatment, but we already have that in Lightroom, so it's been covered.
I think Adobe is trying to reduce the work involved in sending updates through the clouds; it would be easier to send 1 update for all platforms than ten, that I get, but in that case we need to have the option to turn off certain things that don't work for power/long time users since they are the ones who spend their days working in PS.
> The most interesting thing, is their silence on this. Not a peep.>
I've noticed that, too, although those who are usually here probably had nothing to do with the decision. But no one has come forward to explain this.
If they did go ahead and do what others ask for by making everything constrain proportions without the Shift key, that still wouldn't solve anything. If the reason for this was to be more in line with other programs and apps, they'd be out of step again, since the apps that use the Shift key to freely distort raster appear in my experience to use Shift to constrain transforming vector. So like I said before, there don't appear to be any good consistent rules out there.
It just plain out needs to be an option, and I think the best place for that would be exposed on the Options bar—link, everything is constrained and its a sticky setting; unlink and everything is freely distorted and also that's a stick setting. Then we could use a modifier to temporarily do the opposite. The link and having sticky settings, as well as modifier overrides that are temporary, are all conventions used in many different programs, and throughout features in Adobe. So. . . Why is that such a problem to implement?
At least if it poses endless troubles for Adobe, couldn't someone who does this sort of thing for a living come and explain that to us? I remember Chris Cox would tell us why it was so when we asked for something on the U2U forum that was untenable (under current hardware and software constraints). He wasn't the most popular person for coming on and saying "no can do." But he was helping us "accept the things we can't change."
> I personally am not on board with AI too much, because that means the "software engineer" is the artist and not me.>
Mostly I hate anything "AI" for the same reason, but I have seen it work pretty well in some practical areas. Topaz has AI Clear and AI Gigapixel (with human controls). These are filters that depend upon close up computer analysis to be able to do a better job than humans. I don't own either, but I will probably at least get AI Gigapixel eventually for those times I need to upscale by a lot. (And yes, I know garbage in/garbage out, but if that's what you have to work with, at least make it the best garbage, to paraphrase someone who always has the best of everything. . . ) From what I've seen, it does a better job than On1, which does a better job than PS. So there are certain areas where computer analysis could probably help us—but not if it amounts to Auto color or Auto tone, where all the creative decisions are removed by algorithms.
I can embrace AI/Sensei development (better CAF anyone?), but not if it were trying to "level" the playing field between creatives and people who think 5 minutes is a bit too long to work at creating something. I can remember Painter used to sell itself by saying "you don't need to learn to paint—we can do it for you." LOL
Computer industries are always trying to make themselves indispensable that way, and it's up to us to push back—asking for the tools that help us be more productive, better creatives, not better robots. We just can't give up, not because we get discouraged. We do, and we can each of us step back for a bit to refresh, but we can't give up because there is literally no other option—unless we can get voted onto the board of directors, that is.
Agree. We also use CAD software here, and my colleagues often want these new features and shortcuts to speed workflow and make things easier. However, the more shortcuts they add, the less we are depended on for our actual skill. Eventually we won't be needed and won't have jobs! Not to mention you lose the artists 'hand' in the resulting work. Thirdly, you will be expected to finish things quicker because your manager thinks you are using these magic shortcuts.
There are shortcuts I deliberately won't use because I prefer a natural feel, and some shortcuts look cheap and digital, and end up looking the same as everyone else using those shortcuts. Kind of like how you can tell when someone uses a Photoshop filter. Often someone will ask me to 'just use the filter to get this effect!' I'm like 'nope'
We learned this stuff because we did not have shortcuts, we manually did the work. How will anyone ever learn anything if things are automated, and will art/design look like.
778
Replies
AdChoices