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.
> The longer this half-baked rolled out is not acknowledged, the worse it will get.>
But it has been acknowledged. They never give timeline references for anything they put to the public. But they have said they're working on it. So we may not like the amount of time working on it is taking, but we won't like a "solution" that's as half-baked and problematic as the feature.
And we ought to at least be fair and say it's been officially acknowledged as a problem they're working to solve in a way that will work for us without destroying what currently is working for some of their other customers, whoever they are.
I don't blame them for staying out of this. We're venting a lot, and all their presence will do is get more rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at them. The Staff who come here aren't the ones who fix the problems, and they don't have any control over that other than relaying we think there's a problem. We have to assume that Adobe is really trying hard to shoot itself in the foot if we assume they aren't paying any attention to what must be the longest and most vitriolic thread in this forum's feedback.
If any are longer or angrier, I'd love to see what that was all about. <BG>
Agreed but it was acknowledged about as well as it was announced - sheepishly slipped through. There's been no real acknowledgement of how fundamental this change is to the way all graphics software works - why not do it right?
Changing it on one tool, in one app? The inconstancies in PS alone are jaw dropping, it raises a lot of questions about how Adobe makes decisions and it brakes trust. Our clients would destroy us for breaking something so fundamental on their websites, and yours too - right?
So why not acknowledge it's huge, reset the change, then work out how to do it properly?
We're in an on-going, subscription-based relationship with Adobe, is it really asking too much to have fundamental changes done right, and communicated properly?
@Ben:
“This change proves Adobe doesn't understand design consistency, doesn't understand professional users, and doesn't understand communication.”
Ben, this change did not come or was requested by a professional working (getting a salary) in a field that uses Photoshop for 12 hours a day.
Adobe seems to want to expand their subscription model to anyone with a wallet by dumbing the software down to appease those without a solid self taught education and without a four year degree in Graphic/Web design. This starts from places like KelbyOne who place zero value on professionalism and a comprehensive education.
The reason this is happening is the constant cheaping out epidemic that has taken over America. Most clients don’t want to pay, most employers don’t pay living wages so to pay $52.99 a month as a freelancer is a lot of money, so Adobe is making a new market for these people instead of siding with the properly educated & professional crowd of artists. This is what’s happening to us photographers thanks to that same crowd of cheap ppl who have no respect for artists: https://www.photosbyag.net/blog/2019/...
That is the worst intellectual property abuse and extortion I have ever seen! This is what’s starting to happen, with Adobe’s help, to the graphic design industry too...ever heard of Fiverr? So, Adobe wants to be in everyone’s bank statements and to do so they need to dumb down the software since those who spent four years to get a solid education at SCAD are in minority. I don’t think there are that many subscribers in reality, or not as many as Adobe hoped, so they probably think that if they make the software less complicated more wannabes will subscribe and fill out Adobe’s wallets.
Also, “Adobe” gets all their marketing colleteral from others, so while they teach how to use the software, they don’t have knowledge of how their software is used on daily basis in say “any” advertising agency. Is there anyone here from an advertising agency that was directly consulted by Adobe before this change happened? Did anyone from Adobe showed up to explain why they even considered such a preposterous change? I don’t think so. I also don’t think they care how their software is used either. Plus, those who make these changes don’t work on making advertising materials; they make software, which is not the same thing, so those folks won’t know or care how the software is used either. So regardless of calling them out on social media or here, they don’t really care because this change doesn’t affect them directly. It sucks, but companies that get this big don’t usually care and the only way to make them pay attention is to not pay for their services. It shouldn’t be this way, but people allowed it to be, so now it is.
> is it really asking too much to have fundamental changes done right, and communicated properly?>
I honestly don't know. I think they may have gotten lost a bit when they tried to find out what customer expectation is. I know they went along with the way it works in Affinity, but not why. Also I heard someone say this was the way it works in Microsoft. As if most of us who use Adobe software regularly care about anything except how it works in Adobe software. But if chasing new users is the paramount mission. . . or even just listening to regular users spout off about what is more "logical" . . .
But I also know that they've made plenty of changes before that were reviled, then accepted and never mentioned again. It's always been best to use Preferences, at the least at first, so people adapt and choose, but I've also heard people complain there are too many Preferences, as well as complain that they have to use them at all. They just want the defaults. <sigh> Me, they have made changes I'm still not happy about, but then again, they've made changes that I am still thrilled they did make.
I believe when using other software that it's on me to figure out, and remember, how basic functions work. I reckon it's the same for newcomers to Adobe. But I'm not opposed to choice, and I expect that's what they're going to go for. Sure beats having the other half as angry as the first. Plenty of people think no key to constrain a transform should have been the default anyway, even people who disagree with how this was handled.
They did respond nearly immediately with a temporary "preference" fix that from all I hear, everyone is satisfied with who want to revert. I think that's taking far more accountability for the mess they created than leaving it up to volunteers to create hacks for us while we wait for them to do something elegant (hopefully). I chose not to use it for the above-mentioned reason_there are no standards, so I want to be able to choose whether or not I get along with another app or not. And stay on my toes living in a world of modifiers built on shifting sands. And I do half remember, then swear. <G>
For the record, I have no problem changing 'shift to constrain' to 'shift to unconstrain' here's what's amazing...
1. Changing it on one tool, in one app creates staggering inconsistencies. All other resizing within PS (and across CC) still uses 'shift to constrain'!!! This kind of fundamental inconsistency breaks the most basic rule in all of design - consistency.
2 This change goes against 35+ years of design software convention, so it requires a little bit of thought and care. Nothing crazy, again, very basic considerations in the design world.
Either Adobe knew and didn't care, or had no clue. Both are jaw-dropping. Again, even an intern designer knows this stuff, it gets drilled into us from the very beginning.
These basic errors beg the question, what is going on? While we all get frustrated with changes from time-to-time, we've never seen anything like this. It's so embarrassing.
We are aware that the changes we made to Transform/Resize inPhotoshop have not been well-received by the user-community atlarge. Sorry, that wasn't our intention. We are looking into asolution that addresses the comments made here as well as the original problemswe were trying to address. We hope to have this fix released soon and wewelcome those interested to join our prerelease program -- if you'd like tohave some influence on how the application develops, we'd sincerely loveto hear from you.
In the meanwhile, here is a workaround that will revert to the earlierbehavior until we can get a new release ready for you. This is the same thing Jeff shared earlier:
We are aware that the changes we made to Transform/Resize in Photoshop have not been well-received by the user-community at large. Sorry, that wasn't our intention. We are looking into a solution that addresses the comments made here as well as the original problems we were trying to address. We hope to have this fix released soon and we welcome those interested to join our prerelease program -- if you'd like to have some influence on how the application develops, we'd sincerely love to hear from you.
In the meanwhile, here is a workaround that will revert to the earlier behavior until we can get a new release ready for you. This is the same set of instructions that Jeff posted earlier:
I feel like you should just revert this change to the older version in the official software until you come up with a better solution rather than: leave it up to people to configure there own files with a notepad 'fix'.
I respectfully disagree. I didn't want this, but as I've said many times, I know a lot of people who welcomed the change. Even professional users who wanted the option, not one way or another forced, but they liked the change. Simply reverting doesn't help everyone, and it's everyone we should be concerned about—if we want Adobe to also be concerned about them. Let's not start pitting one group against another—Adobe already succeeded in doing that. '-}
I think if you had implemented it properly at the get go, it would have been better received. It's mainly the inconsistency that made it impossible to work with, at least for me. Particularly in Photoshop. As for someone like myself, I use shapes, text and bitmap layers and all kind of layers all the time, often on one same PSD file and all the layers are used in different ways. I don't really regard shapes in a different way than a bitmap layers. And having to learn my muscle memory to get used to them all behaving different is impossible!. F.example: first scale a bitmap layer in uniform scale, then add a vector mask and scale, and boom it behaves differently and you make mistakes. It feels like a complete mess when working. If such a major behavior change for a tool that is used all the time should be changed, it should be a common behavior across the entire program (bitmaps, content aware scale, vector, text, etc etc....) and not least across all Adobe programs coming out at the same time - so you are forced to relearn it. Additionally, users should be able to revert to legacy behavior the same way you did with multiple undo's, inside the program preferences.
Without such an implementation, this feature will never be well received.
But the real problem isn't changing shift-to-constrain. The problem is changing it on one tool, in one app.
That's like switching 1st gear with reverse but only for one road.
This huge UI/UX inconsistency, and the sheepish roll-out, raises a lot of questions because we're in an ongoing relationship with you.
We're getting a lot of 'you can't teach old dogs new tricks' attitude but that isn't the issue.
It's about design consistency, and basic communication. Both were of shockingly low-quality in this instance, and these aspects are yet to be acknowledged by Adobe.
I hope that makes sense and thank you again for taking the time to post here.
Again, I'm happy to try to share your voices and input with the team, but it would be far more effective if you want your perspectives really heard to join the Photoshop prerelease program. There are limits to what an employee of a publicly-traded company can discuss on a public forum with regard to a feature under development...
That said, it wasn't just one tool. Many behaviors were changed. That's why a fix isn't immediate. We TRULY want to get this right for users, including all the many and sundry fringe cases. And believe me, there are multiple (conflicting) consistency arguments involved...8-(
I, too, have been using Photoshop forever, and the legacy behavior is etched into my brain. The change has been driving me crazy 🙂 I've reverted back to version 19.1.7 for now, but hoping future releases will be corrected back.
I called Adobe Customer Support and logged this complaint. The first rep offered me 15-day credit on my subscription. They then passed me through to the User Support to explain how the tool works (ha!) and I again logged the complaint. They offered a 2-month credit on my subscription. Perhaps if enough users ask for refunds as well as log complaints, Adobe will change PS Constrain Transform back to legacy behavior.
I feel like this removing the shift key - is a solution answering to a problem where people don't have direct access to a shift key when working on files ... ie... tablets - ipads etc ... (your not gonna have that onscreen keyboard pop up over half your screen to use it) ... that to me seems to be the only logical explanation as its not been changed in other software in the adobe suite ... ie software that you wouldn't really use on an ipad ... - illustrator - indesign all the other apps ... hence the inconsistency across the different packages
I don't use a tablet so have no idea if an identical version of photoshop exists for tablets/ipad in any useable form other than that weird one they made ages ago that i had on my iphone - like a super light version ... (red eye reduction and contrast - essentially edit basic stuff) ... maybe that software is about to drop or still in development via a port from desktop photoshop as we know it ...
total speculation ... but thats all I can think that makes any sense as a reason for fixing something that (based on the feedback and backlash here) wasn't essentially broken ...
Sorry David, if you "truly" wanted to get this right, you would have consulted with actual users before baking in the changes and maybe even run a decent sized beta program and listen to the feedback. And if you "truly" wanted to get this right, you wouldn't have been basically silent for months. And, in addition, you could have given public explanations as to what YOU think the benefits were of completely screwing up the workflows of hundreds of thousands of professional users. But, sadly, you did nothing of the sort. It's what we've come to expect from Adobe. Joe Ely had a great song years ago called "My Hopes Up High" Well, they ain't very high at the moment. I mean, it's really not hard to get this right and any excuses you make for it, are just that - excuses. Why don't YOU, David, tell us exactly who was responsible for this and more importantly, why. And as far as joining some sort of "prerelease" program, sorry, got way better things to do with my time that ferret out your problems. I was invited once years ago to participate and the whole thing was like slave labor. Hell, even Schewe told me on the phone that there was no point in being part of the beta program as all the real decisions had already been made at Alpha and Adobe was just using the Beta to find bugs - for free. Just sayin'.
Hi David, first of all thanks so much for addressing this problem. I am looking forward to the changes. Can you give us a timeframe ? I never doubted you would not listen to the users and at the same time I wished you guys would have kept us in the loop a bit more frequently. I also appreciate that you mentioned we can become part of the pre release program. I appreciate that a lot but don't think that due to deadlines and tight retouch work schedules I ( and I am sure many of us) don't have the time to work with something that might have bugs and is still a work in progress. I would wish that on the other hand you would network way more frequently with those users like me who make a living with photoshop, in my case as a photo retoucher, in other cases as a graphic designer, those whose tax return declares that I think we should be the ones that should be asked first, on questions like what tools are missing, or what tools can be improved. If you say photoshop is a professional program, you have to connect with us professional users way better. In Forums, by invitation, by questionnaire , by invitation, etc. I am sure there are many ways to connect better to us that these forums here. Thanks again, Andi
Again, I'm happy to try to share your voices and input with the team, but it would be far more effective if you want your perspectives really heard to join the Photoshop prerelease program
I'm afraid that I too have had bad beta experiences (I also had to let an Adobe beta tester go). I was left in no doubt that fundamental decisions were long gone by the time stuff was tested, and that the beta programme doesn't always attract great people (who are always way too busy).
That said, it wasn't just one tool. Many behaviors were changed. That's why a fix isn't immediate.
I kind of liked this better when I thought it was an oversight sorry.
We TRULY want to get this right for users, including all the many and sundry fringe cases.
OK but you guys recognise that shift-to-constrain is not a fringe case and that it's a decades-long design software convention (not just Adobe) which is used 100s if not 1000s of times per day by every designer/retoucher/3D artist - right? Keeping it consistent benefits all uses-cases and users of all levels, it's that fundamental.
And believe me, there are multiple (conflicting) consistency arguments involved...8-(
But shift-to-constrain is shift-to-constrain, it's learn't right after pointing, clicking and dragging - no joke.
Changing it to shift-to-unconstrain requires changing it everywhere, including fully across CC. If that's not in the works, then this is way worse then any of us could imagine.
Re the internal consistency arguments: this isn't like a feature request, you're messing with something so fundamental (again, think clicking and dragging) that it's troubling to hear there's an argument about this.
e.g. 1st gear is 1st gear, it's a very bad idea to switch 1st gear to be reverse when driving on a different road.
778
Replies
AdChoices