Known Participant

Question

Are crisp shaped shapes still possible?

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
August 17, 2023
4 replies
2887 views

Hello, I believe ever since switching over to the cloud version of photoshop I've never been able to get shapes to have crisp edges anymore. They all have a 1pixel blurry edge around all 4 sides.

Even if I left-click the canvas and create a shape with dimensions like 100x20, all 4 edges have a blurry "un-crisp" edge

This kind of defeats the purpose of using a shape/vector. The only way to get a crisp edge now out of the shapes tool is to create the shape then transform it. The transforming snaps it back into crispyness.

Is there a "legacy shapes" option? Or some setting in photoshop to make shapes be crisp as they should?

Im attaching a screenshot to illustrate this. The black box was created with dimensions 100x20 and it still ends up looking pixelated.

Windows

This topic has been closed for replies.

K

Kenneth Kawamoto

Community Expert

There's a setting in Preferences - not sure if this helps you, but here it is:
Preferences > Tools > Snap Vector Tools and Transforms to Pixel Grid

C

Callingoutn3rdsAuthor

Known Participant

hey @Kenneth Kawamoto there was indeed a miscomnunication but not how Fosse suggests. I actually already have Snap Vector Tools and Transforms to Pixel Grid selected, and the screenshot I shared in the beginning is actually a buggy/erroneous way that Adobe shows positions in this scenario.

Just to explain, so everyone can learn, the shape in my screenshot is actually positioned on 615px, but like dave and jane explained, since there is a 1px center stroke applied, Adobe basically applies a "0.5px" stroke to either side of the line, resulting in "614.5px." which you see in the screenshot

Now, thats not actually true in two ways.
Way 1: The box is actually positioned at 615px, but when you view the layer it shows 614.5px because of the "0.5px" stroke applied to either side.

Way 2: It's not actutally 614.5px either, thats a lie, because its not actually applying a 0.5px stroke as dave and jane clearly explained. What its actually doing is applying a 1px stroke to either side with 50% of the color assigned, meaning it actually grows a full 1px to 614px, and thats what it should display, instead of 614.5px.

Just to get technical, and expand more on this weirdness, if I had the shape positioned at 614.1px with 1px center stroke, I'd end up with the same 614px final product, but the 1px on the left would be 90% black while the 1px on the inside would be 10% black. The gimpy stroke fill is directly related to the X position and the offset from a whole number.

Seems like lazy coding/engineering.

This should be considered a bug, and a failure by Adobe, whether the "community experts" want to admit it or not. To suggest this is "as it should be" is ludicrous, and a slap to every professional out there.

You can explain 'why' its this way, thats fine, and I understand now 'why', but dont pretend it 'should be' this way. Especially considering photoshop use to handle shapes and any position just fine.

D Fosse

Community Expert

Predictably bad, yes.

1a and 2a are what I also said happens. I'm not arguing that. I don't think there was a misunderstanding on my part, as your screenshots are exactly my experience as well, and that's where my problem stems from. Stroke inside or outside works just fine (unless you offset your shape from a whole number)

You can see that the transparency fill on either side of 2a is directly related to the offset position from the whole number. One side of the stroke is 80% fill on the stroke, while the other is about 20% (guessing), because you have it at 0.2px position (guessing).

You can't possibly look at your screenshots compared to every modern and "professional" program out there and say "Yep, looks about right". They are atrocious.

You say photoshop has always handled shapes this way, but I don't remember seeing such hideous looking shapes until the cloud version came out though.

Maybe you're right, and its just time to switch over to figma where none of the multiple problems with basic functions that i experience with photoshop, exist. It actually broke my heart and made my tummy hurt when I heard Adobe is, or did? acquire figma. Hoping Adobe doesnt end up breaking that program with their "modernness"

Is it really that hard (or impossible) for a "pixel program" to simply work with fractions of a pixel? We can position a shape to a fraction of a pixel, but can't maintain the quality of the edge?

Is it really that hard (or impossible) for a "pixel program" to simply work with fractions of a pixel?

By @Callingoutn3rds

There is no such thing as fractions of a pixel. It's not "hard", it's by definition not a possibility.

Until you understand and accept that basic fact, this isn't going anywhere.

Post a feature request if you wish, but there are no other ways Photoshop could work. Every possible variation is already covered in the available options.

And just to be clear: this is how Photoshop has aways worked, and how any raster editor has to work.

C

Callingoutn3rdsAuthor

Known Participant

Just take this screenshot as an example that something is seriously wrong with photoshop.

Select Shapes tool > Left click canvas > Assign 100 x 20 px size > and since photoshop loves to auto-add a 1px border that I never asked for, this is how it appears. The 1px border just exagerates how bad and ugly the edges of a shape are.

It's weird. I was trying to test if this only when i click to create, or always drag and drop create.

In one document it happens every time, 0.5 pixel position, every time, no matter where I click, no matter if i click to create or drag and drop. In a different document, repeating the steps actually gives me a perfect whole number every time no matter what?

Now I'm confused why one document only deals in .5 pixels and the other only works in whole numbers when creating shapes

Edit: oops forgot screenshot

davescm

Community Expert

Photoshop does not add a border that was not asked for, it adds a stroke based on the settings in the option bar.

If you ask for that stroke to be align centred in stroke options (for stroke options click on the reveal arrow next to the line in the options bar) then it tries to place a 0.5 pixel stroke at each side of your vector path and, as half pixels do not exist, it uses semi transparent pixels.

However, if you choose Align inside or Align outside then you get a perfect 1 pixel solid stroke either inside or outside of your vector path.

Alternatively, you can leave Align centred and click 'Align Edges' in the option bar. That will move the edges to the nearest full pixel.

There is no bug here to fix

Dave

jane-e

Community Expert

@Callingoutn3rds

What is your Zoom level? Does the shape look okay at 100% zoom?

Jane

C

Callingoutn3rdsAuthor

Known Participant

@jane-e I can see it on every zoom level, though its less noticable zoomed out

But @Kenneth Kawamoto you are actually 100% right! Whole pixel position looks like it DOES fix the blurry edge. Never noticed that before! Makes sense why [Ctrl + Transform and nudge it once] fixes this also, since transform only works with whole numbers (that's something i miss about old photoshop)

I will jsut say adjusting the horizontal position to a whole number only fixes left/right, I have to adjust the Y number as well to get 4 clean edges. I think at that point the quicker way is still to [Ctrl + T and nudge transform by 1px], which is still kind of annoying to deal with.

It's worth mentioning that a Rasterized layer has no problem with 0.5 pixel positions. It scoots into position just fine with no loss of quality to the edges. Where as a Shape, basically a "vector" element (supposedly held in the highest regard), cannot handle 0.5 pixel positions. That seems backwards at the very least.

There. has. to. be. a. better. way.

davescm

Community Expert

Photoshop always works in pixels. Vector layers (shapes) are converted to document pixels for display and composting. Each pixel has a single value - there are no half pixels. If a vector shape is positioned, or sized, to require a partial pixel then Photoshop uses semi- transparent edges to simulate that 'half' position.

All looks normal in that screenshot. You can make this less obvious by using more pixels in the document but that will depend on the output needs.

If you require, sharpness regardless of size or zoom level then don't use a pixel editor, use a vector application such as Illustrator.

Dave

K

Kenneth Kawamoto

Community Expert

If you place your rectangle to a whole pixel position rather than half pixel would it work?

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded