P: Rotatable pattern fills

I'd love to be able to rotate patterns in the FX panel, it seems like something that would be relatively easy to code but I'm not a coder so I wouldn't know.

I would use it RIGHT NOW! 😉 Please add rotate-able patterns!!!!!

I would really like this feature. I would use it on a weekly basis in the work I do and it would save me a lot of time.

I guess that is another inconsistency.

Satin & Drop Shadow both use elements that are readily accessible from the dialog's controls. While Gradient and Pattern does not have any of these controls, preventing precise control over the changes and preventing the users from intuitively knowing that such feature is available.

In my case however, I do not need precision so I am really glad that this feature at least exist. Thank you very much for pointing that out.

@8771399

have you tried dragging the Pattern (on the image) while in pattern dialog?
This would make the offset request obsolete I think.

I must say...as I feel I am the one who went on a rant and created this discussion to begin with.... I must say...it is nice to see that a number of Adobe personnel have chimed in on the subject...and I for one am impressed and appreciate the time taken...
Thanks

I would also add an Offset parameter if this feature is finally getting some attention. Photoshop technically already handle it, it is just the same issue as this where you have to translate the shape using the pattern, rasterize, then place it back and repeat for all the others which destroy all your flexible presets in the process.

Hopefully you will be able to allocate the resources but in any case it’s nice of you to acknowledge the item.

Hi all,

I am a product manager on the Photoshop team. I'm the guy that needs the justification that Chris mentioned. There is a lot of great feedback in this thread, and I think the justification has been thoroughly articulated.

As with everything else in Photoshop, we have to make trade-offs. If we do this, we can't do something else. Not everything is the same cost either. Some things are fairly easy to do with huge benefit to customers. Those are easy choices. Other things (like this) are more difficult, but would be valuable. We have to weigh all these things together, and weigh them against the thousands of other requests from customers.

Overall, I think this is a great idea. Chris and I will discuss it with the team and see what makes sense given the other work we have. Stay tuned.

I’d like to comment on two statements.

»BUT ONCE again ....my initial comment was in reply to your request for proof that our request for this feature was even prudent. «
If you are referring to Mr.Cox’ post
»90 degree rotations might be reasonable. Arbitrary angles would take quite a bit more work.
But I need justification for management: why is this important, how much time does it really save, what market segments need this functionality, etc. ?«
you probably took »might be reasonable« quite literal, which is certainly legitimate.
I think the following sentence’s reference to a larger quantity of work, though, indicates that »reasonable« may have referred to the necessary investment of resources – but that is naturally arguable.
In either case references to brain surgeons and rocket science are neither reasonable arguments nor proof of your point.

»I think 2 years clearly states that those that asked were not considered or that the feature does not warrant further consideration«
• This is the official place for Photoshop Feature Requests and Bug Reports, so no matter whether the requests/bug reports are realised/corrected they are registered (at least that is my understanding).
• Both Mr.Cox and Mr.Tranberry have posted on this thread, so the feature would apparently have been considered by Adobe personnel at several points in time.
And what about »2 years« warrants your conclusion/assumption?
Just consider the time between the original post in this request and the recent introduction of Path Blur:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Regards,
Pfaffenbichler