Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Exit
Lee James
Engaged
Lee James
Engaged
Activity
‎Dec 03, 2019
04:06 PM
Does Premiere Pro have anything like InDesign's "libraries" feature? This feature lets you store commonly-used elements in "libraries", allowing you to drag commonly-used bits and pieces into any document. If Premiere Pro had something like this, you could use it to store commonly-used transitions (graphics, adjustment layers and sound effects). Currently, I store each transition in its own sequence, but these are only available within the current project and are not universal. Also, a true "libraries" panel would allow quick dragging of the elements onto the sequence, instead of having to go back and forth between different sequences. (Note: I am aware that Premiere Pro already has a feature called "library" for transferring assets between different Adobe applications, but that's not I want.)
... View more
‎Sep 26, 2019
06:21 AM
For the record, I've done a similar test myself and here are my results: 1. Completely empty Photoshop document with a white background (3000x3000 in size) = 650k 2. Same document containing a 836k JPEG embedded as a smart object, shrunk down in the document to a tiny size = 1.8 meg 3. Same document with the JPEG smart object now filling the entire document = 25 megs 4. Same document with the single JPEG smart object copied several times, flipped, warped, distorted etc. = 31 megs 5. Same document with all the layers set to invisible = 23 megs 6. Same document, but with the full-size JPEG moved to the very top - meaning it looks identical to document (3) above = 34 megs 7. Same document, but with the embedded JPEG blanked to white, meaning all the copies are white = 3.1 megs Conclusions: • Embedded JPEG smart objects really are retained as JPEGs, meaning no space is wasted on the smart object itself. = Efficient storage • However, every single instance of the smart object in the document is saved as (compressed) raster data. Even instances that are hidden or turned off - they're still being saved as (compressed) raster data which adds to the filesize. = Inefficient storage I see no need for this. All Photoshop should reuiqre is the original JPEG, information about where each instance is positioned, and a single preview image, which should be of limited resolution. I'd be quite happy for all my preview images to be limited to 1920x1080 and use maximum quality JPEG compression.
... View more
‎Sep 26, 2019
05:45 AM
I feel like you're misunderstanding what I'm asking for. I am a designer and I work in Photoshop. I don't want to lose my Photoshop documents, nor would I ever save a Photoshop document as a JPEG because that would destroy all the layer data, make it lossy, and uneditable. What I'm trying to do is bring JPEGs into a Photoshop document and retain them as JPEGs instead of converting them to raster data. Now with the help of another user here (Max Johnson) I have found out that Photoshop already allows you to do what I want and embed JPEGs (just go to File > Place Embedded and import the JPEG that was). The problem is that these files are STILL being saved as raster data, making the document far bigger than it needs to be.
... View more
‎Sep 21, 2019
02:13 AM
But if all your layers are just copies of a 1 meg JPEG file, why should any pixel data be saved other than the 1 meg JPEG file?
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
01:18 PM
Thanks, Mr Johnson 🙂 It's still cumbersome but better than having to measure the JPEG first. Oh and you also need to make sure you have this preference disabled: "Resize image during place" (I assume most of us have it turned off as it's really annoying LOL)
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
01:12 PM
This forum is full of people wanting a single app to be at the same time
a pixel, a parametric and a vector editor. All that 'smartly
integrated'. And of course, smarly integrated with FB, Google and all
social media on the 'cloud'! Well I haven't mentioned any of those other things. (I hate applications connecting to the internet, and the only thing my firewall allows to connect is my web browser.) As for there being some kind of incompatibility between pixel and parametric editing - there's no incompatibility. It just means you want to be able to work with images without destroying them. Photoshop has offered this for years in the form of Smart Objects.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
12:59 PM
Very well explained, sir! it literally copies the jpeg file and saves it into the document like a
secret zip file. If you open the smart object, the title of the new tab
has a name like "whateverthing.jpg"
Wow, I did not realize this. Because of how big the psd files are, I was assuming that any JPEG compression had been discarded and turned to raster data. So you're right: Photoshop is already doing what I want it to do. It's already embedding JPEGs! That's half the battle. The only problem remaining, then, is the way that files are saved. I don't suppose you know of any way I can "retire" this idea, or mark it solved, allowing me to create a new idea that's more specific to the problem?
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
12:29 PM
TIFF file format has a JPEG compression mode. Not sure if that's of any benefit, but you can try it.
Thanks, but that isn't helpful. This would re-compress the images and make them lossy.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
12:29 PM
TIFF file format has a JPEG compression mode. Not sure if that's of any benefit, but you can try it. Thanks, but that isn't helpful. This would re-compress the image, and create lossy images.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
12:25 PM
this is why we have linked smart objects Using linked smart objects is a little cumbersome. First you have to first measure the size of the JPEG, then create a new document the same size, then finally "Place" the JPEG into the document as a linked smart object. I've just tried doing this and it makes no difference to the final file size. It's obviously still being turned into raster data. But the idea of using linked smart objects is probably the way to go. All Adobe needs to do is: Make all JPEGs open as linked Smart Objects by default, rather than having to create a "container" document and "Paste" them in. Don't save copies of the JPEGs inside the document! Preview files should be of limited resolution, JPEG compressed
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:55 AM
Right, the online aspect is what I was thinking of too. Sharing files and backing up. There are currently huge efforts being made to improve compression for online files (video compression etc) in order to minimize data. As an efficient person, I always like things to be as optimized as possible to save file space.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:50 AM
Mr Lehman, The title of this idea is: "Allow JPEGs to be embedded, to save disk space". It has nothing to do with speed. I suppose everyone's different but I don't mind my files opening and closing a little slower if it means the files are many times smaller. I do have a gripe that newer versions of Photoshop take many times longer to launch than older versions, but it's unrelated to this issue.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:45 AM
Hmmm, that's an interesting test. Though I'm not sure what it proves, and I don't see the point of using a JPEG for the test? If you open a JPEG in Photoshop and make it into a smart object, Photoshop doesn't know the data originates from a JPEG and doesn't retain any of the compression information?
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:33 AM
Thank you Mr Johnson for understanding me and not being as dismissive as the others here. If you think my idea could be worthy of Adobe looking into it then perhaps you could vote for my idea (which no one seems to have done yet). sounds to me like what they're asking is for being able to save a multi layered psd with SOs and adjustment layers as a jpg? Eartho, you have misunderstood me. This idea has nothing to do with saving as a JPEG. It's about embedding JPEGs into Photoshop documents. (And for the record, you referred to me as a "they". I'm a he! How many women do you know called Jim?)
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:25 AM
If I saved as a JPEG, I'd never be able to edit document again! Most designers retain their psd files so they can make future changes.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:21 AM
I cannot see how a JPEG would be 4 megs. I can see how it would grow to
a larger file, but a JPEG file is NEVER that large. It's usually
around 4Kb not megs. You must be mistaken. Maybe some web designers work with 4Kb JPEGs, but high-quality online JPEGs are usually a couple of megs, and the original JPEGs from cameras are typically around 4–8 megs.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:16 AM
This is never a problem for me. If I only need simple adjustment layers, I can do much more parametric editing in Lightroom Not everyone wants to use Lightroom, or has a workflow suited to it. I've been using Photoshop since 1994, long before Lightroom came along. I personally would not want to use a program which denied me the full range of Photoshop abilities, but each to their own. The "parametric" editing (good word) offered by Lightroom and ACR does sound great. So why not allow it in Photoshop? It's certainly not "beyond the
scope" of Photoshop, it simply means files are smaller. That should never be beyond the scope of any program.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
11:03 AM
There's no such thing as saving layered files out as the original jpgs. I don't follow you. Microsoft Word can embed JPEGs. InDesign uses linked JPEGs. Why not Photoshop? What's the actual complaint/request? You're only interested in saving HD
space? Yes, it's purely about space. Sure, a lot of Photoshop documents have layers containing unique raster data, which needs to be saved. However, most of the time my Photoshop documents don't contain unique raster data, they only contain JPEGs that have been duplicated, flipped, etc, with adjustment layers. There's no reason why the Photoshop file needs to be much larger than the JPEGs it contains. If you're doing this professionally, then it's a requirement of
the job to have an abundance of available disk space ... i don't think
saving a little bit here and there is worthy of a request. You might not care, but a lot of people appreciate the importance of making files as small as they can be, for maximum efficiency. It's means: Faster online transferring of files Faster backing up (especially to the cloud) Drives fill up less quickly Less need to add/replace drives in your computer Less money spent on storage (and backup) I have approximately 27 terabytes of hard drive space on my system, and plenty of room. But I am always interested in saving space. If I could free up hundreds of gigs by reducing the size of my Photoshop files, I would be interested. Google has a vast amount of storage space, but if you offered them a way to make all their files a tenth of the size, they would bite your hand off.
... View more
‎Sep 20, 2019
10:17 AM
3. Install Photoshop on an SSD disk, the performance is greatly
improved. The files in use also in the SSD and then to mechanical disks
is RAID.
Of course I use an SSD. Who doesn't in 2019!? But it's no excuse for sloppy coding. The difference in speed between CC2015 and CC2018 was really significant. Plus CC2018 had an annoying bug on my computer that made dialog boxes invisible in full-screen mode. I was very happy to revert back to CC 2015! 8. Photoshop allows you to change between four tones one of them a very light gray
The lightest option is still darker than it used to be. Plus I'm nervous that Adobe will remove the lighter options completely, like they did with Premiere. Adobe products are tending more and more towards darkness. 2. Change keyboard shortcuts? That can be done.
I mean full customization, like in other Adobe products. Currently, shortcuts are severely limited. I list those limitations here: https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/please-can-you-allow-fully-customizable-keybo...
... View more
‎Sep 18, 2019
10:52 AM
Thanks for the replies. Lightroom is only relevant to very superficial retouching, but let's say you bring several JPEGs into a Photoshop document, convert them to smart objects, duplicate, flip, rotate, and warp them? If you save this as a Photoshop file, the file is huge. But if all the original JPEGs were retained as JPEGs, the file size would only be a little larger than the original files. It's a much more efficient way of storing the images. You suggested saving it as a zipped TIFF. Not only is this slow, but it only brings the size down from 66 megs to 50. Not very efficient, and you're needlessly converting a lossy file to raster data, then re-compressing it losslessly. If all the original images stayed as JPEGs, there's no wasted file space! Which version do I use? CC 2015. To explain why... I don't believe "newer" is necessarily better. New versions bring whole new bugs and troubles, and lately Adobe has been tending toward making its products uglier and darker, with light text on dark backgrounds, hideous splash screens, and horrors like the new "New Document" dialog. It really puts me off. There's also the ever-increasing sense of "bloat". 2015 opens really fast. But I have actually tried CC 2018 and it took way longer to open. 2015 just works great for me and does all I need it to do. I will update if a feature gets added that I think may be useful. But that hasn't happened for a long time now. The 10 Photoshop improvements I'm still waiting for are... Smart Masks Proper custom shortcuts (like with all Adobe's other applications) Ability to launch the program quickly without it spinning up every hard drive on the machine
Small tool to show the current foreground/background color (ideally on the control panel)
Way better scrolling while dragging (scrolling should speed up the nearer you go to the edge)
Fractal-based upsampling tool (similar to Photozoom Pro) Custom interpolation mode for smart objects Much lighter interface colors, like classic Photoshop (new versions are so gloomy!)
Custom splash screens Fix the bug which shows 16-bit documents in only 8-bit when zoomed out beyond 66.67%. (This.)
... View more
‎Sep 18, 2019
03:20 AM
2 Upvotes
Problem: Let's say my client sends me a 4Mb JPEG file which needs retouching for a project. I open it in Photoshop, add a couple of simple adjustment layers, and save the image as a psd. The resulting file is now 65Mb. This waste of disk space is totally unnecessary, since all I've added to the image is a couple of adjustment layers. And if I'm working on, say, a magazine containing hundreds of photos, the amount of wasted space really stacks up. Solution: Whenever you open a JPEG in Photoshop, it appears as an 'embedded JPEG layer'. This operates a lot like a Smart Layer. You can apply effects to it, but the layer itself is not regarded as editable bitmap data (unless you rasterize it). Then, when you save it, the original JPEG remains embedded in its original JPEG format, so if you haven't added any raster layers, the file size should be only slightly larger than the original JPEG.
... View more
‎Jun 15, 2019
09:41 AM
Yes, I am well aware that MS will soon end official support for Windows 7. In truth, MS haven't "supported" the OS for years - they quickly lost interest in releasing improvements, and began doing everything they could to disparage Windows 7 and drive people towards Windows 10. Nevertheless, the OS remains incredibly popular, and that popularity isn't about to disappear overnight. Many people love it and rely on it, and MS will actually still continue to offer Windows 7 support for a premium. (In the same vein, there are still about 3% of people happily using Windows XP - long after official support ended.) All the scares about Win7 systems becoming immediately at risk to viruses kind of remind me of the Y2K scares. All the major vulnerabilities were fixed years ago, and since MS won't be changing the software any more, new vulnerabilities won't be introduced. Obviously that doesn't mean Windows 7 won't be vulnerable - it will, but many of us will continue keep our systems safe with a combination of good AV software and common sense. I also happen to know for a fact that Windows 7 can be safely run without Windows updates. How? Because I permanently disabled them back in 2016! This was after Microsoft began sending aggressive updates nagging me to upgrade to Windows 10, before actually installing Windows 10 without my permission! (I'm sure many of us remember that nightmare.) It was then that I started to see Microsoft "support" more as a form of malware than anything else. In the end, Microsoft are really giving us no choice here. I loathe Windows 10 and could never even consider using it. I could spend hours talking about why I hate Windows 10 so much - there is so much to hate. In fact, I'd much rather use a Mac than Windows 10 - which is saying something, given how much I hate Apple products! It does seem inevitable that the day will come when Windows 7 will be truly obsolete, used by hardly anyone. But right now that still seems far off, especially considering it was still the world's most popular operating system just a few months ago. As for the problem with the missing Dolby decoder, I haven't read this full thread, but the way I fixed it was by simply installing this codec pack (carefully scanned for viruses, of course): « unauthorized, black-market software link removed by moderator »
... View more
‎Jun 14, 2019
06:34 AM
I simply cannot believe Adobe have done this! I'm appalled! Adobe are abandoning Windows 7. Why!? Just because something is newer that doesn't logically mean it's better. Windows 7 is a perfectly good operating system and up until just a few months ago remained the world's most popular operating system. There's nothing wrong with it and it did not need replacing! There is absolutely no way I would EVER touch Windows 10. It is absolutely vile. For a start, it's the ugliest OS I've ever seen. I'm a designer, who cares about the way things look. Windows 10 makes my skin crawl and having to use Windows 10 would make me feel sick. I would rather never use any computer again than have to use something that looks like Windows 10. On top of that, Windows 10 represents a total abandonment of privacy - the OS connects to the Internet and gives Microsoft full access to every aspect of your machine, including logging everything you type and allowing Microsoft employees to watch your webcam. Who in their right mind would use a creepy OS like that!? I still don't understand why anyone would hand over their privacy like that. Adobe ditching Windows 7 is just one of a long, ever-growing list of reasons why I absolutely HATE Premiere Pro. I was using the original Premiere 20+ years ago and it was GOOD software. Using it was effortless, and it looked attractive. But each year, the program just seems to get worse and worse, more buggy, and uglier. With every new release has come many more bugs and changes for the worse. It seems likely now that I'm going to be permanently reverting to my old copies of Adobe software. I cannot continue to pay Adobe for such terrible service - especially now they don't even support my operating system - which is outrageous considering Windows 7 has been the world's most popular operating system until a few months ago, and is still in second place.
... View more
‎Apr 22, 2019
03:13 PM
Thanks for your reply. I didn't entirely follow it, but this is a confusing subject that's tricky to talk about! https://forums.adobe.com/people/R+Neil+Haugen wrote Premiere treats AL's like it does clips. This is the problem I have. Premiere should not treat Adjustment Layers and clips the same way, since they're totally different things with different functions: A clip already has an identity before you add effects to it. Two instances of the same clip can have different effects and still be the same thing. So it makes sense that effects added to clips default to the instance, allowing you the flexibility to do different things with the same clip. However, an Adjustment Layer is simply a container for effects - it's defined by the effects you give it. Two adjustment layers with different effects have nothing at all in common. They are different things. So it seems nonsensical (and deeply confusing) to say "these are all the same Adjustment Layer" when they're not actually connected in any way. You end up with a single Adjustment Layer sitting in your project menu which actually represents several totally different, independent things. That's kind of like having a pot in your kitchen labeled "coffee" which actually contains sugar, cookies, tea, salt, pepper, etc.
... View more
‎Apr 22, 2019
12:56 AM
Thanks Neil. To me this seems like a fundamental flaw with the software. With Adjustment Layers, people would normally only ever need to put effects in the Master Clip. It makes no sense to add effects to individual instances of Adjustment Layers, since you're effectively making a new Adjustment Layer, in which case you should just use a new Adjustment Layer.
... View more
‎Apr 21, 2019
03:41 PM
Oh, OK. That's totally odd. In that case, how are you supposed to make a global Adjustment Layer - one where you can change every instance of it just by changing the master? For example, I'm just trying to create a simple "vignette" Adjustment Layer, using the Luma Curve effect masked with an ellipse. I want to be able to drop that "vignette" over several clips. How does one go about something like this?
... View more
‎Apr 21, 2019
01:55 PM
To spare confusion, I'm going to mark this thread as "answered" once again, and open as a new thread about the issue of missing masking buttons. The new thread is here.
... View more
‎Apr 21, 2019
01:55 PM
I'm not able to set up effects in an object's Master tab because the masking buttons are missing:
... View more
‎Apr 21, 2019
01:49 PM
Thanks, Myer, that's a neat tip. But my masking tools are still missing
... View more
‎Apr 21, 2019
01:38 PM
Update: I had marked this as "answered" but unfortunately I'm still having problems… When I try to set my effects up at the Master level, I'm not able to, because the mask tools don't appear in the Master effects…
... View more
Copyright © 2024 Adobe. All rights reserved.
AdChoices