Thanks for taking the time to reply and to suggest other ways of accomplishing the task at hand. I would like to clarify my position here so you know. I wasn't tasked with doing this at all. It was something I thought I would whip up quickly to provide a general idea of what was happening with this pond. So, it's not that I couldn't find better ways to do it and in fact I did find a better way to do it. The reason I posted this topic was that in absent-mindedly just grabbing some tools to do a quick semblance of a wall, i realized that I could not, for the life of me, figure out why this tool was behaving the way that it was. In fact, every time I grab this tool I can rest assured that I will never be able to accurately predict the results on first go round. In fact, I would be surprised if many people could accurately predict the way this tool works in advance given two shapes and a designated blend path. You are kind and generous to offer alternative means of accomplishing something similar, but in the end I sampled the bricks adjusting for perspective in Photoshop and saved the bricks as a material then rendered the entire thing in Cinema 4D in no time at all. And thanks to the other generous folks on this thread, I learned a thing or two about the blend tool regardless of the fact that it hasn't changed my mind about the default behavior being in error. RANT: It's just not an error that is important enough for management to prioritize fixing it over inroducing some fancy new feature that less than a dozen people will ever use but gives the illusion of added value to justify the monthly charge for the software. Rather than focus on fixing some of the basics (which only serves to underscore the current problems rather than promote increased value), it is management's decision that we need to be able to add some new feature that really should be a plugin:  3D video editing in Illustrator--coming soon! ... View more

Right after I posted this, I realized I would have done it differently myself. STEP 1 - AutoTrace your image ignoring white. STEP 2 - Create a new layer and drag it behind Layer 1 (label it face if you want) Lock layer 1. STEP 3 - With "face" layer selected, grab the Blob Brush tool and draw a rough outline surrounding the face and overlapping the edges. STEP 4 - With the Direct Selection Tool (open arrow), select just the internal path of the shape you just drew and delete it. STEP 5 - Unlock Layer 1, select all and click the Trim button in the Pathfinder pallet. Then double-click to enter the resultant group and clean up any stray points, fine tune your paths, etc. ... View more

What would really be ideal is if the blend tool operated like this: Instead of using the handles to change the distribution pattern, keep the handles associated with the shape of the path--not the distribution of the shapes. Then, yoiu would have something like the gradient tool handlebars to establish distribution of the shapes. So if you wanted them distributed evenly along the blend path, you could grab round anchors along the path to fine tune them like you would with the various points on a gradient curve. Then you could have several different distribution curves as defaults that would distribute the space between the objects along the blend path. One could be "distribute by center" which would be the same as "distribute as if you wanted extra space around one of the endpoints", another could be "linear" and "equal/consistent" space between shapes. Another could be "exponential" distribution where the shapes would be bunched up and overlapping on one end, but then spaced way out on the other. This would make the most sense. ... View more

Honestly, life would be simple if I had just thought of that. No, but seriously, you can't take my example, which shows the simplest possible demonstration of the problem and think that deriving a simplesolution like that is sufficient. The space should be evenly distributed along the distribution path. Here is a better example of why the BLEND tool should do it rather than engineering a way around it. I should be able to make a sun with triangles that go from big to little for my kid to color. It should take about 30 seconds. This is what happens when you use the blend tool to do it: if the blend tool distributed space evenly around the blend path, this would look 1 million times better. But they don't distribute the space. They blend the space around the smaller image with the smaller image as though that's what you wanted. It's not. There should be even amounts of space between iterated objects. period. And just another point, you can't drag the handlebars to distribute the space here. You have to expand the shapes and manually place them yourself. It sure would be nice if I could blend them and distirbute the space along the blend path like you'd expect the blend tool to do. ... View more

If what you are trying to do is isolate the face from the hair using the trace feature, there are a couple of ways to do it. Paste the image into Illustrator and click image trace to see a preview of the tracing results. Next click the expand button to expand the traced results. You should see a bunch of points and paths (blue). With the new artwork select, ungroup and ungroup. Sometimes you have to ungroup more than once. Once that's done, deselect and click in the middle of the face. Change it's fill to yellow. You can see below that the face is not a closed object, so it thinks you want the entire white are that is now yellow. Copy and paste this yellow area to somewhere else on your page away from your logo Now select the Eraser tool and erase a path all the way around your face area that you want to extract. It doesn't have to be exact, just enough to establish a boundary. Now you can deselect and reselect the face. Change it's color to red and you'll notice that it is the shape you are looking for. Delete all the yellow and refine any rough edges before dragging back to your traced logo. Hope this works for you. ... View more

Thanks for your reply. I have never been able to understand the perspective grid. I have tried a dozen times to get it to work and it is not within my skillset to even grasp how it works. I've been using illustrator since Illustrator 88 and the perspective grid has never worked for me. After an hour or four of trying to make sense of it, I can't even delete the peculiar guides that now take up my entire document. I literally select all, copy and paste into a blank document. If there was ever a function of illustrator that SCREAMS "plugin" this perspective garbage is it. This should not be a core feature, it should be perhaps a standard plugin or something--but not a core feature. When perspective is critical, I do my work in Sketchup, Cinema4D, Rhino, Blender, or literally any other program with a 3D interface. ... View more

Thank you for your explanation. I cannot imagine anyone on the planet that would say that the shapes blended between to differently sized objects are distributed linearly if the space between the iterations is not uniform. What Illustrator is doing by using the center point for the distribution is basically drawing a boundary around the biggest shape and applying that boundary to the smallest shape. Then blending between boundaries. This makes more sense then because there is a lot of space around the small shape. But if I had wanted a lot of space around the small shape, I would have enclosed it in a bigger shape that would preserve the space. What I want and expect is that if I blend from one shape to another over 5 steps, the space should be identical between each iteration to blend correctly. Right now, the space between the last two elements is significantly bigger than the space between the first two. Hopefully this will make more sense: Row 1 shows how identical shapes are spaced evenly and blended linearly Row 2 shows the DEFAULT behavior of the blend tool--which shows uneven space between iterations UNLESS you enclose the smaller shape in a box as big as the largest shape and then blend the space as well as the shape (red dotted lines) Row 3 shows the resultant shapes lined up with no space between them and the resultant available space to be distributed (NOT BLENDED AS THOUGH IT WERE PART OF THE SMALLER SHAPE) Row 4 shows the even or linear distribution of space between shapes blending from one to the other. Row 5 shows the two different methods overlapped to see the difference. Regardless, I do appreciate your explanation. From my perspective it seemed like a total crapshoot. Now at least I see where the problem is. I still think the blend tool is a mess and needs to be fixed for this and multiple other reasons, but at least I understand it a little better now. Thank you. ... View more

Most certainly. We are talking about a single logo in multiple formats. There is plenty of space. But regardless, the zero,zero point should not change under any circumstance. Why would you have a setting that you manually declare and then have it changed with no reason by Illustrator? Thanks for your reply. ... View more

Of course, you realize the irony of the solid nature of the button to select the "direct select tool" is solid, though the tool itself is hollow. Genius, I am sure, but nonetheless, it makes casual discussion of the issue a matter of technicality. I am using the direct select tool. I am not having a problem selecting a single point. I am having a problem selecting a line. I used to be able to click a line segment between two points and move it. If the line segment was curved, it would modify without moving the points. If the line segment was not curved, it would select the two endpoints and move the entire line segment with its endpoints. This may have changed a while back, but it is proving to be a real pain on a project where I need the reference points locked in place and just the curve between them adjusted. Here are the Illustrator behaviors that defy logic somehow: Example 1: When attempting to modify the curve on a shape that has not been selected, the cursor indicates that it will select the entire object rather than what you are pointing at If I wanted to select the object, I would have used the Object Selection Tool (the one that is an outline in the tool pallet, but a solid arrow when using it) When two endpoints of a segment are selected, the cursor does not indicate that you can modify the curve, and dragging will, in fact, move the curve and the two points as expected. However, it would make more sense to deselect the endpoints if I wanted to move all three (the curve and the two endpoints), it would make sense to have to shift-click the curve. But that would make it harder to move curves, I get it. It would be nice if the line segment were colored differently to indicate when it is selected. Regardless, shift-clicking the curve should deselect the points and just select the curve if not. Doesn't work. In fact, I don't think there's an easy way other than manually deselecting one point to change the selection from the points to the curve. Which of course, brings me to the next point that I find strange. Again, I just want to modify the curve between two points. So I select the object and then go to select the curve, which shows me the curve decorated pointer that would seem to indicate that clicking would select the two endpoints of the curve (notice they are black) Now I realize we are pushing it to be taking for granted the gracious curve decoration on the pointer to begin with and that it is unreasonable to expect the pointer icon to indicate which (if either) point on a curve is selected when attempting to drag a curve. It would just make more sense if the points weren't included in the pointer. Now when you have one point selected, you might expect one of the following behaviors when attempting to drag the curve: (see below) Dragging the line segment will modify both the selected point and the curve That the point selected would deselect and the curve would become active just like if you clicked a different point The handlebars for the unselected point would maintain their orientation and the curve would modify only the selected points' handlebars. But no, the answer is that it modifies the curve and the handlebars between the two points without moving the selected point. It is very strange behavior that the selected point doesn't move when dragging a curve attached to it. Regardless of all of this, my problem remains, Neither I nor any of my students are easily able to select and modify a curve any longer. I tried Illustrator CS5 and the behavior was somehow different. And it was a lot faster than CC for simple curve manipulation. Just wondering if other people had the same issue with difficulty manipulating curves (not selecting points). ... View more

I figure that the Handles are the endpoints of the handlebars, right? I mean how do you describe the line between the handles if not handlebars? ... View more

Here is a really long and tedious way to do it. Summary: Convert all your letters to rectangles, cut the curve into the bottoms of the rectangles and envelope distort each letter. Step-By-Step This may not be perfect, but it might get you closer to what you want to do. Hope this helps. ... View more

The bottom line is that when I choose to blend from one shape to another, I expect the first shape to stay exactly like it is and I expect the last shape to stay exactly like it is. Period. Even if I blend along a spline, the start and end shapes should not change. If the start point is offset from the start of the spline path than the offset becomes another value to translate between the two shapes, but point A should not move. ... View more

Your kindness and generosity are much appreciated. Thank you very much. ... View more

Tried both. I eventually had to uninstall Acrobat Creative Cloud and install the old version of the reader. Then I was able to get the blank form out. Thanks for your reply. ... View more

I'm withdrawing my request as I printed it and scanned it like I always have to. The thing is that the IRS insists that you have to install Acrobat Reader. I have heard that you have to uninstall Acrobat CC to get it to work. ... View more

After hours of messing with this, I was able to print a blank form. Surprise surprise, I am going to have to print a blank, scan it in, convert it to another form, then print it out again. This is the standard workflow for Adobe Acrobat. I have had to print and scan more PDFs than I care to count. It is unbelievable what a pain this is. I don't understand how the developers can have any self-respect when producing this product. It simply has never worked correctly. It promises to be such a great program and has some great ideas, but it doesn't work. Still trying to figure out how to print this form with my data in it. ... View more

Not missed by those who know better? And you are an ACP? Really? Shame on you for being a bully about color and for showing your own lack of understanding of how the Variations tool could produce better results than you can simply by offering variations that you would have never considered because of your own righteous color knowledge. Really? And then you want to bring up the issue of multiple rounds of color corrections as though it is not the single most common problem with adjustment layers. How many files have I opened where multiple adjustment layers were set that undid or overdid the last adjustment layer--but the author was too scared to remove anything because they finally got it to look the way they wanted. A task they could have completed in 5 minutes with Variations. I have scripting skills out the wazoo and no matter how good I am at scripting to compensate for the lack of functionality present in Photoshop, a native plugin for Variations would be faster, better, and more convenient. I would even be willing to bet that if implemented correctly, you would find it useful since it would be doing exactly what you do now, just visually--giving you options that you hadn't considered. ... View more

I realize this is an old thread and normally, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But after reading some of the comments on this thread and others, I felt compelled to point out a couple of things that you should consider. First off, the notion that the variations tool was "destructive" really pissed me off because it takes about 2 lines of code, less than 100 characters in javascript, or two shortcut keystrokes to make variations work non-destructively. Duplicate a layer and apply the tool--done. Grab a composite copy, paste and apply variations. If you couldn't figure out how to use the variations tool without it being destructive, you shouldn't be using more advanced features. Next, I really resent the notion that there is a right way and a wrong way to adjust the appearance of my creative artwork. "What do you want to adjust the white balance"--you can take your white balance and stuff it right up your nose. I have been using this program since version 3 (I am sure, but it might have been earlier than that) and I have worked in digital prepress where color was my strong suit. I have helped printers with stochastic screening formulas and I have developed custom color separation methods that didn't exist when I produced my first full-color magazine in 1989. Those methods are now standard fare for Photoshop (not because of me, but rather because they are common sense and Photoshop was early in development) I may not know as much as some people, but I sure as hell know a lot more than most and yet  I have never been so arrogant as to tell someone that the tools they were using sucked because better tools exist. I can calibrate the hell out of a series of devices to render excellent accuracy in colors across devices and though the color is hyper-realistic, people are still going to want to blow out the saturation, turn down the sharpness, and muddy the colors no matter how skilled you think you are. Color, more than almost anything else, is subjective. You have got to have a lot of nerve to make someone feel like they have to apologize for using a tool because you think you are better than they are--give me a break.   Next, I would like to point out that the cornerstone of the Variations tool was its ability to show you simultaneous...wait for it...VARIATIONS of your image.The ability to view 9 versions of your image and incrementally adjust multiple settings by simply following the path to which image looks the way you want it to look is no longer available and that royally sucks. Nobody is complaining about the quality of the color adjustments because people weren't using it for high-end color correction or precise color accuracy. More often than not, they were using it for creative means where the ability to articulate the kind of adjustment you want simply doesn't exist because you have to see it to know. For me to get even a small piece of the utility of being able to see what my image would look like with a little more green or red or blue is easy with the adjustment layers. But sometimes, in Variations, you realize---"oh wow, I would have never thought of adding more cyan to this image, but look it's amazing." The variations tool would often surprise me when I would struggle with adjusting one color axis at a time like hue and nothing looked good. Suddenly with 9 versions on the screen, I can see that  I needed to try this other path. That is no longer an option and that sucks. Next, it should be made clear that you didn't have to get rid of the tool completely, in fact for you color-snobs who think that the only thing people are doing with Photoshop is color-correcting photographs, guess what Don't Use It if you don't think it's good enough for your color adjustments. Why make everyone suffer because you prefer a different set of tools? Photoshop could have left the tool and employed the new methods of color adjustment. In fact, why not make the tool super useful and let users pick the axes by which they want to adjust images? For example, put Vibrance on the vertical axis and levels on the horizontal or maybe gradient map on one axis and hue/saturation on the other. Give me the grid with 9 variations (or maybe you could make the number of variations selectable as well) and a slider that lets me determine what increments I want to use on which axis and then let me click on the image that looks more like what I want until I get one that I like. And then guess what? Output the adjustment layers as adjustment layers so it's not destructive and doesn't screw up you color-gurus when you get a file from someone more creative than technical. I apologize if I sound angry, but I am just appalled that some people who consider themselves "professionals" in the industry are so shallow that they can't see the actual utility of this tool. Just because there are other paths to the same or similar results doesn't mean that those paths are better or easier to use. They certainly don't show you options you hadn't considered. Rather than an adjustment layer only where you have to understand the analog between yellow and blue and how that affects your other colors, make a plugin tool that lets you pick your adjustments visually while offering you options that you might not have considered. The variations tool is not just for beginners and ingrates who don't understand color theory and to make that assumption simply underscores your own lack of perspective. Adobe could at lead have recorded user interactions for six months with the Variations Tool active. They would have seen that it was by far the most used tool in so many user's preferred workflows that they wouldn't have dared to change it. But since we are all forced to suffer through Software as a Service model, we don't get any say in what is or isn't in our best interest. Take it or use the competition---oh that's right, we bought out and shut down the competition...take it and/or suffer. But that's another rant. Adobe, do the responsible thing, the compassionate thing, and the technically advanced thing: Produce a new Variations method that provides multiple previews of your image along with multiple, customizable variations for the axes that allow you to visually choose the image that is closest to how you want it to look by incrementally choosing adjustments. Then when you are done, generate the adjustment layers (making it non-destructive) and make these adjustments saveable as "Adjustment Style Variations" which should also be one of the variations tools settings (previously defined styles).This will quickly become the most used and useful tool that Photoshop has ever created and it shouldn't be difficult to make. Regardless, it's a lot better than just being rude about your lack of understanding of the utility of the Variations tool. ... View more