c.pfaffenbichler wrote:

 

Have you considered the complexity of a Brush stroke?

Brush strokes may consist of hundreds (or more) randomized dabs of a Brush tip and to ensure editability on another machine where the Brush Preset may be missing it would have to be included in the document in some form.

 

I think you're massively overcomplicating matters.

If you stroke a Path with a Brush or other tool, you're not making any "randomized dabs" - you're giving a single instruction. I'm not expecting to be able to attach a recording of a user dabbing at the canvas onto a Shape! My suggestion is only for a Brush (or other tool) definition to be attached to a Shape's stroke, remain editable, and determine the appearance of the Shape instead of changing pixels of other layers.

Thanks, I see what you mean; Christoph will have been referring to randomization that is performed by the Brush not by the user applying that brush with the mouse.

Yes, there would have to be limits on the flexibility of the system, but I prefer to consider the possibilities rather than rule out the idea altogether because not every conceivable Brush can be accomodated.

Noel Carboni wrote:

 

Complexity notwithstanding, I see no reason that all the info for a given brush couldn't be stored in a PSD.  It can be stored in an ABR file today!

 

Now, hypothetically speaking, if this feature were implemented and you bought a commercial brush package, then published a PSD with a stroke using one of the brushes from within that package, would you be inadvertently be sharing licensed intellectual property illegally?

 

-Noel

Yes, I think you would be illegally sharing property, therefore that all-encompassing approach would not be viable. Something more limited, but a heck of a lot better than nothing, could be implemented, though.

Doug.S wrote:

 

Why not use Illustrator . . .

Surely it would be preferable to be able to do this inside Ps than have to buy and learn to use another app, and then jump back and forward between that and Ps.