Is there any way to get the same looking thumbnails for shapes in CS6 ?
With previous versions I could get the position of the shape just by looking at the thumbnail in the layers palette but now they are only generic icons, I have tried to resize them and set panel options ( Thumbnails contents) but without any luck.
It's really a problem if they are many shapes in the document.
Thanks ![]()
I mean you can't guess the layer position in the document by looking at the thumbnail or "icon", it's only a generic representation.
This was CS5, you could know the shape position in the document by looking at the thumbnail. 
and this is how it looks in CS6
Message was edited by: MSSDedalus to add images
The first layer is how it was in previous versions, but unfortunatelly when opening a CS5 document in CS6 all shape layers look generic in the layers palette.
As far as I know the first layer is not a shape with the same properties as the second, the bounds, for sample, are not the same and they refer to the extension of the document instead of the path / shape.
Yes, Ctrl+T do that but if you select the layer and click at "Show transform controls" they extend to the document and this are the bounds. I need the actual bounds for automated processing and they are not the same.
May be I don't create the new layer the same way you do, can you tell me the exact steps ?
Thanks.
c.pfaffenbichler wrote:
For me at least Solid Color Layers with Vector Masks display identically to Shape Layers.
Yes if you add a solid color fill layer. However if you add an empty layer the use edit Fill to fill it with a color. Then Draw out a Path and use Layer>Vector Mask>Current Path like my action what do you get....
MSSDedalus wrote:
Yes, if you select the Move tool and then "show transform controls" in the shape layer you can see this, the bounds are restricted to the shape layer, but please do the same with the converted "to old way" and look at the bounds of the transform controls. I can't get them to be the same.
OK to get it now to look like the old way the actual layer I used was an empty layer the I filled with a color so the layer is canvas size so in that cast you need to work with the vector path. To Transform the Vector Path. Transform Path. I can not seem to capture the screen in Windows. The closest I can capture is: With the vector mask targeted Edit Free Transform Path or Ctrl+T will put the transform bounds around the shape not the layer.
Well, creating the same look is not exactly the problem, I can just create a selection, fill it, create a path from selection and then add a vector mask.
This will look almost the same, the difference is that the layer is not a solid color fill layer and I can't automate other processings because basically a shape layer is a solid color fill layer + vector mask, and checking this properties was the basis for scripting in previous versions of Photoshop; therefore I need to keep using "true" shape layers but now this shape layers ( rectangle, oval, etc) don't look the same in the layers palette.
With the way CS6 displays Shape layers if you target the shape layer and do a ctrl+t or menu item Edit>Free Transform you get the interactive Free transform bounds you want. If you want an interactive transform in you script I would think you could use the scriptlistner code generated for the Ctrl+T step. If you just want to resize the shape some percentage I would think making the shape layer the active layer and getting the active layer bounds that you could resize the layer some percentage. Being its a shape layer Photoshop might do the resize using vector.
I don't know why the old look in the layers palette is so important to you when with the new look Ctrl+T gives you the transform bounding box you want in the image window|tab.
This script seems to resized my shape layer to 50% each time I run it.
var startRulerUnits = preferences.rulerUnits;
preferences.rulerUnits = Units.PIXELS;
var LB = activeDocument.activeLayer.bounds;
var LWidth = (LB[2].value) - (LB[0].value);
var LHeight = (LB[3].value) - (LB[1].value);
alert("width = " + LWidth + " pixels Height = " + LHeight + " pixels");
var percentageChange = 50;
activeDocument.activeLayer.resize(percentageChange,percentageChange);
preferences.rulerUnits = startRulerUnits;
Message was edited by: JJMack
JJMack,
getting the bounds with CS6 shapes is not the problem, it's only that now I can not get so easily which layer in the layers palette belongs to which shape in the document, in previous versions the thumbnail helped to know the position.
I have many documents done using the standard shapes and it's not possible to change all of them. I'm not the only user of this documents and it would be preferable to have them working the old way as it was a lot easier to know the shape position.
If you do a view fit on screen don't you also see the shape in the image window|Tab in addition of seeing the shape in the layers palette. Not only do you see the position over the canvas you see it composited with the other visible layers. If the old view is so important to you use a prior version of Photoshop, If your automating things prior versions of Photoshop have fewer bugs then CS6. CS6 is the buggest version of Photoshop ever released.
Noel Carboni wrote:
Okay, I guess I can generalize my comment to "this is a bug in Photoshop CS6 13.x" then.
I believe Adobe knows about it.
-Noel
It more like the change they made when they change tools icon mouse pointers Adobe knows their new UI is an improvement. Abobe like change no they love change like changing what indicated which is targeted in a layer the contents or the mask. Adobe does not care if they impact users work-flow their new way is always better. They will remove Thumbnail Content option next for it does not work.
JJ, it's pretty clear that Photoshop has disappointed you in some ways, but you seem to want to attribute to malice that which can more easily be explained by inability.
I can't imagine any engineer on the Adobe team wanting to leave bugs in the product for release after customer release, but consider that it may just not be possible for them to deal with them all. Perhaps the development engineering would require a much bigger team and more funding to get everything done in the given amount of time. That's the part that bothers me - that this cash cow seems habitually underfunded, even though it's the cornerstone of such a successful software business.
I think you and I see what it COULD be, if only the engineers could have the time and resources to actually finish it.
-Noel
I have high regards for Adobe software engineers. I even believe some in Adobe support would like to do a better then they are allowed to do. I believe its Adobe management that is preventing bug from being fixed. If the leaders would allow the troops to fix the bugs I'm sure the troops would be up to the task.
Seems like we're in general agreement then.
So here we are, buzzing about on a forum that management most likely doesn't bother reading (after all, it's all about technical problems and complaints).
Some periodical that only execs read ("Yachting Monthly" or "Golfing For Gold" or something) must publish regular articles that say essentially "don't worry about making your product too good, that's not what it takes to succeed in the modern world". I worked in a corporate environment not unlike Dilbert's world for 30 years; I know how that goes. Talk is cheap.
I'm sorry, but I'm old school. I still say it's better to actually build a better mousetrap rather than just saying you did.
-Noel
I'm sure the troops would love to build a better mouse trap for it gives you a real good feeling when you build something good that you can have pride in. However the troops also have families that relay on them. Their promotions and raises depend on them being evaluated well by management. When management places high value on change and no value on fixes you get bug ridden products like CS6. Only major problem that crash the app get fixed.
Let me go on a bit more. Large corporations like Adobe have lots of management the problem is at the top management level the executive level. Managers that actually manage the troops is not where the problem is at and the troops can not contact upper management. Upper management has seen to that.
North America
Europe, Middle East and Africa
Asia Pacific