I'm grinding through thousands of display and template images for an online retailer. Photoshop layering and masks came in quite handy when I was making the templates
but now that it's got down to reusing those templates, I have to look elsewhere.
1 Why does every other piece of software on the market have a batch processing section, and yet you hide yours?
2. Why does Image Processor refuse to resize both horizontal and vertical, although it claims to? It actually refuses to distort the image to resize, which I actually want it to do. I had
to download GIMP to get this capability, as well as to specify the output file and change the dpi. These are all included in GIMP but not Pshop. Thanks for that. And don't tell
me to go to Actions. THat may be useful for something things, but it's hardly the optimal way to do it, recording your exact actions, and then saving or not saving, and then
seeing what happens. The way I wanted it was in GIMP, and its pathetic that 20 years in, Pshop still doesnt have a credible batch processor, or tell me where it is now.
Charge extra for that perhaps?
3.What has changed in Bridge CS6 since CS4? I see absolutely nothing different, but then output is still limited to PDF and 'WEB GALLERY' a dysfunctional glob
of code bested easily by jquery, but maybe you've impoved that end. My last experience with web gallery was so dysfunctional that I'll just stick to fixing what's
under the hood myself. I mean web gallery used to be flash, then something else that's not current. Let's just agree its a hobbyist option. Of course,
I don't know why 'output' might include other options for the batch processing of files, since batch rename does actually work, but you guys are the deciders.
4. Its too bad. This job has taught me a lot of new stuff about layering, masks, and the functionality of the pattern section, which I have no great qualms with, though,
considering how many companies you've bought, you could include tons of patterning capabilities that used to exist in these programs, but that would be too much
expenditure from MGMT. Maybe let's just fix the window views we broke in CS4, and call it a new version.
5. Thanks for forcing me to discover GIMP, who dont ask a thing. I dont really like being in there yet, but we'll see if that changes with time. They actually have some
different filters and rendering options that Adobe could've included years ago for gun, but again, there's just not enough money to go around at Adobe.
Why? Simple: because you don't know how to use the application.
You know, it never fails: the stronger the rant, the greater the likelihood of PEBKAC.
In closing, I'd just remind you that you are not addressing Adobe here in these user to user forums.
I wouldn't put it like station_two, but you are making a fuss over nothing. Nowhere is it written that all programs on this planet must follow the same usage and UI paradigms and naturally, since even software development is a process with limited resources, each vendor will place priority on different things and where one will stand out, the other will not have much on offer. That being so, I don't see why using another program for some steps in a workflow should be anything to go crazy about. That aside, most of what you describe can easily be done in PS, I just smell a certain unwillingness here to adapt your mindset and workflow. I mean, complaining about having to create a 3 step action to resize stuff? RLY? I'm not saying that things couldn't be better and considering that all Adobe apps have some form of scripting, adding a script listener should be a no-brainer, but alas, we've been discussing this for 10 years and now the train has left town. It's apparently not high enough on any of Adobe's to-do lists... No need to wind oneself up over it...
Thanks for the clarification....and as usual answering zero questions. A function doesnt exist, therefore I dont know how to use the application. You would enlighten me in your brilliant glory if it was possible to do what I asked, but IT ISNT. The defense of big brother comes first, I know its tough.
Yeah, I want to create a 3-step action for every different combination of height and width dimensions I need when instead I can just input it into a made-to-order menu inside of GIMP or inside of Adobe's scripted image processor, which doesnt even do what it claims, it just claims to do something it then fails at. And as far as why would anyone want this function, wow, ok. Why would anyone processing thousands of images want a functioning batch processor? Why would a vendor soaking custiomers to the tune of millions of dollars spend any of that money back on the software itself, meanwhile an open source project comes up with basic functionality for free? Yeah Adobe has such stark choices to make when it comes to budget.
Thanks for both of you proving both that the function doesnt exist.
Thanks for both of you proving both that the function doesnt exist.
When the Image Processor resizes image it used the Photoshop Plug-in Fit Image to do the resize. Both height and width are resized and the image aspect ratio is preserved so the image is not distorted. That means the image will fit within the height and width used in the dialog. Only image with the same aspect ratio will fill the area. It sounds to me like you want the image the size id the height and width you entered in the dialog. In which case you need to use Photoshop features the can accomplish that. If you do not care the the image is distorted you use Image size check resample uncheck constrain as set the height and width you want to resize to. If you do not want to much distortion you can try content aware resize. That will still distort the image some what but try to maintain some areas perspective it finds object in. You can also help that process by selecting areas. If You want no distortion you need to resize the image to fill the area and mask off the excess to virtually crop the image the the areas aspect ratio. To automate that you need to use some Photoshop scripting. Knowledge is required to get the most out of Programs like Gimp and Photoshop. The function doesn't exist because of your lack of knowledge.
A function doesnt exist, therefore I dont know how to use the application.
As JJMack pointed out you seem not to have made the effort to learn how to do something like the distorsion-resize in Photoshop.
Edit: Sorry, my mistake, it should be: As JJMack pointed out you seem not to have made the effort to learn how to efficiently automate something like the distorsion-resize in Photoshop.
That you know how to do it at all was never in question, I expressed myself incorrectly amd apologize for that.
That it is not a default »feature«, »tool«, »menu item« does not mean it is not possible to be achieved in Photoshop.
Adobe's scripted image processor, which doesnt even do what it claims, it just claims to do something it then fails at.
Just to make sure: Do you mean the »Resize to Fit« item in the Image Processor dialog?
How exactly does that not do what is indicated?
…and as usual answering zero questions…
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
• Do not be abusive or aggressive in your tone
An aggressive or abusive sounding post will often evoke an aggressive or abusive and unhelpful reply.
Remember, you are requesting Help from other users, just like you, who are giving their time free of charge. No one is under any obligation to answer your question.
Scripts can be written by yourself to do thing that actions can't. I wrote my own processor, and that will let you resize both width and height without contrain if required.
Photoshop is very powerful and Adobe gives you the tools to make things easier for yourself. After all Photoshop is a tool and all you need to do is learn how to use it.
Thanks all for your input. I will try your suggestions. I just don't understand why a program that sells itself as the end-all professional solution to photo and graphics processing, and which I freely admit is that standard in many ways, does not have a powerful batch processor front and center, like I found in GIMP. Fact is, I wish a program had not just a batch setting for one set of dimensions, but 30 in sequence. I've seen similar capability in Compressor or batch renamers or even MPEG streamclip. Its just pretty sad when programs like GIMP and MPEG Streamclip show up with capabilities or useability that the majors don't.
To be clear, I'm talking the GIMP version 2.4.8 for Snow Leopard, Lion Mtn Lion that includes BIMP, or batch image manipulation processor. This plug-in decimates Pshop automation, not just in resizing, but for several other functions, although I would still grant Pshop the advantage in autoloading a stack into separate layers.
I looked at auto-exporting, and could really use it for a step of what I'm doing, but adobe won't let me pick one or more base layers, and a changing top layer,
and then auto-export a batch of layer combos. Too bad. I haven't even bothered with layers in Gimp yet, pshop is still preferable there, but only by default so far.
I also gave up on Adobe name-changing automation because it did not work as advertised (again). Apple's new Automator does a great job of batch name-changing, including drag and drop import, and multiple variations of ways to change names. Bridge adds extra steps to the process (it was Adobe's brilliant idea to move the name-changing out of Pshop into Bridge), and does NOT offer replace text, ONLY add text, at least as far as I've seen. Why Adobe buries its automation instead of putting it in an obvious place (and make it function in a clear manner) is actually as big a mystery as how poor it is, except that its not a mystery, its just a rich company resting on their laurels.