2 Replies Latest reply: Dec 19, 2011 1:32 AM by PECourtejoie RSS

    How to get panel to display thumbnails sized to layer bounds instead of relative toentire document??

    Astara_ Community Member

      There is an option for this, but it only partially works...and was wondering if there is something else I'm supposed to know about to make the feature work as described...?

       

      I can turn on the option to display thumbnails .. bit in only works for bitmapped stuff.  None of my vector masks are shown at the size of their layer.  (Note -- I have layer shaped by transparency set to off -- meaning the layer is shaped by the vector mask and not any content.  This is confirmable by turning on the option to show layer bounds).

       

      Yet, when I do this, it's obvious on the larger screen (if layer bounds are showing), that the vector takes up the full layerBut in the thumbnail, I often can't even the shape at all -- not very helpful. 

       

      So what am I missing?  How do I get the vector thumbnails to display the size of their layer?

       

      Thanks!

        • 1. Re: How to get panel to display thumbnails sized to layer bounds instead of relative toentire document??
          Mylenium CommunityMVP

          I think it's supposed to work this way - vector layers are basically always full document size and the path only determines the rasterization and visibility of the content based on the path area's fill rule. Not saying that there could be no way to determine the bounding box on the fly and use that for thumbnails, but I'm sure there is a certain reasoning/ rationale behind this behavior. I guess it's also a matter of preference - in Illustrator it's just like that and it drives me mad, because you never see where stuff is relative to the artboard...

           

          Mylenium

          • 2. Re: How to get panel to display thumbnails sized to layer bounds instead of relative toentire document??
            Astara_ Community Member

            That's definitely NOT the case in Photoshop...

             

            If you use the 'move tool', and you have "show transform controls turned on', it will show you the

            corners of the layer -- the actual size of the layer...

             

            You can verify this by going in and and creating a paint layer, say 1000x1000.

             

            Now create a shape some small fraction of that... Any closed vector and attach it to the

            layer, with Layer->Mask->Vector.

             

            now check out the size in 'move tool' -- it will be 1000x1000.

             

            Now go into image blending options and uncheck 'transparency shapes layer'.

             

            Now, the layer is shaped by the vector -- not the transparent edges where your canvas ended.

             

            Now, if you use move tool, you will find the 'corner' of the layer positioned around the vector, not

            around the 1000x1000 layer you just created.

             

             

             

            To round out the demo, save a copy of your mask if you want, and go into the mask panel

            and select 'vector'.  At the bottom, of the panel there is a tiny graphic of an arrow pointing down

            onto a 'plane', (or layer).  indicating to apply the vector mask to the layer.  Do so.

             

            Now go into blending options and recheck the 'transparency shapes layer.'

             

            Try move again... Now note the bounding box is the SAME size as it was with the vector

            attached... because you truncated the rest of the layer with the mask.  You now have a smaller

            object... that is that size...  (I know... all this is very basic to a community professional), BUT

             

            my point now, is that if the outline box that small bitmaped shape w/o the vector mask is only

            say 100x100 (vs. before it was 1000x1000... and if it's the same size as BEFORE you

            applied the mask WITH the vector there (but shaped/w/transparency off).  Then I would assert

            that the since the outline box is showing the size of the layer -- the size of the layers are the same.

             

            Therefore, the vector takes up the full size of a layer that is shaped by that vector mask.

             

            p.s. has Mylène put out any hits since your pseudo?

            • 3. Re: How to get panel to display thumbnails sized to layer bounds instead of relative toentire document??
              PECourtejoie CommunityMVP

              Astara_,

              Your request would rather be to have the thumbnail of the masks to react to the clip thumnail to layer bounds?

              Or to have the thumbnails of layers to be shaped by the masks, vectors or pixel based?

               

              Here, with CS3, I do see the entire layer contents, and it is never hidden by the mask, whether transparency shapes layer or not, and the masks, vector and layer, are always shown relative to the document.

              I would suggest posting in the Feedback site ( http://feedback.photoshop.com ), explaining your issue clearly, and how it affects your workflow, or just the continuity of the app.