22 Replies Latest reply on Jul 21, 2010 11:38 AM by sergio_zambrano

    Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)

    sergio_zambrano Level 1

      I NEED to apply the SAME layer with different blending modes TOO OFTEN, and I keep doing the filesize TO GROW!

      Not to mention that I still have to patch all its copies when I need to modify it / them.

       

      I though creating a copy of a smart object, yes, I can edit one and all of them will change, but:

       

      1. It's difficult to tell whether you are working on the instance of the smart object you want or a copy of it.
      2. You have to go to ANOTHER window to edit it (because of the resolution could be different). Off line editing IS NOT Photoshop-ish
      3. Once you save your file with many copies of the same smart objects THE FILE SIZE GOES CRAZILY UP!!, ( I edit it and all of them change!, so I can tell all of them are copies of the same ) so those smart objects are NOT THAT SMART!

       

      So, you could fix it AT LEAST with a little checkbox stating "disregard filters below this one" or "use unmodified layer for this filter".

      That way, you can add MORE filters to the same layer, but OFF LINE, as if you had created a new layer on top.

       

      Then, I could create a bizarre trick like "GAUSIAN BLUR = 0" OR "CURVES 0, 255" to get NOTHING ELSE but the original layer to add a new blending mode to.

       

      To prevent all that work-around, you could just create LAYER INSTANCES! (mirror layer, in-line-edit-able smart-er objects, or so)

       

      THANKS!

        • 1. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
          c.pfaffenbichler Level 9
          It's difficult to tell whether you are working on the instance of the smart object you want or a copy of it.

          It is up to the individual user to organize his or her files in such a way as to be able to navigate them effectively.

          Once you save your file with many copies of the same smart objects THE FILE SIZE GOES CRAZILY UP!!, ( I edit it and all of them change!, so I can tell all of them are copies of the same ) so those smart objects are NOT THAT SMART!

          The containing document contains the pixel-content of every instance plus the (layered) original, so if the Smart Object is edited in such a way that the resulting flattened object is more data intensive than before the size will naturally increase …

          • 2. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
            c.pfaffenbichler Level 9

             

            Once you save your file with many copies of the same smart objects THE FILE SIZE GOES CRAZILY UP!!, ( I edit it and all of them change!, so I can tell all of them are copies of the same ) so those smart objects are NOT THAT SMART!

            The containing document contains the pixel-content of every instance plus the (layered) original, so if the Smart Object is edited in such a way that the resulting flattened object is more data intensive than before the size will naturally increase …

            Sorry, on repeated reading I noticed I had misunderstood you; but your complaint seems even more strange now.

            How is a document supposed not to gain file-size when it contains more pixels/information?

            • 3. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
              sergio_zambrano Level 1
              How is a document supposed not to gain file-size when it contains more pixels/information?

              Pixel information is compressed in PSD. Even if there was a REAL need for saving all the instances of the same smart object, some kind of compression should catch those BIG-pixel patterns (the whole layer) and save the disk space!

               

              I understand filesize can grow because the detail in the image is more difficult to ZIP compress.

              I understand the more layers the bigger the file.

               

              What I don't understand, is why many instances of the same smart object should increase the filesize!

               

              Let me go through some assumptions I believe make sense:

               

              1. A smart object is not destructed by anything like a filter.
              2. If I modify one smart object and all its instances change, plus it's not destructible, you must agree with me that it's right to call it "instance".
              3. If it's not destructed, its data will be available to recreate all its instances.
              4. Being so, there's only needed one place in memory to hold the information for all of them.
              5. Also, only one instance is needed to be saved in file to reconstruct the image once opened.
              6. Do I have to go further to explain how much the file-growing thing makes no sense?

               

              Excuse my english. It's my second language and I keep learning every day.

              • 4. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                sergio_zambrano Level 1
                It is up to the individual user to organize his or her files in such a way as to be able to navigate them effectively.

                 

                That's not the way a top-of-the-line software developer solves the lack of a feature.

                 

                If there are no "mirror layers" there should be one. OF COURSE we'll have to organize them in such a way that an application WITHOUT that feature can give a similar result.

                 

                Anyway, for the general behavior of smart objects, it's NOT CLEAR whether a layer will change when you edit a smart object 1st because you are editing them off line and you can't see the layernames nor the general result, and 2nd because even if you see them, you must READ, which is not as user friendly as highlighting the smart objects coming from the same source. e.g. like the emails coming from the same sender are lit in Mail when one of them are selected.

                • 5. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
                  Level 7

                  What I don't understand, is why many instances of the same smart object should increase the filesize!

                  Because, for backward compatibility, the rasterized version of each layer instance has to be saved in the file, plus the data needed to re-rasterize the instance (transform, filter parameters, mask, etc.).  Without that rasterized copy, opening a PSD with smart objects would take much longer, and the files would not be readable in other applications or any previous version of Photoshop.

                  The same thing applies to any new layer type in Photoshop (text, video, 3D, etc.).

                   

                  Yes, all the layers get compressed.

                   

                  The original data (the file referenced by the smart object) is only stored once, unless you explicitly tear off an unrelated copy.

                  • 6. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
                    c.pfaffenbichler Level 9
                    Do I have to go further to explain how much the file-growing thing makes no sense?

                    I hope Mr.Cox explanation was satisfactory.

                     

                    You have to go to ANOTHER window to edit it (because of the resolution could be different). Off line editing IS NOT Photoshop-ish

                    I myself disagree, but some people seems to be of the same opinion and have in at least one instance caused me additional work by rather doing touch-up in two sizes for two different products, in both of which the image was differently clipped, so that when I needed a less clipped version in full resolution I had to recreate their edits.

                     

                    But not only can the resolution of containing document and SO vary, they may even be of different color modes and depth.

                    So I suspect to edit Smart Objects in their »surroundings« Photoshop would have to temporarily totally reset tools, surreptitiously change the mode, counter-calculate the Transformation for the SO (and the containing document) and redraw Filter-applications on the fly while the edit goes on; which would seem (possibly prohibitively) complicated to program and a performance-chomper especially when having to redraw multiple instances.

                    Moreover if one were to paint on a layer of the Smart Object (while staying »within« the containing document) and exceed the SO’s original format a previously applied Transform or Warp would have to change.

                     

                    But maybe Mr.Cox could tell if he considers it achievable at all.

                    • 7. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
                      Level 7

                      So I suspect to edit Smart Objects in their »surroundings« Photoshop would have to temporarily totally reset tools, surreptitiously change the mode, counter-calculate the Transformation for the SO (and the containing document) and redraw Filter-applications on the fly while the edit goes on; which would seem (possibly prohibitively) complicated to program and a performance-chomper especially when having to redraw multiple instances.

                      LOL!  Actually, it's about an order of magnitude more complicated than that.  But at least you got the basics.

                      Hint: not all blend modes and adjustments are supported in all color modes and depths, and many editing functions could not work on vector data, plus the complexity of trying to reverse a 1 to N mapping of pixel values through filters and transforms.

                       

                      Smart Objects are powerful because of all the things they can do, but we have to make tradeoffs to make those possible.

                      There are things that could be done with more limited instance layers (must be same mode, depth, limited transforms and filters, hide the filters when painting, etc.) , but the cost vs. benefit is not so great compared to Smart Objects.

                      • 8. Re: No viable, right?
                        sergio_zambrano Level 1

                        Well, that explains everything. (Although don't tell me "it's for compatibility reasons" bacause I tried saving the file un-checking "compatibility" when saving, and it made no difference, so the whole act is to make it look like quick at opening time)

                         

                        In order your PSD (even with "compatibility" checkbox off when saving!) open up faster, which happens… let's say… ONCE for each time you open it (yes, I needed the nonsense of that redundant phrase) Adobe made a tradeoff and gave us the PAIN of having to edit them off-line, get bigger files, get lost on copies of copies of SOs…

                         

                        Let me put it graphically for kinder students:

                         

                        Amount of times you open the file per session:

                        1

                         

                        Ammount of times you open a smart object to get a "mirror layer"-like effect:

                        4? 10? 50?

                         

                        Is that a tradeoff?

                        Certainly it is, but not one in which the user wins.

                         

                        Isn't easier to admit there's NO WAY to keep a copy of a layer at another level WITHOUT doing a mess or losing re-editing capabilities, or at least bloating filesize?

                        • 9. Re: No viable, right?
                          Level 7

                          I tried saving the file un-checking "compatibility" when saving

                          It is for compatibility, and the "maximize compatibility" option doesn't affect anything but the flattened composite image stored in the PSD file (or the "you didn't store a composite image" message if you turn it off).

                           

                          Again, this is not about opening faster, it is about compatibility with other apps, and older versions of Photoshop.

                          And yes, it does open faster, and you've never seen what it would be like without the stored rasterized versions because there is no way to turn that off.

                           

                          Less ranting, more asking please.

                          • 10. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
                            c.pfaffenbichler Level 9
                            LOL!

                            Well, at least you got a laugh out of it.

                             

                            But as always good to get feedback from a pro.

                            • 11. Re: There's no reason for duplicate pixel image takes up space in file
                              sergio_zambrano Level 1

                              I assumed the pro feedback you meant is mine! jeje. I wonder if somebody else here has 20 years of real experience using Photoshop

                               

                              Thanks for all of you, for taking the time to defend Smart Objects. Now to the point of this post:

                               

                              Is it too difficult to create mirror layers?

                               

                              And… as the line of obstacles go… I assume we'll need ALSO a new checkbox like "DISCARD ANY OTHER COMPATIBILITY THAT WOULD BLOW MY FILE OFF RATIONAL LIMITS". So the file would include USABLE, NEEDED data, rather than MARKETING, SHOW OFF data.

                               

                              It could be a new export option called SAVE FOR PHOTOSHOP jeje

                              • 12. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                retouchMOJO Level 1

                                ENOUGH with the "mirror layers". SHEESH!

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                ==============================================================

                                • 13. Re: Corporate Response!
                                  sergio_zambrano Level 1
                                  ENOUGH with the "mirror layers". SHEESH!

                                  You could auto-reply all the feature requests with that message, and this could be an auto-pilot-driven forum LOL

                                  • 14. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                    c.pfaffenbichler Level 9

                                    20 years of Photoshop-experience don’t impress me much, because I know 

                                    from experience and observation that one can avoid familiarizing 

                                    oneself with a lot of features for a long time.

                                     

                                    I think I do understand where you’re coming from on the matter »Smart 

                                    Object live editing« and I expect it would indeed make it easier for a 

                                    lot of users to accept the advantages of Smart Objects.

                                    But as Mr. Cox stated that it is even more complicated than you or I 

                                    imagined and that, if I understand correctly, such a feature-set would 

                                    necessitate the introduction of a new class of objects (with less 

                                    features than Smart Objects) it’s probably not in the books.

                                    But I’m mostly comfortable with the current situation of SOs anyway 

                                    (smart liquify and individual conversion-settings would be nice, 

                                    though).

                                     

                                    As for the matter of file-size and such I noticed you started a new 

                                    thread anyway.

                                    • 15. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                      sergio_zambrano Level 1

                                      Yes, I know. it happens to myself. Once you find your nich or hobby, you end up passing a lot of updates on thing you never use.

                                       

                                      Anyway, I think the heat of this thread was on trying to defend smart objects that I just used as the closest feature / example that could get my request done, and how difficult it would be for SOs to try to fill the whole.

                                      • 16. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                        retouchMOJO Level 1

                                        Sergio, please take your discussions to discussion forums. This is a feature request area. Let's be to the point and not make this an ongoing thread. Please.

                                        • 17. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                          Gyno-jiz Level 5

                                          ENOUGH with the thread police, Michael.

                                          • 18. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                            retouchMOJO Level 1

                                            I call it as I see it. And I'm tired if the verbose, whining. Make a feature request and move on.

                                            • 19. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                              Gyno-jiz Level 5

                                              Then take your own advice -- make one complaint and move on.

                                              • 20. Re: Bad, Adobe, Bad! I still want mirror layers! (layer instances)
                                                c.pfaffenbichler Level 9
                                                Sergio, please take your discussions to discussion forums.

                                                Well, I personally think it’s one of these Fora’s charms that a thread may develop into whatever direction it may take …

                                                • 21. Request was: Mirror Layers.
                                                  sergio_zambrano Level 1

                                                  It's not my fault if people start defending SmartObjects just because I used them as example of "I already tried this, and it's not enough"

                                                   

                                                  The amount of messages some of you are using to try to convince me there's no feature needed (or that the next version's new feature wasn't my idea, hehe) is the same than you had written if I had not given any examples of what I did tried, and you had answered me things for newbies like "use smart objects". Way less messages, than that. Oh, God, we would still had been in there back and forth if I had used my newbie tone.

                                                   

                                                  So, I saved you the "turn on the computer" - "I reached twenty thousand answers! I'm the master of forums!" - kind of messages, to get right to the point

                                                  Sorry if I made you write more than usual to get to the forum's answers record

                                                   

                                                  Thanks for your warm feedback and excuse my english.

                                                   

                                                  Sergio

                                                  • 22. Re: Request was: Mirror Layers.
                                                    sergio_zambrano Level 1

                                                    Is there a number of posts a thread must not reach to prevent Adobe having to do overtime?

                                                    It feels like it