13 Replies Latest reply on Jul 23, 2010 12:02 PM by Reynolds (Mark)

    Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option

    sergio_zambrano Level 1

      Yes, I meant that. Yes, I'm posting in the right category.

       

      After asking for another feature, mirror layers, and many people started to defend Smart Objects as if they were the solution to everything, I realized that there's another feature mising.

       

      There are many issues brought by the marketing department, like over-inflating a PSD file with ALL the smart objects rasterized data to prevent PSD having to process them all at opening, without which the file could take more seconds (minutes?) to open, but eats up your hard drive, making impossible to deliver a file other than by FTP (http / php servers have limits), making smart objects not-that-smart… (you have many copies of the same thing which makes those layers reproducible by re-applying the effects back at opening, and you think you are saving space…)

       

      And… guess what? "Make the file compatible…" (or so) checkbox at saving time WON'T FIX IT.

       

      So, my feature request is:

       

      Wel need a new checkbox like "DISCARD ANY OTHER COMPATIBILITY THAT WOULD BLOW MY FILE OFF RATIONAL LIMITS JUST FOR YOU TO SHOW OFF YOUR APP IS FAST". So the file would only include USABLE, NEEDED data, rather than MARKETING, SHOW OFF data.

       

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

       

      Yes, "SAVE FOR PHOTOSHOP" in Photoshop.

       

      Innovative, isn't it?

       

      Thanks.

        • 1. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
          Reynolds (Mark) Level 4
          …like over-inflating a PSD file with ALL the smart objects rasterized data to prevent PSD having to process them all at opening, without which the file could take more seconds (minutes?) to open

           

          Yes this would make marginally smaller files perhaps, but your not getting it. Every time you would open one of these "Just For Photoshop" files it would have to recalculate, resample every smart Object included in the document. Before it could be worked on.

           

          Photoshop needs to have a version of each smart object as active pixels, ones that can be moved and transformed. Thats how Photoshop works fundamentally. Even Vector Objects and Type are re-rasterized this way, each time you change them in size.

           

          Basically, Opening times would slow down dramatically. And the WORKING size of the file, the one that uses system resources, would still be the same. No way of avoiding this. Photoshop is not a vector application with 'virtual' and previewed objects floating around. Its a raster application. allowing precise modification of pixels at specific dimensions. Smart Objects are a clever 'workaround' for this fundamental limitation that exists in all raster applications.

          • 2. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
            Level 7

            Well, maybe it could be an option, and we'll see if people really want to save a little cheap disk space at a cost of their expensive time.

            • 3. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
              Reynolds (Mark) Level 4
              Well, maybe it could be an option, and we'll see if people really want to save a little cheap disk space at a cost of their expensive time.

              In my opinion, most likely to turn onto one of those options that people say they want, until its actually provided. Then they realise they never thought it through properly in the first place…

              • 4. Re: Mirror layers will rock :)
                sergio_zambrano Level 1

                Then they realise they never thought it through properly in the first place…

                I though about it again.

                I still want that option.

                 

                When you work with PRINT files, it doesn't make sense, because you ALREADY have that infrastructure. Big HDs, FTP everywhere, SUPER fast networks and servers…

                 

                Today, PRINT is a 15? 20?% of total works and a small business cards, with many variations for each name, for example, still would fit in an email, if the layers were saved as instances, no copies for compatibility.

                 

                Whole web layouts would fit in an email too… of course, Adobe must be pushing filesizes up to prepare us for next online life, where everything is online… and it's not good small filesizes, right?

                 

                A photo for screen or TV could fit in too if there were just the needed data to re-generate it.

                 

                I still think the speed decrease would be SECONDS. Minutes probably for 1Gb up photos.

                 

                Smart objects would make more sense, (for the idea we have about an "instance") if some were just edit-able inline (same window, no effects, same color mode, same resolution, etc)


                Anyway, it's better to have "mirror layers" as a new feature than trying to re-design a smart object.

                • 5. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
                  sergio_zambrano Level 1

                  Well, maybe it could be an option, and we'll see if people really want to save a little cheap disk space at a cost of their expensive time.

                  Buy a cheap disk and travel with it. I prefer to carry a MacBook, and my wallet.

                   

                  I open up a file just a few times until done.

                   

                  Then, if it's small, I forget about it.

                   

                  If it's big, I'll be bothering me EVERY TIME I save a new file, because the day in which I have to clean-up the disk will be closer.

                   

                  Every time I make a backup in DVD, ONE IS NOT ENOUGH. I don't care if Printers can manage it. They are the smaller group, are dying, their products are not MOBILE, and the option doesn't have to be the only way to save nor the default.

                   

                  I have web layouts that take 200Mb and up. When it should take 15Mb.

                  I have to TRAVEL with my files, printers don't.

                   

                  Multiply that for hundreds, add photos in resolutions you never use, hehe and there is your Laptop HD gone.

                   

                  Thanks Adobe.

                  • 6. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
                    c.pfaffenbichler Level 9

                    There might be another problem:

                    Transformed Smart Objects are calculated using the Image Interpolation-Preference; so if one changed that before re-opening a File or opened the File on a computer with different Preferences that would produce different results (unless Interpolation Methods could be linked to individual SOs, I guess).

                    • 7. Re: Please include a "Save for Photoshop" option
                      Gyno-jiz Level 5

                      When I work on a file with multiple (like 100) layer instances, they update very quickly (2k x 1k px). If this was the only sacrifice to speed (and only occurring on file open), then this would be a no-brainer non-issue. So something else is going on, obviously.

                       

                      I would like to see smart objects be better implemented so we could create file structures that were much more non-destructive than seems currently possible. I'm not talking about output sharpening an SO layer stack. I'm talking about complete workflows, a file divided up between painting and non-painting. No need to clean up file noise until the end of the workflow, etc. [Filtered] luminosity and layer masks based on (changing) pixel contents. Right now some of this is possible with smart objects, but most of it is not.

                      • 8. Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                        sergio_zambrano Level 1

                        I wonder how many smart objects are being used to reuse a higher-res image, and how many are used to just duplicate the same layer with a different effect / blending mode (wasting 90% of smart objects features)

                        • 9. Re: Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                          Gyno-jiz Level 5

                          I'm not sure what you mean by "reuse a high res image". The file I'm referring to is a proof of "concept" file, with SO's for channel blends, LAB color moves, false profile adjustments, depth of field and soft focus effects, shadow highlight, sharpening, smoothing, etc. Basically everything you'd like to do to an image. Think custom menus in a layer stack, with all your recipes set up in a master file.

                           

                          But the file I'm talking about could also represent a web layout, with multiple instances of similar objects, nav buttons, etc. Either way you look at it, PS updates them lightning quick. And I'm unconvinced that that has anything to do with a rasterized version of each layer being stored in the file (since the layer changes and the file is open). Currently, a 5MB image becomes a 300MB monstrosity and all I've done, as you say, is replicate the same image content 50 times with different (parametric) effects.

                           

                          What about this 90%? Care to explain a bit?

                          • 10. Re: Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                            c.pfaffenbichler Level 9

                            For Blending Modes I prefer the blank-adjustment-layer workaround.

                            I use SOs for soft focus effects, like J Maloney also mentions, and sharpening (but few other Filters ordinarily).

                            I would estimate that a lot of the times I use Smart Objects, I do so to combine and/or scale images.

                             

                            Though I have never actually evaluated my SO-uses by quantity.

                            • 11. Re: Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                              Reynolds (Mark) Level 4

                              I have web layouts that take 200Mb and up. When it should take 15Mb.

                              I have to TRAVEL with my files, printers don't.

                               

                              Multiply that for hundreds, add photos in resolutions you never use, hehe and there is your Laptop HD gone.

                               

                               

                               

                              To be honest a file of 200mg or 300mg in not a monster, very far from it. That file will save instantly on most machines now, very quick and easy to work with. HD space is also much less of an issue. Maybe you need a new machine?

                               

                              The resolution of the Master document can be optional. So you can work on any document at a much lower resolution than you need for its output. You can do a layout low res, and then decide - oh changed my mind its a 768 x 1024 after all, and not lose anything. This is the case only if all the content is set up as Smart objects or vectors, of course.

                               

                              On large production documents this can be an efficient way to work. Web work you are working so small, its debatable I guess because you may would not be able to see what you are doing with everything at 50%. So already there's a way to cut file sizes down dramatically without any quality loss.

                              • 12. Re: Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                                sergio_zambrano Level 1
                                To be honest a file of 200mg or 300mg in not a monster

                                You're right. Not one, but hundreds make a monster. Version-1, Version-2, Version-1a…

                                 

                                Again, There's no bigger laptop than my Unibody 17" i7… and Layouts is not the only thing I have in there. BUT I'm not a printer, and printers won't travel with their mega files.

                                 

                                May be you need a bigger suitcase, or you don't go mobile

                                 

                                I never had compaint before when I was a pre-press man, but now that web ate print, there should definitely be an option for discarding all that data. I don't like to be pushed to buy higher technology. I KNOW it can be done, but marketing says we have to buy online space, mobile me, to use PSD online… so seems the bigger the files the better.

                                 

                                I BET they'll ULTRA compress the files and they'll XCREW YOU on loading time once they own the server, the ISP, and all that extra bandwidth appear in THEIR bill instead of ours, hehe.

                                 

                                So you can work on any document at a much lower resolution than you need for its output.

                                Yeah, I know what you mean. I was the first one in yell "Let's work all our files at 75DPI with SO and let's make them bigger before going to press.

                                • 13. Re: Are Smart Objects being used for what they were meant for?
                                  Reynolds (Mark) Level 4

                                  Sergio, first your request, which is for an option to have a Photoshop file which eliminates duplicate, resampled data in the master document, is a reasonable one. And certainly worth considering. But it has disadvantages, one of which Chris has pointed out to you - that these files are not backwards compatible.

                                   

                                  Not one, but hundreds make a monster. Version-1, Version-2, Version-1a…

                                   

                                  Again. I think you need to examine your workflow. Using such things as Time Machine, and proper file structure. I personally have not saved multiple versions (1,2,3…) of documents for many years. Because I quickly discovered its not logical. And its excessive. And if you are setting your files up correctly  - then seriously, you have no need for multiple versions like this.