Have you experimented with Palette Options? On the layers palette tab there’s a triangle/flyout menu. Check it out.
Thanks for trying. But No there isn’t any option for this particular setting. I’m an advanced Photoshop user, I started on Version 3.0…he he!!! 😉 and this is the first place I checked! I was hoping other users would have felt the same about this new palette system.
I’m definitely embracing all the new functionaility added to the Palette (It was about time!) But that layer height problem really bugs me.
To understand what I mean, turn off the Thumbnail option in the Palette. All the layers would then be the height I wish the Groups are. But when doing so, I unfortuntaly lose the thumbnails.
I guess I’ll have to adapt to CS2 now.
I think I see your point, unfortunately I don’t have the same sentiment about it as you do.
Peace,
Tony
Greg: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, all layers have the same height in the palette without or without thumbnails on, even inside or outside a group including the group layer itself with the folder icon. I put the palette up against the ruler to check. At least this is so on my machine with CS2.
I simply don’t see the point, no offense. Your premise is that if you make the height of the layer group smaller, it makes it easier to distinguish between individual layers, and groups. I do not know why you need the height to help with that.
First of all, the icon is so different, that distinguishing them on that alone seems a more effective means to identify groups. Secondly, if you are proposing an option to set the height differently as opposed to a default behavior for all users, then you may as well toggle a color for a layer group instead of a height.
So without being snotty, I’m having trouble with the notion based on functionality since clearly, the function you desire already exists, just not the means by which you propose to do it.
Peace,
Tony
Ok. forget about identifying layers from groups.
As explained in my image, the UI real estate taken by a group is bigger in CS2 than in CS1! Why?
I’m simply suggesting to maximize the use of space.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand, and if it’s useful to you, there should be no one really denying that it is. I see the workarounds as livable, and therefore, as it relates to your original question of "do you feel the same?", I kind of get the sense that the number of folks who agree with you are limited. But, you’ve posted in the feature request forum, and frankly, that’s about the best you can do.
Peace,
Tony
Greg: As I pointed out, the layer heights are all identical on mine, so I guess your point is that he ‘group’ layer should be smaller? I’m personally fine with it the way it is, but then I skipped CS1.
