I’m sorry to be so blunt Shaun, but this really is the most arse-about-tit method of doing things.
Just save the mug shots each in their own PSD file and name those files "lastnamefirstname.psd". That way they will be stored alphabetically and easily found in your browser. Each file will also load so much quicker than the thousand or so layered file you are using now.
Simplify and expediate!
Chris is right. I’m very curious…why do you have this set up like this?
Bob
I disagree Chris. I too wish there was this functionality. Allow me to explain.
Since my workflow involves as much automation as possible. One of the keys to the automation is the ability to categorize images while they are open in PS. Some images are processed one way, others, another way. We have about 7 different "categories" of images that we process different ways. Our current SOP, not unlike the OP’s is to add a layer so that when we view images in Bridge we can manually sort and process them.
It’s more complicated than that, but trust me, I process thousands of images per day and must use a layer with text in it to help sort. If Bridge had the capability to search by layer name, or textual content, my work would go 40% faster.
I don’t think it’s a great leap of imagination to suggest that Bridge could use some improvements in its search engine, and adding the ability to search for layers at least, and context of layers at best, would be most welcomed, imho.
Well… that would work if they were only mugshots…
The issue is that we have things that are not as easily setup via that naming convention…
Another example:
We have 30 different shots of types of fire… forest fire, building fire, care fire, etc that we have created images for. There is no way for those files to be sorted in a logical manner… a keyword search would be much more efficient.
I don’t want to have to use windows search utility to hunt down graphics from a directory with tons of subdirectory inside of it.
This may clear up the problem: <
http://5k-media.com/layers.jpg>
that is a partial screen cap of one of the 4 main files that we use on a day to day basis. All of those layer sets have anywhere from 10-50 compiled designs in them that are all named something that we know… it’s just a pain in the butt to find them without scrolling around for a bit.
Ah. Different issue than I was thinking of. Sorry. Carry on.
Although I will say that it has been suggested that PS implement a way to "find as you type" with action names and layers.
Shaun. Photoshop is great for editing images but it doesn’t pretend to be a digital asset management application.
Store each image as an individual PSD, then catalogue them using something like Extensis Portfolio. Being database driven this will help you locate your images instantly using a simple keyword search. You could even use Adobe’s Photoshop Album in conjunction with PS to do the same thing.
The way you are doing it now – and proposing to do it – is simply not feasible.
Well.. here’s the thing… We have no $ for any software this quarter and opening another application to do a search seems to be a ridiculous thing to have to do just to find a layer you know the name of… especially when there is a way to search for a layer thru the use of a script.
Why can’t there be a plugin written that would allow this to happen quicker? Or at least within the same application?
I mean PS has the ability to use smart layers now… and it can use variables from data sources for automation… and it can be controlled by javascript… Why isn’t anyone making a solution that ties some of the loose ends together and allows you to have a database managed set of smart layers that can be searched via photoshop?
Extensis Portfolio isn’t that expensive…and it already exists. I agree with Chris, again. It’s a terrific piece of software.
You say you have no money for software but then go on to say:
Why can’t there be a plugin written that would allow this to happen quicker? Or at least within the same application?
Don’t you think you’d have to pay for that?
As for why PS doesn’t have the capability that you want, all I can do is suggest filing a feature request here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/feature.html Bob
Look… all I was trying to do was find out whether or not a script or action exsisted that allowed me to speed up my workflow.
My workflow currently is the most efficient way to do my job… It causes the least amount of down time while opening and designing graphics.
I am not going to spend $200 and alter my entire workflow (can you imagine having to organize the 1,000s of layers that already exsist – even with the newer, faster layers to files action it would take a hell of a long time to do per file) just to do something that is a minor annoyance… I just wanted to speed up the finding process.
You guys need to quit acting like your way is the right way – "The way you are doing it now – and proposing to do it – is simply not feasible."
Oh really? I have been doing it this way for 5 years now… so has the other designer here… and for longer than myself. I recognize the file loading time is slow…along with saving. Those are things that don’t matter. All that matters is that I am able to churn out a significant number of graphics as quickly as possible once the files are open.
Forums like this are such an asswhip… if you are going to be jerks that think they are the end all be all of photoshop design, all it does is show how little you know (I learned a long time ago that the less you know the more you act like you know and belittle those who try to ask questions)
Read your post again and the tell me who has the lousy attitude. You ask for help and opinions. You don’t like what you hear and you go on a tirade.
My closing bit of advice to you is that if you don’t want an answer don’t ask a question.
Bob
Now, now. Be nice or nobody will try to help.
We have had your sort before.
I wanted an answer… I just don’t like being told that what I am currently doing cannot be done while I am in the process of doing it without a problem.
I apologize if that sounded like a tirade… not my intention.
Did you read the posts?
Come to that, did you read your own?
Maybe it’s time for a rethink of how you are going about things.
If you can’t take that advice, go away and suffer!
Did you read the posts? – what exactly does that mean? Yes I read the posts
Come to that, did you read your own? – Of course I read my own
Maybe it’s time for a rethink of how you are going about things. – The way that I go about things is fine.. I only wanted to know if a script or plugin exsisted that would make it better… it is very functional the way it is
If you can’t take that advice, go away and suffer! – this kind of attitude is what I meant in the post that everyone seems to think was a tirade… Just because I say that someone’s advice doesn’t really fit what I need doesn’t mean that I am wrong or that they are wrong.. it means that it doesn’t work for the situation I am in and I am perfectly fine with that… I just wanted to know IF THERE WAS A WAY TO SEARCH… I am not looking for a new workflow.. I have rethinked the way we approach this kind of thing… and the way we do it works fine… the nice thing is that we only have to back up the 4 files we use… not 40000… and that is a huge time saver from a standpoint of data management. I also only have to have 4 files open on the small 17" single monitor that I am allowed to have at my station… I don’t have alot of resources at my disposal and this is a nice way of handling all of the graphics that I have to do.
I only went on a tirade about the not feasible deal… that was not helpful to anyone.
Look… all I was trying to do was find out whether or not a script or action existed that allowed me to speed up my workflow.
And all we are doing is trying to help!
My workflow currently is the most efficient way to do my job
It quite clearly is not.
My workflow currently is the most efficient way to do my job… . …I just wanted to speed up the finding process.
That is exactly what a database digital asset management system is designed to do. And $200 is small beer compared to the wasted time using your existing method.
imagine having to organize the 1,000s of layers that already exist
And the bigger it gets the slower the dinosaur will plod.
You guys need to quit acting like your way is the right way
Erm… You asked for help. We’re offering it. Freely.
Forums like this are such an asswhip… if you are going to be jerks that think they are the end all be all of…
Well. Pal. You know what you can do!
all it does is show how little you know (I learned a long time ago that the less you know the more you act like you know and belittle those who try to ask questions)
Hey. What you asked is simply not feasible. If someone could write you a script or application to search through the layers it would cost you more than $200. And it would be slow and impractical.
What you are doing with your 1000 layer mug shots document is building a skyscraper out of balsa wood. It will collapse.
You were offered genuine sound advice and have responded with rudeness.
I’m out of here. There are people elsewhere who actually want to be helped.
Shaun,
I empathize with you. Here’s another way to look at it. With your current (optimized) workflow, you cannot do what you’d like with photoshop natively.
Now, maybe a plug-in exists, who would know? Most pundits of photoshop seem to think that the workflow you’ve adopted is suboptimal, so the likelihood that a plug-in has been developed is probably low.
You can add your request to the feature request forum.
That said, consider the following. I’ve been involved in automation for almost 20 years, most of it in laboratory robotics. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people who want it to work the way that they work; the ones who are successful with automation find ways to capitalize on the capabilities by re-thinking the workflow.
That may not be appropriate in your case, but worth consideration I suspect.
Dude… the file hasn’t collapsed in 5 years… and its backed up every week… so if it did collapse it would be easy to just open the backup.
I responded with rudeness when someone said something that was not advise and was not helpful at all. I didn’t mean to piss anyone off.
What I am doing is completely feasible… the search may not be… it’s something that adobe should probably look at incorporating into a future version.
I don’t think that anyone has bothered to read the parts of my posts that have not been directed at the feasible comment.
The digital asset management system does not work for me for two reasons:
1. I cannot spend any money on software (this is probably not going to go away in case anyone is following the current Tribune bullsh*t). I may be able to upgrade software in the next couple of years if I am lucky… for right now I have to do with what I have.
2. I do not want to drastically alter my workflow. Having 1,000s of psd files laying around in folders is a problem too… organizing and maintaining a backup without a qualified IT person is a pain… I flat out don’t have time for this approach… If my company had the infrastructure in place to handle it, then it could be a possibility but they don’t. Right now I have to archive my files to a DVD… and I don’t want to have to search thru stacks to find some single image that I need because of iterative backups. Right now I have 2 DVD at any given time… 2 files on each for a total of 4 files
I appreaciate the advice on going with a DAM system… I wish I could go that way… I didn’t necessarily want to look at other workflows because I have looked other workflows… they just cost $.
And again… I apologized for the tirade…
"Anyone know of a way to search via keyword the layers of a psd file?"
"Spotlight" in OS X.
XD
I appreciate the empathy… Again I recognize (and have from the beginning) that this may not be something that exsists…
I wanted to know if it did.
I also recognize that it is not the holy grail way of doing things but it is the way that it is currently being done and it is the way that I will do it until I either have the budget or infrastructure to do it the right way.
You have to understand… I don’t even have a drive to backup with or a way to capture video for use in after effects… I have to log time on one of the editors avids just to try to get video in… We have an infinite from the mid 80’s driving most of our graphics. To some people and companies $200 (potentially per station that uses photoshop) can be alot of cash.
Will it do layers?
I have a power book that I am going to try that with…
I wish we could go mac… Tribune is a no-mac shop.
So… it’s not infeasible
function showLayer(name){
var desc = new ActionDescriptor();
var ref = new ActionReference();
ref.putName( charIDToTypeID( "Lyr " ), name ); desc.putReference( charIDToTypeID( "null" ), ref ); desc.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID( "MkVs" ), true ); executeAction( charIDToTypeID( "slct" ), desc, DialogModes.NO ); };
showLayer(‘Background copy 596’);
This is incredibly efficient for what I need… all I have to do is replace the background copy596 with whatever layer name I want to and it searches the document… easy. Now I will bind it to a key and create a dialog box and variable for the layer name if I can.
So… it’s not infeasible
Maybe, but it’s still the wrong way to go about it.
As for the dollars: PS Album is much cheaper than Extensis Portfolio – and you can simply click to open/edit the selected image directly into Photoshop.
As for thousands of PSDs "lying around in folders: That is no different from them "lying around" (buried) in the layers of a single PSD – other than being easier to search!
As for the back up: A 1000 PSDs would probably take less DVD space than a single layer PSD.
There is not a wrong way to do anything. This is the answer to my inquiry…
Thousands of psds lying around in folders is alot different than them being "buried" inside of a single psd or else there wouldn’t be two drastically different approaches to handling this issue.
I have had a thought.
That’s a very valid point.
Have a Nice Day!
😉
So where did that script come from? Did you write it? Maybe it should be posted on the Adobe Exchange.
I’m late into this little debate but I want to point out that while Shaun has a valid wish, such a feature would not be a benefit to the vast majority of users who do not have such a unique work flow.
Shaun, imagine what would happen if Photoshop added needed functionality for every possible option that each user needs. The program would bloat immediately, both in file size, equipment requirements, and certainly in price to pay for all the additional coding.
There is a feature request path. I think you were not pointed towards it once it became clear how unique your need is, we all realize that such a request would be pointless. It just wouldn’t gain the support needed to become a feature.
I hope that scripting can do what you want. It is about the only economical way to extend Photoshop to special needs in a logical manner.
I pointed out the feature request page very early on.
Bob
In response to the unique need post – Photoshop is already needlessly bloated with plenty of features that most users don’t need… I recognize that my need is somewhat unique although why wouldn’t you want the ability to search for layers? Most decent designers work with a bunch of layers when they are creating… It would be nice to be able to find them easier than looking at all the names of layers and inside layer sets.
I never asked for this to be a feature that needed to be implemented… I just wanted to know if scripting could do this and whether or not a script or plugin exsisted that could handle it… It does now… With the help of a couple of people on the adobe scripting forum (people that were really trying to help – not saying that it is impossible to do or that I needed to go change the workflow that works for my situation) we have a script that can do a layer search that is not only not case sensitive, but it will also pull up partial layer names i.e. if you type in chicago you get any layer with chicago in the name. It is also very fast and efficient… it takes about 7 seconds to parse my entire 1.8 gig 1,400 layer file and activates the layers that are found and the layer sets they are in.
