Duplicating a layer/folder adds the word "Copy" at the end – How to disable this?

VG
Posted By
Vincent_G.
Feb 10, 2009
Views
770
Replies
32
Status
Closed
Hello World,

Every time you duplicate a folder or a layer, it adds the word "Copy" at the end. Is there a way to get rid of this?

I’ve been looking for a solution to this for the past 2 years. I spend 8 hours a day in Photoshop creating Comps. I’m crazy about having my layers clean, therefore I use a lot of folders, etc.

I probably waste an hour a day removing the $%)?#* Copy word at the end of layers/folders. This is driving me CRAZY while losing a lot of precious time.

Any clues?

I’m still hoping Adobe will get rid of this with every new release and it never happens. Am I actualy the only one to think this "feature" is insane?

Thank you.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

P
Phosphor
Feb 10, 2009
Seems quite sane to me. Why does it bother you?

To each his own.

Maybe it could be Scripted.
PR
Paul_R
Feb 10, 2009
Yup allready done one here to edit/remove copy etc….
<http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28336>
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 11, 2009
@Ed

Let’s say you have a similar structure in your Photoshop file for a website :

– 01 Homepage Comp Folder
—– Header Folder
——- Login Box Folder
——- Logo Folder
—– Content Folder
—– Footer Folder
– 02 About Comp Folder
—– Header Folder
——- Login Box Folder
——- Logo Folder
—– Content Folder
etc…

And then, plenty of layers in these folders.

If you duplicate the top folder (Homepage Comp for example) to work on a new page template from an existing one, all folders and all layers in this one will now have a Copy at the end. You must then dig through all those to remove the Copy word in order to keep the file clean.

This becomes a nightmare to work with.

I understand this is a minor annoyance for people who tend to flatten most of their layers and keep it to a small number. But for people like me who need to keep original layers for later revisions, it makes no sense.

I think the previous versions of Photoshop, up to 7.0 or so, didn’t have this problem. You duplicated a layer/folder and it kept the same name. They introduced this in the CS suite I believe.

@Paul

Thanks for this script. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be working on CS4 for me. Is it working for you?
PR
Paul_R
Feb 11, 2009
Yes works fine in Photoshop CS4.
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 11, 2009
@Paul

My bad, it does work fine. Thank you very much!
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 11, 2009
Actually, doesn’t work that fine πŸ˜‰

Is there a limitation to the number of folders levels? I ran the script in one of my file with a lot of layers and subfolders. It does the job for a couple of layers but leave a lot of folders untouched.

I wish I understood scripting to take a look at the code, unfortunately I’m totally clueless.

Thanks.
P
Phosphor
Feb 11, 2009
Okay. I don’t understand how removing "Copy" keeps the file "clean". I think it makes it more confusing to have several things with the same name. But you have your Scripting solution.
NK
Neil_Keller
Feb 11, 2009
Along Ed’s line of thinking, I recall folks have come here hoping to get back the high-res file that was inadvertently overwritten by a low-res version with the same name.

That said, I think that a preference option to save with/without "copy" should be added.

Neil
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 11, 2009
@Ed

I’m a UI/UX graphic designer. I need to keep layers/folders clean so that future designers (and clients) working on the same project can find their way easily through the file. Having "Copy", "Copy 2" etc all over the file is simply unprofessionnal.

Here’s a screenshot that should help you understand :

<http://g.imagehost.org/0634/Copy-Problem.jpg>

This was just a fake structure created for the screenshot, now imagine what is it in a real file with tons of layers/folders.

@Paul

I think the problem with the script is that it only removes the Copy from the first level. If you have layers/folders that are inside more folders, it doesn’t work. Can you modify the script to make it multi-levels? *please* πŸ™‚

@Neil

We’re not refering to the filename here, but the layers/folders naming *in* the file.



I believe the best solution for everyone would be to add the "Copy" word ONLY on the first level folder duplicated. We wouldn’t have to dig through all the subfolders and layers to remove it.

All the UI designers I’ve asked this about in the past years had the same opinion, we are all wasting precious time removing this annoyance. I’m still amazed that Adobe didn’t change this over time. I guess it could be added to the huge list of UI gripes at <http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/>
B
Buko
Feb 11, 2009
Wouldn’t it be more practical to submit a feature request to Adobe instead of some site off somewhere?
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 11, 2009
@Buko

Done already. I was simply trying to find a solution to my problem *now*, not in CS5 or CS6.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 11, 2009
What about there and back again? Drag to blank doc, drag back.
P
Phosphor
Feb 11, 2009
Whatever. I think having several different Layers named the same is unprofessional and confusing. They put that feature in there for a reason.

But, whatever floats your boat.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 11, 2009
And "copy" is professional differentiation, Ed?
P
Phosphor
Feb 12, 2009
?

At least you don’t end up with multiple Layers all named the same. That’s all.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
Copy seems like a pretty lame name. How many "new new" files you ever worked on Ed? Or "final final final". Or my fav: "final new" (or "new final").
P
Phosphor
Feb 12, 2009
I have no idea what you are talking about.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
Really Ed? It’s a shame you’ve never had the pleasure of working on a file called "Rockin Brochure new new". You think, "I’ll bet the new new new version will be even better". I have no idea why copy 1 2 and 3 are any more useful or professional than three layers with the same name, and was hoping for enlightenment.
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 12, 2009
I think it’s all about optimizing the workflow for professionnal designers.

I would prefer the new copy to keep the same name as there is more chance I want it to be named the same way. If I really want to name it differently, then I’ll do it myself. Having to go in each subfolders to remove the Copy is a nuissance. It is counter-productive and breaks the workflow.

The best option for everyone would be to add the word "Copy" only on the first level, and not the sub-levels of items.

Let’s say I have a folder called "Root" which includes a subfolder called "Subfolder", which contains a couple of layers. Duplicating the "Root" folder should make a new one called "Root Copy" but it should *NOT* add the "Copy" tag to the "Subfolder" and whatever layers/folders contained in it.

The screenshot I posted previously explain the whole issue by itself and I don’t see why anyone could argue with this.

I can understand it does not make sense to a photographer using Photoshop for retouching. But for a heavy user who makes use of the folders system a lot, it is self-explanatory.

Talking about folders, I’m also still dreaming about Photoshop to handle properly the 5th level of folders. Re-ordering folders on that 5th level does not work. Works fine on the 4th level, but 5th doesn’t.
P
Phosphor
Feb 12, 2009
It just strikes me as silly. If I have a Layer named "face" and I duplicate it, it’s named "face copy", which tells the story. Sometimes I’ll work on the copy and leave the original alone. This way I know which is which.

Simple and useful.

But, whatever you like.

Still not able to make sense of J’s posts. Oh well.
P
Phosphor
Feb 12, 2009
Not arguing with you …just saying that I don’t see it as an insane feature at all. Perfectly reasonable.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
"Copy" tells a story. "Copy 3"?

I use copy as my backup. So our stories are different, Ed. That’s what I’m talking about. For you it means one thing, for me another. Not particularly useful for Ms. Third Party.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 12, 2009
J Maloney as E says it is not an insane feature.

True you bring up a circumstance where it might be better to have it work differently.

But keep in mind what you need may not be the norm.

So Ed is quite correct it is not insane but rather rational.

That doesn’t help you I understand but what would be a good idea is to make a feature request that would be a very good way to approach this issue you have with the layers Panel.
P
Phosphor
Feb 12, 2009
J, we are talking about Layer names here.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
As a side note, V, you do know about smart objects’ ability to refresh content across repeated pages? I’ve read about it only, but you might check it out for any repeating elements. Link here (Veerle). < http://veerle.duoh.com/blog/comments/photoshop_smart_objects _smart_but_not_always_that_smart/>

And review my most astute post 12 about a workaround to save you time immediately.
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 12, 2009
Thanks for your opinion everyone even though I have yet to figure out the perfect solution.

I’ll stick to my own opinion and feature-request (yes, it was submitted) that the word "Copy" should only on the first level of the duplicated item, and not the sub-levels.

@J
The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).

As for the Smart Object thing, I’ll definitely give it a try. I’m kind of oldschool (Photoshop 2.0 era) so I didn’t get used to work with this yet. I find these Smart Objects not precise enough for pixel perfect work. Although, I’m really going to spend some time figuring this out! Thank you very much for pointing this out.
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 12, 2009
Just discovered this great thread on managing complex PSDs, give it a read. They’re looking for feedbacks on similar issues about handling layers.

<http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/02/feedback_please_5.html>
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
The drag and drop thing would indeed work, but it is not very adequate as you have to reposition the object at the pixel-perfect location. Might be easy for a simple button, but definitely not for a complete interface if you see what I mean (performance-wise).

If the two docs are the same pixel dimensions (which they would be), hold shift as you drag. Should pop in at the same position.

Smart objects as I’m referring to them are just folder "groups" much like you use them. When you update one, all the instance of that smart object update with it. I think it could really save you some time.
G
Gosselin__V
Feb 12, 2009
Thanks for these precious tips, J. I appreciate it.
JM
J_Maloney
Feb 12, 2009
Astute. πŸ™‚
BS
Brad_Shaw
Mar 19, 2009
If I want a backup layer, I amend it with "Backup" or "BU". If I copy a stack of layers, or a folder, I don’t want every layer in that to be amended with "copy", "copy 2", "copy 57", etc.

I think it makes a complete mess of the layer/folder structure and, due to my anal retentive nature, that means I spend a lot of time removing the words "copy" from all my layers.
R
Ram
Mar 20, 2009
my anal retentive nature

Yeah, that’s gotta be a bΒ‘tch. :/

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections