Photoshop: node based editing

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Not Planned
  • (Edited)
Why do not photoshop ues flowchat to control layer? If I have a lot of layer cannot fast chosen.Why don't like Unke ,Dfusion software with flowchat.
Photo of dong pn

dong pn

  • 18 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 3
Photo of dong pn

dong pn

  • 18 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I wish Photoshop add a node mode.!
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
Because it's not user friendly?

Because it can easily lead to horrible performance? (tree graphs are much easier to manage and optimize than arbitrary graphs)

Because user studies show that node based compositors confuse even the people who use them every day? (honestly, I think the only people who use them effectively are the authors, and the few users who could have authored the software)
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
Charles - before casting stones, you really should read your own posts. You attacked the developers and users of Photoshop from the start. And you made a lot of claims that really cannot be justified based on real world experience (but might seem right based on limited experience in one isolated industry).

You are entitled to your opinion that Nuke is a great UI. Please understand that your opinion is not shared by everyone (in fact, most would vehemently disagree with you).

You could have simply added your request here, and listed the reasons why you thought a node based UI was a good idea. That might have helped the case. Instead you continue to belittle developers and users with far more experience than yourself. Instead you chose to post "facts" which are not based on reality, but based on your own limited experience. And every time you chose to attack another facet of Photoshop, your exposed even more of your own inexperience.

You've already created a deep hole. You really should stop digging.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
No, I really am trying to explain your mistakes.

I never said there was no room for improvement in Photoshop - just that node based UIs are not an improvement, but a huge step backward in usability and performance. In some cases a Node based display might be a good idea to help people visualize more complex layer structures. But arbitrary graphs do not help understanding, and cause not only confusion for the user, but arbitrarily poor performance in applying the graph.

Just because you learned one niche application with a particular UI does not mean that UI is a good idea for everyone else. Nor does it mean that the UI is without major problems -- just that you are comfortable with that particular UI and don't understand more straightforward UIs. (and may not fully understand the UI you are using if you do not know it's shortcomings)

Your current claim is akin to something I heard (jokingly) from a British user: "I learned to drive on the left with a clutch, thus it must be superior and everyone else should be driving on the left with a clutch."

Limited experience and comfort with a particular approach does not make it better. And please understand that some people might have (long) experience using a variety of UIs and have spent some time studying the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches. When those people try to explain that your limited experience is clouding your judgement - you might want to listen.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
We do not tolerate profanity, trolling, off topic posts, or too many insults on these forums.

You keep crossing the line, and those posts are being removed.
If you continue to violate the rules, you will be banned from the forum.
Photo of Charles Taylor

Charles Taylor

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
You clearly do tolerate profanity, as you yourself used the term "bullsh*t" in one of your takedown reasonings...

My posts have all been on topic.

I apologize for anything you deem insulting. I really do. I just get het up about this stuff... I'm just passionate about UI design, and use PS a lot and get frustrated with it a lot.

And you don't seem to understand what trolling is. Trolling is posting for the primary purpose of inciting an emotional response or derailing the conversation. I sincerely believe I am not trolling.

This is my first post that has been off topic, and it's in direct response to your own off topic post.

I've said my piece, feel free to ban me now if that's your solution to people passionate about your product.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
We don't ban people or remove posts for being passionate.
But, again, you should review your posts -- several did cross the line.

And yes, I should not have used that particular word in the removal notice. I let my frustration with someone who wasn't constructively contributing to the discussion get the better of me.
Photo of sean looper

sean looper

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Chris, can you please provide links or references to the user studies you refer to? Also, are you attributing horrible performance to both tree graphs and arbitrary graphs, or just tree graphs, or just arbitrary graphs? Also, can you please define your use of the word "effectively"?

Thanks!
Photo of Joe Blogs

Joe Blogs

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Chris,
Its jaw dropping to see such a ridiculous opinion coming from a Photoshop employee!
Node based workflows (not only in compositing but also in 3d) are constantly used "effectively" in the VFX industry.
More and more software is try to become node based. In fact, this way of working is quickly becoming a standard.
Photoshops workflow is behind the times (and if your opinion is anything to go by) it doesn't look like it will catch up any time soon!
Photo of matthew white

matthew white

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
As an artist in the games industry I have to say that a Node based system would be a dream come true, working with Photoshop at the moment isn't a particularly trying process I must admit, there isn't much for me to complain about. However, node based systems can be extremely useful when attempting to work with something non-destructively, which is important in my line of work. I have to say that it's probably not something a great deal of people will find a use for, it's one of those things that a majority of people will simply glance over; you're hardly going to need a node based system to crop family photos or when doing digital paintings. However if you're working on textures it would be a very useful feature.

For example, using a node system for adjustments and filters on individual layers or groups would be useful, admittedly adjustment layers already exist essentially allowing you to do this already, however for filters there is no such option, why isn't there a real time sharpening layer? Or, if it were node based, you could simply plug a node into a layer or group that sharpens them, and in no time you have a completely non-destructive workflow which would aid in the iteration process.

Just my thoughts, a node based system would be a nice addition to Photoshop but by all means shouldn't replace the tree system that already exists, but rather run in parallel.
Photo of Charles Taylor

Charles Taylor

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I mean, if you're talking about making bad graphs, what's stopping me from using 400 smart filters on one layer? You can never protect the users from themselves.

In the real world, it's harder to get work done with PS than with a node-based program, because the interface makes no g*d*ed sense, and effects are sprinkled liberally through 20 different tool palettes, menus, and submenus.

And as I said, in real world experience, often PS's performance is so bad as to be literally 0 - no performance at all. I have never had Nuke not do what I needed it to.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
In the real world, more people (by far) are using Photoshop for VFX and compositing precisely because it is easier to use and understand.

You are confusing your lack of experience with ease of use. Just because you do not understand Photoshop's layer model does not mean that millions of other people have that same lack of understanding. To most people, Photoshop's UI makes quite a bit of sense, and Nuke's makes very little sense (especially with actual production graphs).

How many teenagers buy or pirate a copy of Nuke and start compositing immediately? How many do that with Photoshop? A rough estimate would put Photoshop ahead by at least 5 orders of magnitude. Why? Because Photoshop is easier to use and understand.

Nuke is useful for many things, but it is simply not designed for mainstream imaging, approachability, ease of learning, or ease of use.

And, again, something is wrong if you're seeing serious performance problems with Photoshop. Normally Photoshop is the benchmark for system performance because it is so highly optimized and stresses systems harder than most other applications.
Photo of Charles Taylor

Charles Taylor

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well, for matte painting, sure, but not VFX or compositing as I understand it. It's part of the process, but for its paint tools, not its comp tools.

I am actually quite experienced with PS. Its just not logically laid out.

To most people, PS is all the know. It's the industry leader through monopoly, not excellence. People don't use Nuke because it doesn't have the paint tools (which is one of the main selling points of PS), it doesn't have the marketing, and it doesn't have all the whiz-bang gadgets built-in. Also, it's specifically for motion work, while PS is specifically for still work (which is what 98% of people are looking for).

There's a lot of reasons why PS is in a dominant market position, but UI excellence is not one of them.

People like the UI because they know nothing else, not because it's the best way, or even the best possible implementation of the way it uses.

And, again - PS is the benchmark for system performance because of its monopoly status, and no other. Nobody cares how CorelPaint does on this chip or that, because nobody uses CorelPaint. Same with the GIMP.

PS's monopoly position has made the team complacent and highly resistant to much-needed change.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
Photoshop is used quite often for VFX and compositing. Much of the time it is used because it is easier and faster to use than more expensive niche products.

Photoshop has been used for movie work since 1988 (that's one of the reasons it exists - ask John Knoll).

Photoshop may not seem logical to you - but it seems far more logical to most users than Nuke.

You like Nuke's UI, because you are comfortable with it. That does not make it a great UI, just the one that you are most comfortable with.

Photoshop is a benchmark for performance because of it's high performance, as well as it's widespread usage. And that certainly doesn't come from our nearly non-existent marketing (honestly, Nuke probably has a larger marketing budget than we do).

Your inexperience is still clouding your judgement, and you are making more exaggerated claims without any basis in fact.
Photo of Charles Taylor

Charles Taylor

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Put your supervisor on.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.