dong_pn's profile

20 Messages

 • 

394 Points

Sun, Mar 4, 2012 4:04 AM

Photoshop: node based editing

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.

Responses

20 Messages

 • 

394 Points

10 y ago

I wish photoshop add node mode!

20 Messages

 • 

394 Points

10 y ago

I wish Photoshop add a node mode.!

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

10 y ago

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)

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

You have clearly not used a node-based program. Every serious image editing software for motion (Nuke, Fusion, Flame) offers node-based image editing for one simple reason: it is more powerful and easier to use.

Is the initial learning curve steeper? Yes. But the eventual speed and power is much, much greater.

Horrible performance? You sir, are clearly not acquainted with Photoshop, the de facto standard for horrible performance when it comes to image editing. Try to apply a lens blur to an 8000x10000px file - go ahead. I'll still be here in 4-5 hours when Photoshop finally craps out and runs out of memory. Nuke would do that operation in moments, all the while providing real-time updates of its progress.

And there's more to performance than just CPU cycles: look at this case study.

I apply a blur, do a selection, apply another blur to the selection, do some painting, and then decide I want to change the first blur. Oops. In Photoshop, you have to undo everything up to the point of the change you want to make in order to change something (I realize you're adding adjustment layers, which are an inelegant solution at best, and apply to a very small subset of PS's features).

In a node-based program, every operation you've ever done is always available for adjustment. That's performance. That's productivity.

If you really think that node-based systems confuse even the people who use them every day, you really need to talk to someone who works in VFX. Every single serious VFX program uses nodes, and people do amazing, amazing work with them.

So, your responses to this question are just plain wrong, as I have clearly shown.

This is an issue worthy of immediate implementation (as Photoshop is about 10 years overdue for a complete backend re-write and UI overhaul anyway, you can do it at the same time).

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Yes, I have -- I've been using them for over 25 years. And I've read the UI studies, and talked to users, and they all support the conclusion that node based editing is much harder to use. It can be more flexible in some cases (which can also get you into trouble).

I am well acquainted with Photoshop - the standard for high performance on the desktop. The same Photoshop that hardware makers use to stress test their systems because it has higher throughput than almost everything else available.

Just because you don't have the experience does not mean that the people writing the software lack experience.

No, you have not shown that my answers are wrong, just that your experience is limited.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

If it's harder to use, why is it used in the most demanding of image-processing fields - VFX? Why is it used in programs for which speed and power are worth paying $150,000, like Flame?

In my experience, NOT using a node-based system gets you into more trouble - when everything is explicitly laid out on the graph, it's easy to see what's happening and how to do what you want. In a layer-based program like PS, it's impossible to get an overview of your image setup, and you have to constantly reverse-engineer the assumptions that went into the program in order to make it do what you want.

And Photoshop isn't the standard for high performance on the desktop - it's just the only horse in the race with a marketing budget. Therefore it's the only app that gets attention in hardware tests. Like I said - try a lens blur on a largish image - PS just crashes. It's slow, hogs RAM like nobody's business, and can't work with large images. Hardly the standard of high performance...

But in any case, I would be interested to see the studies you're talking about - could you link to them?

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Why are they only used in high end VFX tools, and not in consumer applications? Um, probably because they're incredibly difficult to use, but flexible, if you take a lot of time to learn to use them correctly.

You can easily see what is happening in Photoshop -- the layers palette is a tree graph, no reverse engineering required. And all but the most trivial node based graphs are much more difficult to decipher (except maybe for the person who created them).

LOL. You really are stretching your credibility, especially by harping on a single filter. Photoshop uses as much RAM as it needs for your image and the operations you tell it to do. And most Photoshop operations run at the limit of your RAM's speed (and some at your GPU's speed).

Can you not see that your rants here are working against your goal of getting node based editing in Photoshop? You would have been far better off just asking and pointing out why you like node based editing.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

LOL? Does your boss know what a dickbag you are on the forums? Your original response was arrogant, and set the tone for an unproductive discussion.

Can you not see that just as much as I'm a Nuke fanboy, you're a PS fanboy who can't admit that the interface for PS is a joke? Why is the fill tool under Edit? Why is Smart Fill, one of the most lauded new features in recent years hidden in a button in a dialog box? Why is the paint bucket in the toolbox, then?

An interface that clearly lays out every feature in a logical and predictable way, like Nuke does, is far preferable to the dogs breakfast of putting things here and there.

Not to mention the reluctance Adobe has shown to include things like smart filters that have been around in programs like Shake and Flame for something like 20 years, and the difficulty of editing selections, making changes to past filter decisions... And the fact that now, more than twenty years after PS came out, Adobe STILL doesn't know what an alpha channel is!

It goes on and on. People come here, offer legitimate, constructive feature ideas, and then support it with examples of how other toolsets do things better than PS, and your reaction is to be sarcastic, belittle them personally, and make the same kind of rants you're accusing me of making.

I admit I could have handled all of this better, but I'm doing this on my free time because I legitimately would like to see a better PS. You're (presumably) being paid for this, and should show a little more decorum. Even if we get a little rant-y sometimes, people wouldn't be here if they didn't want to help.

1 Message

 • 

84 Points

9 y ago

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!

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Node-based gives more power to the user (more user friendly).

Node-based can be just as fast (and, in my experience, Nuke is faster than Photoshop, so the idea that it can't be optimized is just bullcrap).

And the studies he's referring to exist only in his mind.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

The fact that no reply has been made to you (and that mine was deleted) says a lot.

2 Messages

 • 

110 Points

9 y ago

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!

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

It's really sad, but Adobe just doesn't care about making a quality product. Since they have no competition, there's no reason to do anything but slap on a feature or two and call it a "new version".

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

The fact that no reply has been made to you (and that mine was deleted) says a lot.

1 Message

 • 

100 Points

9 y ago

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.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Smart Filters have existed for several versions now.

Sharpening is an area operation, which cannot be done as a "filter layer" without serious performance problems on larger images (we tried anyway, and it was worse than expected). Adding more area operations would make things much, much worse (somewhere between geometrically and exponentially worse).

Node based editing does not change the math - just the UI. You might get a proxy result quickly in some cases, but that doesn't prevent you from getting the same horrible performance you'd get from layer based editing.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Smart filters don't do what node-based editing does, and they don't offer the same control. I've used them, they don't. One of the huge benefits of node-based control is the way everything can connect to everything else - you can re-use nodes and layers in complex ways that are labour-intensive or simply impossible in a layer-based program. They're admittedly an improvement over the way PS used to work, but they are nowhere near the power and flexibility that is possible.

Sharpening, blurring, and - in fact - every single operation can be done as a "filter layer" in programs like Nuke. It works fine, so it seems that it can be done (even if your engineers don't know how to do it). And Photoshop can't handle large images in any case, so I don't see how performance on large images is an issue (like I said, try to do a lens blur on an 8000x10000px image - not a ridiculous size by any means. I just tried this on Mac OS 10.6 with 8GB of RAM, and it wouldn't complete due to out-of-memory).

And you're right - I'm conflating two things here, and for that I apologize. Programs like Nuke use scanline-based rendering which handle large images way, way better than Photoshop does (I have opened single-layer images in the dozens of gigabyte range, something Photoshop chokes on) and support Areas of Interest and Proxy quality (to easily preview processor-intensive effects over either a small area, or at lower quality). Because node-based apps typically work this way, I tend to associate the two things, but you're right - they're not the same.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Smart Filters offer re-editability for filters, which is your stated primary goal.

Connecting to everything is also one of the greatest weaknesses of node based editors - because you can construct graphs of arbitrary complexity (and cycles).

Photoshop can easily handle images up to 300,000 pixels by 300,000 pixels. (though most people don't have the RAM to make those work quickly) And we'd like to go larger - but current disk systems are kind of slow at moving terabytes of data.
Not all plugins will work on images that large, because different plugins have different buffer requirements (and something like Lens Blur has some complex requirements).

Photoshop does not choke on large images, but your system may not have the RAM or disk speed to handle those large images.

Nuke's scanline approach is quite a bit slower than a tile based approach for image processing unless you are doing simple 1:1 color adjustments or fills.

Yes, Nuke does offer "filter layer" like nodes - just not very quickly, and the complexity grows unreasonable very quickly as I already stated.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Re-editability was a specific use case, not a stated primary goal. There are many advantages of node-based systems, and they implement this better than smart filters or adjustment layers.

Flexibility is not a weakness, it is a strength.

Well, I beg to differ on the choking issue. If one app can perform a function on a certain image on a certain system, and another one can't, I would say the second app has choked. Not being able to execute a function - or executing it absurdly slowly - is choking in my book. Maybe you have a different definition.

It's all well and good if things are dandy on a system with an SSD raid and 64GB of RAM, but the rest of us live in the real world.

Your theories about why node-based apps don't work sound fine in principle, but the fact is that in the real world, they work better - plain and simple.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Flexibility to create bad graphs is a problem, not a strength.

In the real world, Photoshop outperforms Nuke all the time.

And I'm not talking about theories, but facts, long experience, and mathematical certainty.

18 Messages

 • 

278 Points

8 y ago

This is just laughable, but not really that surprising. Node based imaging tools are used in the VFX industry because they're the best tools for the job. Shake, Nuke, Eddie Fusion all came to the movie industry well after Photoshop had firmly established. They were developed because there was a need for them that Photoshop couldn't or wouldn't fill. Photoshop, as it stands, can't handle the huge amounts of data movies need and it doesn't shoehorn into workflows and pipelines well. The way it handles mattes is dubious at best.

Chris's observations quite simply belie what I've see on an almost daily basis during almost 35 years of working in high end TV & movie VFX and animation. Node based image editing programmes have been the tools of choice for high end VFX compositors for many years and with good reason

Chris has a reputation for belligerently arguing that black is white with people who really do know what they're talking about and for removing perfectly reasonable comments here on these forums simply because he disagrees with them. It's a continuous cause of frustration.

I fully expect him to have this post removed too. I'll just repost if you do, Chris; you shouldn't censor your customers' opinions the way you do, it's bad for them and it's bad for your product.

18 Messages

 • 

278 Points

8 y ago

This is just laughable, but not really that surprising. Node based imaging tools are used in the VFX industry because they're the best tools for the job. Shake, Nuke, Eddie Fusion all came to the movie industry well after Photoshop had firmly established. They were developed because there was a need for them that Photoshop couldn't or wouldn't fill. Photoshop, as it stands, can't handle the huge amounts of data movies need and it doesn't shoehorn into workflows and pipelines well.

Chris's observations quite simply belie what I've see on an almost daily basis during almost 35 years of working in high end TV & movie VFX and animation.

Chris has a reputation for belligerently arguing that black is white with people who really do know what they're talking about and for removing perfectly reasonable comments here on these forums simply because he disagrees with them. It's a continuous cause of frustration.

17 Messages

 • 

150 Points

8 y ago

Congrats, Chris, on removing posts that point out how poorly you're moderating the forum, and how wrong you are on this topic.

Thanks for contributing.