Preserved Topic: Shapes.. (Page 1 of 1)

What is really the deal with "Shapes" in PS 6?
It creates some clipping path but how does it work?

A bit confused how to use it here.. :?

ahhhh, vector shapes.

::clap, clap::
"good answer, good answer"

- Family Feud

or for a more personal touch...

:: clap, clap.... cough::

fuckers. i don't see any of you offering better answers.

flyer; as far as i know (and i don't use ps6 for several reasons), it uses the shapes as clipping masks to maintain their vector format in a raster environment. that way, no matter how you size said-shape, it maintains it's clarity and purpose.

there, better?

:: cough ::

(nickname=twItch)(realname=steve)(email=steve@th-inknet.com)(chatname=8520632)(minutiae= whatthefuck)

shapes?.... well isnt it a tool with which one can make shapes?... what you do with the shapes is upto you! I guess for selections or conversions to paths, for filling, masking, etc etc... I dont really understand your question?

There are two lovely things about shapes, both of which twitch touched on but didn't elaborate on. Because they are vector as opposed to raster, they print to the printer's resolution. In the world of image setters, that means they just won't get jaggy no matter what, because they rip to the maximum resolution of the device, just as type does in something like Illustrator or Freehand or Quark or Pagemaker.

They also remain editable, and can be reshaped with path-like tools. With previous versions, you could make and save a path, turn it into a selection and fill that selecton with a color or gradient. But if you wanted to tweak that shape you'd have to modify the path and then do the fill thing all over again. And you wouldn't have the vector printing benefits. And they can take layer styles that update dynamically as the shape is modified.. Killer!

That being said, I confess I haven't actually used one yet for a real job! But the technology of mixing vector with raster is pretty awesome.

You can also make your own shapes. Just use the pen tool to make your shape, and save it as a shape. Then, you can use and re-use it to your hearts content in any of your work. It will be in the shapes menu from that moment on...

steve, you bitch, i was being mysterious. how dare you give "meaning" to my posts. gad. there's only one thing i hate more than people that are consistently nice, polite, and correct about what they say; me.

The "shapes" are simply paths that are clipping paths of a layer filled with whatever foreground color you had set when you created your shape. One minor detail someone omitted...



www.netmosis.com - we're on the leading edge of a false reality...

netmosis: just a note about terminology. This is one of the rare instances I'm aware of where Adobe appears to use the same term to mean different things. For every version of PS I've used prior to 6.x, a clipping path was a very specific thing: it was a special path named and saved with the file in TIFF or EPS format, ad defined as a clipping path. A file can only have one clipping path. This special sort of path allows a graphic artist to place the file in Quark or PageMaker, rendering the background of the image transparent. There is no other way to do this. Page Layout software isn't aware of "transparency", because Postscript isn't. So if you have silhouetted a wine bottle in Photoshop with the pen tool and saved that path as a clippng path, you can bring it into Quark, put it on a colored or textured background, wrap type, whatever, and the bottle appears without whatever background it had in the original shot. Make sense?

Then Photoshop 6 appears with it's new vector shapes and suddenly there's this term "clipping path" applied to something new. As I understand it, this new feature is effectively the same as a layer mask, except it is a vector shape insted of an alpha channel, can be re-shaped with pen-type tools, and prints to the output device's resolution. So the potential for confusion has been bumped up.

I just say all this because it is not entirely "simple", and we have to be very precise in our use of terms where the potential for confusion is as great as it is here. And unless you work extensively in print, you might not be as sensitized to the issue.

And twItch: if you wish to remain mysterious, you may continue to post whilst wearing your Harry Potter cap. But since Photoshop is by nature mysterious I really think the black mask and cape are an affectation.



hah!

them photoshop developers...they love to fuck with the minds of hopeless consumers...i stand corrected...i just wanted to point out the fact that the shapes clip an entire layer filled with color...not just that they are paths filled with color...



www.netmosis.com - we're on the leading edge of a false reality...

Steve: I may be out of line on this because I don't have PS 6.0, but from your description of Shapes it sounds as if they are just paths. I also know that a clipping path is just a path that has been selected to be the clipping path for the image. Now it may be that Adobe has generalized the term clipping path when they refer to the path created by any shape, but, I don't think that is new. It seems to me I have seen that kind of "sloppiness" used in their documentation before when referring to paths.

What am I missing here? Isn't a shape just a path that can be used like any other path (including as a clipping pat if you want)?

Not exactly. A shapes layer is filled with a solid color as netmosis observed, "clipped" to a shape with a path which is bound to that layer in the same way a layer mask is bound to a specific layer. You don't see the shapes path show up in the paths palette; however, it can be worked with in that layer with pen type tools.

The shape path is closely analogous to a layer mask except that it can be reshaped, and can rip with "resolution independent" vector characteristics.

OK. I see the difference. You're right. It sounds as if Adobe has use the same term for two completely different things.

Thanks for the explanation.