Applying Actions to File Browser Selections

This should be in feature requests.

oops! you're so right-- it should be in a different forum. what should I do? Repost it to the other newsgroup or is that done automatically?

Well, it's to late for you to edit it so, you can either wait for a moderator to move it or repost in the feature request thread.

You can do this. See this thread:
YrbkMgr "File names with sequential numbering" 9/2/03 7:03pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.2ccd3783/0>

if I could just select the images I want to process in the File Browser,
click the action, and press the "play" button.




Use File|Automate|Batch and for SOURCE select "Browser", and your selected files will have the action performed on them.

Both of these are excellent solutions.

However, I'm still curious what would be wrong with just having actions perform on the selected File Browser images (as long as there are no open images) rather than having to go through the dialog. It would simplify the workflow considerably, especially if you're going to apply many different actions to the same images. the advantage to NOT having to go through the batch dialog is that you could vary the order in which you apply the actions.

there is precedent for this: if you use the ^O accelerator to open a file, it opens the files selected in the File Browser rather than bring up the Open dialog (which is what I'd rather it do).

It would simplify the workflow considerably, especially if you're going
to apply many different actions to the same images.




I'm not sure I see the advantage. The batch dialog does exactly what you are saying when you choose "browser" as your source. Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but it seems to me that the feature you are requesting exists.

In my experience of automation (which is considerable) folks trying to automate a process should evalutate the difference between "can it be automated" v. "can it be automated this way".

If there's a specific reason for the this way, cool. But in this case I see it as you may view the batch dialog an unnecessary step for the way you work. Bear in mind though that that dialog allows automation in a variety of scenarios, including the one you're asking for.

So from a programing perspective the question becomes (from Adobe for example) "Do we build redundancy in the code or do we let the batch dialog, which is already built to handle it suffice?"

I'm not trying to be argumentative, rather, it's a long winded way to say, I'm not sure I see the advantage of doing it the way you are asking it to be done, except, perhaps, you don't want the extra step of File|Automate|Batch after your images are selected.

<shrug>

Peace,
Tony

In my experience of automation (which is considerable) folks trying to
automate a process should evalutate the difference between "can it be
automated" v. "can it be automated this way".





If there's a specific reason for the this way, cool. But in this case
I see it as you may view the batch dialog an unnecessary step for the
way you work.




In the abstract, my rationale is this: if a particular Button Push (ie., pressing the "play" button on an action) would otherwise do absolutely nothing because there is no open image, then it seems to me to be a valid candidate for being useful in some other way. In this case, why not have it perform its action on those images selected in the File Browser (assuming its open)? It doesn't interfere with any other behavior, it's unambiguous, and it accelerates workflow efficiency. If you think it could cause some confusion, add the necessity of having the Ctrl or Shift key so as to indicate to the user that he intentionally knows what he's doing.

Arguing against having any given feature in PS because it can be done some other way is fine, so long as that other way doesn't interfere with productivity. One can do the exact same thing in many different ways in PS, but this reducdancy is a good thing because different types of workflows involve different types of efficient behaviors. Choosing whether to implement any given feature shouldn't be judged solely on whether any given suggestion can be done in a different way; other considerations have to be taken into account. The points about time-efficiency and non-interference with other behaviors being two valid considerations.

For my particular use, the reason this is important is because I deal with thousands of photographs at a time, and preparing them for upload to my website involves a huge amount of manual labor that is only partially simplified by the use of Actions. To prepare my images for my website (after typical photo-retouching is done), many actions can only be applied to images on a case-by-case basis by visual inspection. This inspection results in "groups" of images that are dealt with en-masse within the same directory. So, for example, to add keywords to specific images, such as "horizontal" or "vertical", it involves having an action that applies a pre-programmed "File Info" dialog that adds those keywords to manually selected images in the File Browser. To apply the visible copyright symbol on the bottom left, or the top-right, or centered, again, images have to visually examined and selected before actions applied.

The point is for efficiency's sake, the process of applying an arbitrarily large set of actions, in arbitrary order, to an arbitrarily large set of images, time consumption can grow exponentially large if I have to resort to the Batch dialog each time, when a simpler, more convenient method is available: I want to have the file browser up, quickly rifle through the images by selecting the ones I want, click the action's "play" button, and move on to the next set of images/action pairs.

Having levels of meta-actions, and then different groups of the same things, but ordered differently, all for the sake of having to accommodate the "Batch" dialog's ability to only apply ONE action at a time makes this process mind-numbing and horribly time-wasting.

Having Actions apply to the selected images in a File Browser alleviates this mess in one swell foop.

Well, I understand your rationale completely. I process 1,500-3,000 images a day, seven days a week, and haven't had a vacation in two years <grin>. Our entire process is automated using actions.
I use the batch dialog. It does exactly what you are asking.

if a particular Button Push (ie., pressing the "play" button on an action)
would otherwise do absolutely nothing because there is no open image,
then it seems to me to be a valid candidate for being useful in some other
way.




It is - the the batch dialog.

I dunno, I won't argue further, I just don't see ANY utility to what you propose. The batch dialog does it, does it better, there is a small degree of error trapping built in, and it's orders of magnitude more powerful.

To me, it's like saying "I don't want to use the image size dialog box because I don't use 90% of the controls that are in that dialog box."

You speak of efficiency; the batch dialog is infinately more efficient than playing directly from the browser.

You select images in the browser and you choose BROWSER as the Source. It's the same thing that you are asking for - exactly. Well, the ONLY difference is you choose a menu item to run your action (in this case, File|Automate|Batch).

You want to rotate some images but not all? Select them in the browser - then File|Automate|Batch. Easy as that.

You want to add copyright to some but not all images? Select them in the browser - then File|Automate|Batch. Easy as that.

My point is, and I'll make it again, that functionality already exists - you CAN play actions directly from your browser selections - you just don't want to use the Batch dialog to do it - for the life of me I cannot see why.

To each his own, I just don't see the utility.

Peace,
Tony