> >(maybe) is to be able to record sequences of actions (to get from the > >source file to the result) rather than the pro > > True, Photoshop actions could be saved, but you'd still have to find > and load the JPG, find and load the actions, use them, then save the > TIF and take it to the printer, etc. Oopps ... I meant to delete that (incomplete) tail to my message because I could not be arsed to take the time to complete it. I wasn't thinking of Photoshop Actions - I was thinking of real life actions, like a decent macro recorder. Imagine (for sake of comparison) an analogy with Microsoft office products. Instead of a PSD file being just an image it is part of an "Image Project". As part of that project you can embed as many code modules as you like - for a very small overhead. Unlike the PS Actions they would not be separate files but part of the project. Starting from your single source file they could record / reproduce the steps (all of them) needed to end up as a 300-400 web jpeg on the one hand and a cropped version ready for print on the other. There could be almost no need to have more than one version of the raw data. Obviously, the approach might have difficulties with cloning-in, at least from another image, as the cloned-in pixels would need to be stored somewhere. That would increase file size - as each sweep of the clone tool would need be stored as a separate image segment. Oh well, maybe it's impossible. Certainly though: the "sequence of events" needed to go to print, to jpeg, to thumbnail etc could easily be properties/methods of the image itself rather than held separately in an actions file. As I said: poorly thought out - I meant not to send it ;o) Bob
