https://cloudup.com/c5RmHN8t1QZ
https://cloudup.com/cmpmBEYg93c
Thats 27 different font sizes for ONE PAGE of a site. I bet most of this was done through scaling layers to 'fit' into spaces.
There were also 42 layers named some verson of <shape>-n.
I don't use psd comps myself, but I'd treat them as more sketches and guidelines as to actual style and placement, rather than some sort of specification document, because it's a different medium and text handling in ps is pretty basic - it's really not suited to extensive text layout.
For example, if I missed a border on an element or margin spacing between text areas this would be something I would be expected to fix. The designer would most likely point this out. Many designers I've worked with get very upset if you change anything in this regard without some sort of discussion.
The point you bring up about text handling is true as well, which is another reason that PS is not a great way to design for the web. AI might be a little better, but not by much.
I see why it'd be a pain for you, but feel like this process of handing over a supposedly pixel-perfect design is inherently broken - without collaboration the design will be dead as handed over - it should be changing constantly as you encounter difficulties, first in translation to templates, then in putting in content.
Specifying text sizes in a PSD is insane! It doesn't even have styles so I see why the designer hadn't bothered. I think I'd honestly prefer to receive a hand-drawn image with scribbles for the different text sizes.
There is always an adjustment period throughout development, however just a simple understanding of the medium would eliminate all but the toughest of these problems.
For as long as I've done this I have mostly worked with designers that started in print, have zero to very little experience in working with the web and do not care to learn.
It is not just the designers who hold blame here though as the instituions which employ them do not require anything more than they've done their whole careers.
Combine that with the fact that a lot of these designers are expected to design for both print and screen, it creates a situation where you cannot expect someone to know all of the nuances of both mediums. When this happens, things like declared text sizing is important in the PSD because thats how they set up their print files too. Everything is implicit.
Ideally, I try not to change the design if possible. However, unless the designer is very good, it does require lots of tweaking here and there, which introduces delays and compromises the vision for the finished product. If a designer has long since walked away, it can become a huge problem.
I would never accept a photoshop comp as a developer or send one as a designer and expect it to be reproduced exactly, because it's in the wrong medium, and it's a terrible way to specify things like text sizes or column widths except as a general indication. There has to be some give and take (and a lot of feedback) in a process going from something static and done without grids like a sketch (e.g. a psd or pencil sketch) to a final website, so what you describe in your feedback from the designer is a normal process I think and to be welcomed, it's inevitable in the translation to HTML. The design will change as it has content added and goes into templates, adaptations will have to be made, and the design must be flexible enough to deal with that, and your designer should be around to help with it - if they're not they're not doing their job properly.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that dealing with change is part of the job in design, and your designer should gracefully do so, in which case it is no problem if they gave you a vague psd - it should be vague at the early stage before implementation, because there will be changes, and additionally, html is just not a medium which allows us to specify layouts which are exactly the same in all conditions - browsers, text sizes, fonts, scripts, proxy servers mangling images, user stylesheets all affect layouts, so you have to accept that not all users will see content at exactly the same sizes or with the same fonts or even the images as you intended them (if they're on a mobile network, a proxy might have downsampled the images).
Some of the problems with deliverables is managing client expectations, they expect or have gotten used to seeing output of a PSD that counts as 'what their site will look like'. The creation of a PSD as a deliverable for the 'final design' is boilerplate for every agency I've ever worked with.
Responsive design has finally started nailing the coffin though; it becomes too cumbersome for designers to create renderings of different viewports, let alone understand the intricacies of how media queries work or how assets are delivered to different devices.
There has been a lot of creative thinking about deliverables (Style Tiles, Atomic Design) which is helping us get over the hump.
I would hazard a guess that most of the sites in the SMB space are either WordPress templates or custom designs that were then handed off to a service or an outside developer to make into functional websites. Sometimes, the developer doesn't get to see anything until the client has signed off on the design. I see this happening with large companies which do multiple millions of dollars a year in agency work.
Where we run into a problem is when a client hires a design firm, works with them for months on a new site or application look and feel, gets invested in it, pays the designer and maybe even starts development with a few days' overlap with the dev shop. Another example is when you deal with extremely low budget jobs (less than $1k), where you are simply trying to minimize hours spent on a project. I have done WordPress themes off good, clean PSD's only in less than 8 hours. I have also spent close to 80 hours on some where the PSD's were super detailed, but lacked any kind of direction. When the designer or the developer is not in-house, communication is key, but is often a place where costs are cut.