Layers - DPChallenge Forums

01/14/2005 12:16:39 PM · #1

I am a very patient person. But this stupid layers thing is driving me nuts!!!!!! PS Elements is the hardest editing program I have ever tried to learn. I've just about given up!!! It's like they expect you do know it before you even use it.

01/14/2005 12:21:35 PM · #2

Originally posted by jpochard:

What in particular are you having difficulty using layers for?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/14/2005 12:28:31 PM · #3

Everything. I don't understand them at all. I've tried the help menu probably 20 times since I bought it and it confuses me every time.

Okay..I think I understand that layers will enable me to change one aspect of a photo without messing with the rest of it. So somehow I assume I create a new "layer" and make the change. Say I make 3 layers changing 3 different areas of the photo.

So then how do I put them all together, and how do I tell it which section from which layer I want to have used? For instance, for a portrait say I change eyes in one layer, hair in another layer, and skin tone in a third layer. Now, when I put them all together (assuming I'll EVER figure that one out) how do I make it so the eyes from layer one, the hair from layer two and the skin in layer three are the one's that come together? Won't the hair from layer one overide the "correct" hair from layer two or something like that?

I'm sorry ...I put this in rant because it's obvious that I am very frustrated. I am the kind of person who never has problems following directions so it's driving me nuts! :)

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

01/14/2005 12:54:56 PM · #4

Originally posted by jpochard:

I'm not experienced with elements so this may all be wrong, but...

Imagine it like layers of paper. You have the 3 layers (edited for eyes hair skin). The one on the top (eyes) is gonna cover up everything but you only want the eyes to show, so the easiest thing to do is this: Select the eyes, invert selection, press delete. Now only the eyes will be there from that layer. Do the same with the middle layer (hair). Don't do anything to the bottom layer. It will show the whole photo just with eyes on a different layer and hair on a different layer.

If you are having trouble with the concept, try using real pieces of paper and scissors to figure out what you need to cut out from each layer, to enable everything you want to be shown to be shown.

01/14/2005 12:59:17 PM · #5

Ok, take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, exhale slowly. :)

It's actually easier than you think. Let's try looking at this in a way that may be more familiar.

In its most simple form think of layers as transparencies. Remember having to do school reports with them back in our day? Before monitors and video, the teacher would bring out the overhead projector and you would dutifully get in front of class with your stack of transparencies and give a presentation. It's the same thing. If you had a graph on one transparency and text on another you could stack them so they displayed at the same time with the caveat that solid areas block out everything underneath them and transparent areas show what's underneath. This is exactly what layers do.

In your particular example there are a multitude of ways to accomplish your goal. You always start with the image as the background. This is default when PS opens an image for you. It sounds like you've duplicated this layer to work on specific elements. Correct? Hair, eyes, etc... You've done the editing that you want but now what you want to do is have the changed portion of each layer visible. What you need to do is "mask out" the areas you want to be transparent.

Select a layer and click on the icon at the bottom of the layers palette that looks like a box with a circle in it. This adds a layer mask. This allows you to paint in the areas you do and do not want to be seen. After clicking a white box will appear in the selected layer in the layer palatte. You can now use a paint brush on the main image to tell PS what should and should not be seen. Painting in black tells PS to hide that portion of the image. Painting in white tells it to show that part of the image.

Play with this a minute and see if it starts to become more clear.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/14/2005 01:03:37 PM · #6

Originally posted by Konador:

I see we had similar ideas about how to visualize what was going on. While deleting does get the job done it is often better to mask rather than delete. Masking gives you the added flexibility to come back and make easy changes if at a later point you decided you want to take a different editing path rather than having to try and recreated the steps you previously performed on deleted areas.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

01/14/2005 01:05:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by Konador:
I'm not experienced with elements so this may all be wrong, but...

Imagine it like layers of paper. You have the 3 layers (edited for eyes hair skin). The one on the top (eyes) is gonna cover up everything but you only want the eyes to show, so the easiest thing to do is this: Select the eyes, invert selection, press delete. Now only the eyes will be there from that layer. Do the same with the middle layer (hair). Don't do anything to the bottom layer. It will show the whole photo just with eyes on a different layer and hair on a different layer.

If you are having trouble with the concept, try using real pieces of paper and scissors to figure out what you need to cut out from each layer, to enable everything you want to be shown to be shown.

I see we had similar ideas about how to visualize what was going on. While deleting does get the job done it is often better to mask rather than delete. Masking gives you the added flexibility to come back and make easy changes if at a later point you decided you want to take a different editing path rather than having to try and recreated the steps you previously performed on deleted areas.

I wasnt sure if masks were available in elements :) Also it's harder to describe masks in a simple way. It took me ages to actually understand what they are for :P Another bonus of masks is you can use mid-greys to partially delete with different opacities etc. You can apply all sorts of brush effects and filters to them too which looks cool sometimes :)

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2005 01:09:49 PM · #8

Masks are available for adjustment layers in Elements, I'm unsure about layers with pixel content...

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

01/14/2005 01:32:34 PM · #9

Okay...now the next question is this: can't you simply select an area on ONE layer and change whatever, then select another area to change, etc. without hassling with additional layers? What is the benefit of doing each change in a different layer if you just have to make the selection anyway? Why not just do it all on the same one?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

01/14/2005 01:34:59 PM · #10

Even though I'm not the op, thanks very much to Technoshroom and Konador for those very clear explanations. They helped me as well. One thing to add about layer masks is that they will probably increase the file size enormously and so if storage on your computer is an issue, then deleting the parts of the layers that you don't want may be more desireable.

Also, I think the op may also be asking is how to combine the different layers once all editing has been done. From my understanding, that would be accomplished with the flatten image or merge commands...Can you expound on those? Thanks.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2005 01:38:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by jpochard:

It comes in very handy if down the road you realize there may have been a better way to do your editing.

For example, if you want to slightly change the hue and then increase the contrast it would be best to do so on two layers. That way, if you later decide that you want to increase the saturation a little bit before changing the hue you can still do so.

Otherwise, you'll be stuck with the increased contrast and you'll have to increase the saturation at that level of contrast. You're basically 'stuck'...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/14/2005 01:43:03 PM · #12

Thanks everyone for the replies. I haven't had a chance to see if I can do anything with the suggestions yet. It SOUNDS clearer, so that's a start!

Now I get to go do therapy :) We're tearing apart our bathroom to remodel, so I'm going to go sledgehammer a wall and that should be most theraputic!

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

01/14/2005 01:45:37 PM · #13

Originally posted by jpochard:

Don't forget your safety glasses!

Message edited by author 2005-01-14 13:46:45.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/14/2005 01:50:51 PM · #14

Merge layers (merge down) combines the active/selected layer with the one immediately below it.

Flatten image combines all layers (including adjustment layers) into a single Background layer.

You want to edit different parts of the image on separate layers so if you mess something up you don't undo all of you previous work. You can select a small area to work on (e.g. the eyes) and copy/paste them onto a new layer, then you don't have to delete/mask all the rest of that layer; makes the file's data size smaller too.

Message edited by author 2005-01-14 13:51:45.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2005 01:57:17 PM · #15

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Also, I think the op may also be asking is how to combine the different layers once all editing has been done. From my understanding, that would be accomplished with the flatten image or merge commands...Can you expound on those? Thanks.

Not much to expand upon. Yes, you can reduce the number of layers by flattening or merging. I never do. About all I do is group the adjustments into sets so I can quickly turn them on and off for before and after views. Space isn't an issue for me. I'd rather go buy another or bigger hard drive. I keep all my psd files as works in progress. Quite a few I've gone back to and said, what was I thinking?!? Then I'll go and edit them to my current taste/desire.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

01/14/2005 02:04:38 PM · #16

Open question: How many layers does your average photo have, assuming the exposure was technically 'correct' and it was taken with a range of less than 6 stops?

Usually, I only have about 5...my layers will look like this (help me if my work flow should be ordered differently):

Duplicate USM layer - Dodge/Burn (sometimes)
Duplicate background layer - USM (if necessary)
Hue/Saturation
Contrast/Brightness
Levels
Channel Mixer (if converting to black&white)
Background

I don't have curves and some other things, so that would add a few...I still feel like I should have more layers and work a little harder in post-processing. I look forward to seeing your responses...

Message edited by author 2005-01-14 14:05:46.

01/14/2005 02:14:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Open question: How many layers does your average photo have, assuming the exposure was technically 'correct' and it was taken with a range of less than 6 stops?

Hmm.. well, I have much fewer layers on photos used here than I do for photos used for other things. In the current open challenge my image has three. The background, Curves, and Selective Color. I generally don't save a layer where I apply sharpening. The sharpening is done on the final sized file.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/14/2005 02:27:26 PM · #18

Originally posted by Marjo:

Originally posted by jpochard:
Thanks everyone for the replies. I haven't had a chance to see if I can do anything with the suggestions yet. It SOUNDS clearer, so that's a start!

Now I get to go do therapy :) We're tearing apart our bathroom to remodel, so I'm going to go sledgehammer a wall and that should be most theraputic!

Don't forget your safety glasses!

LOL...see today's PAD!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/14/2005 02:35:17 PM · #19

Pochard,

Have you ever seen a set of animation "cels" from the old disney studios? Someone would paint a background, then arists would paint the figures on transparent layers. Imagine a series of 10 frames where nothing moves except Daisy Duck winks; They'd make an overlay of Daisy over the BG, then an overlay of the open eye on top of that. Shoot. Remove eye, add eye befinning to wink. Shoot. Remove eye, add furthr extension of wink. Shoot. Frame-by-frame, exposing movie film, toi produce animation.

That's what layers are. Every time you do somethign new, make a new layer to do it on. Then you can turn your layers on and off, seeing the effect of these changes. And you can drag them up and down to layer them in a different order, and you can discard them if they are no longer needed.

Each layer in the layers dialogue box has an opacity slider; you can select the layer you want active and make it more or less transparent.

Here's what I want you to do; take any picture, open it in photoshop. Then go to layers menu and select "new layer from background". It will be "background copy 1" when it is created. Do this two more times, so you have 3 new layers. Click the eye icon on the top 2 layers in layers dialogue box so they are invisible. Now on backround copy 1 use image/adjustments/hue saturation" and make it dramatically oversaturated.

See how you now can see only the overstaurated version? Now use the opacity slider and set it to 25% opacity; see how now it looks less-oversaturated? The background layer is showing through.

Now make Background copy 2 visible; see how it completely hides the oversaturation effect? That's because it's opaque, and on top of that other layer. Now use the rectangular marquee tool to select a rectangle in the center of that layer. Then use cntrl-alt-I to invert the selection (or do it from the "select" menu) and hit delete; you've removed all the information on that layer except the rectangle; the oversaturated version shows everywhere except where the rectangle is.

Now make the 3rd duplicate layer visible; see how once again it all looks like when it started? Now make sure the rectangular selection is gone (hit cntrl-D or use the selection menu) and go to filters/blur and select gaussian blur. Blur the bejaysus out of it, make it really soupy. Then go to layer pacity and make opacity like 10%. See, a little bit of softening...

That's how layers work.

In practice, instead of making new layers from background every time, we'll copy the top layer on the stack, so we're working with the most recent one each time. usually. Also, instead of making adjustments ON a layer, we'll go to layers/new adjustment layer/levels (or curves, or brightness/contrast, or hue/saturation, whatever) and we'll get a nice little dialogue box that allows us to make the adjustmnent on a layer above the base one on whcih we are working. So we can turn those on and off, fade them, and MAKE FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS AS WE GO on that particular mode.

This is way less complicated than it sounds.

If you like I can send you an annotated photoshop file with all layers and selections intact, so you can view it and see how it was constructed, and playw ith it. But the file will be in excess of 5 megabytes, so you need to be able to get such a large file in your mailbox.

Robt.

N.B. everyone; this is NOT describing an ideal workflow; the examples of the 3 extra layers above was somethign pochard could easily emulate to get a feel for how layers interact. No need for anyone to tell me there's a "better" way, that comes later when the basics are nailed.

01/14/2005 06:59:25 PM · #20

~sigh~ Well, I didn't get very far. I got the background and the 3 layers (I think). I found the eye icons and clicked on the ones for layers 3 and 2. Clicked on layer 1 to work on it.

It keeps telling me I can't change the saturation or hue because "no pixels are selected." I've tried it with the "select - all" command as well as the rectangular selection box.

Help!

01/14/2005 07:11:19 PM · #21

Okay..apparently I'm not making the layers right because I'm doing a photo of a flag, and my "layers" only show a grey and white checkerboard pattern.

I opened the file, then chose "Layer" "New" "Layer from Background"
A little box opens up that says that this is Layer "0" (I guess giving me a chance to rename if I want.)

I don't have a clue what to do after that, so I went back up and clicked on "Layer" again...then "New", but the option has now changed to "Background from Layer"

I can't even get the stinkin' layers, much less figure out what to do with them. LOL

01/14/2005 07:13:09 PM · #22

A new layer is by default empty/transparent. That's what the white and grey checkerboard pattern is telling you.

01/14/2005 07:30:55 PM · #23

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

A new layer is by default empty/transparent. That's what the white and grey checkerboard pattern is telling you.

So how do I get something in there to work on? (as directed by bear-music?) I feel SO stupid! :p But I am persistent if nothing else and very determined!

01/14/2005 07:35:54 PM · #24

You open an image not a new blank document.