Black and White Landscape - special rules!

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/22/2010 01:21:52 PM · #51

Originally posted by Tammster:

I always do my edits on separate layers. If I do a shadows/highlights adjustment, or USM or noise reduction (or something like that without it's own adjustment layer), I like to do each on a separate layer so I can reduce opacity, if I need to.

You can in advanced, but not in basic.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/22/2010 01:27:39 PM · #52

Originally posted by Tammster:

Wow, I've been editing wrong all year then (it's my 1 year anniversary this week!).

I always do my edits on separate layers. If I do a shadows/highlights adjustment, or USM or noise reduction (or something like that without it's own adjustment layer), I like to do each on a separate layer so I can reduce opacity, if I need to.

Thanks guys, I guess I was just lucky all year.

In the future, you can do those adjustments and then use the FADE option to fade the effect (reduce its impact) which is the same as the opacity. But it is then permanently applied.

I suppose you could do like you're doing, THEN go back and reapply all those layers to the main photo with the settings you've determined work. But you'd have to make sure you did :)

04/22/2010 01:30:59 PM · #53

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Can you fade specific adjustments? I never used that before... I'll try it tonight. Thanks.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/22/2010 01:39:59 PM · #54

Originally posted by Tammster:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In the future, you can do those adjustments and then use the FADE option to fade the effect (reduce its impact) which is the same as the opacity. But it is then permanently applied.

I suppose you could do like you're doing, THEN go back and reapply all those layers to the main photo with the settings you've determined work. But you'd have to make sure you did :)

Can you fade specific adjustments? I never used that before... I'll try it tonight. Thanks.

You have to fade them right after you apply them and it is allowed in basic.

04/22/2010 02:07:45 PM · #55

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

You have to fade them right after you apply them and it is allowed in basic.

Thanks so much. Sounds like this would save a lot of space on my hard drive!

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/22/2010 02:08:59 PM · #56

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Originally posted by Tammster:
I always do my edits on separate layers. If I do a shadows/highlights adjustment, or USM or noise reduction (or something like that without it's own adjustment layer), I like to do each on a separate layer so I can reduce opacity, if I need to.

You can in advanced, but not in basic.

Is this correct? I thought as long as the mode is normal the opacity doesn't have to be 100% in basic.

04/22/2010 02:15:09 PM · #57

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Originally posted by Tammster:
I always do my edits on separate layers. If I do a shadows/highlights adjustment, or USM or noise reduction (or something like that without it's own adjustment layer), I like to do each on a separate layer so I can reduce opacity, if I need to.

You can in advanced, but not in basic.

Is this correct? I thought as long as the mode is normal the opacity doesn't have to be 100% in basic.

The only layers allowed in basic are adjustment layers, with no pixels. What Tamm has been doing is duping the BG layer and doing "destructive" editing on that, then fading it. Technically this is not allowed in basic editing. The opacity isn't the issue. It's ok to fade opacity on any (legal) layer.

Now, I believe SC has ruled that if we dupe the BG layer for purposes of destructive editing, then merge it back down to a single layer when finished, this does not violate the spirit of the rules. It's just required that this be done ONLY in normal mode, that's important.

R.

salmiakki

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/22/2010 02:21:06 PM · #58

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Sorry, my post was in response to the doing it on separate layers bit, not on the opacity issue. I guess that was not clear. Sorry.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/22/2010 02:21:07 PM · #59

Thanks

Bear_Music. I obviously didn't read what

Tammster wrote properly. I won't bother to find out about the second part because I've never worked that way anyway.

04/22/2010 02:21:15 PM · #60

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now, I believe SC has ruled that if we dupe the BG layer for purposes of destructive editing, then merge it back down to a single layer when finished, this does not violate the spirit of the rules. It's just required that this be done ONLY in normal mode, that's important.
R.

Hmmm, I'm very confused about the spirit of the rules now. So you're saying that I can have many non-adjustment layers (made by merging/duplicating layers) - as long as they're in normal mode - and do my adjustments to them, as long as at the end they end up as one merged layer? Well, I have been doing that because before I shrink the file down I always flatten (after I save the psd).

04/22/2010 02:29:44 PM · #61

Originally posted by Tammster:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I believe SC has ruled that if we dupe the BG layer for purposes of destructive editing, then merge it back down to a single layer when finished, this does not violate the spirit of the rules. It's just required that this be done ONLY in normal mode, that's important.
R.

Hmmm, I'm very confused about the spirit of the rules now. So you're saying that I can have many non-adjustment layers (made by merging/duplicating layers) - as long as they're in normal mode - and do my adjustments to them, as long as at the end they end up as one merged layer? Well, I have been doing that because before I shrink the file down I always flatten (after I save the psd).

I'm not 100% sure of that, but I seem to recall that's where they got to. But let me be a little clearer; I think the idea was that you'd do these one-at-a-time, merging down after each adjustment, so there'd only ever be one extra pixel-bearing layer at a time. If you do it the way you're discussing, then by adjusting the various opacities of the different layers, and by changing their stacking order, you could make significant subtle changes to the finished product and this would NOT be in the spirit of the basic editing rules.

But, on the other side of the coin, it's silly, and against best practices, to REQUIRE photographers to do all their destructive editing on the base layer, with no safety net, so for some time now SC has allowed the duping of the base layer before doing this destructive work. Or at least so I understand it, and that makes a lot of sense. Is it correspondingly "legal" to stack multiple, pixel-containing layers and just flatten when saving for web? I'm not so sure it is, and that's not how I do it; I follow the steps above any time I need to do destructive editing, like shadow/highlight or Topaz, in basic: dupe the BG, apply the edit, then flatten immediately. If I have to do something destructive a little further on, I'll dupe it again, as above.

R.

Yo_Spiff

04/22/2010 02:30:12 PM · #62

Originally posted by Tammster:

I think what is meant is that you can do two things with layers under basic rules:
-Adjustment layers
-A duplicate layer for the express purpose of preserving your original image without changes. This way you can compare the original and edit, or easily revert to the original version. No masking, erasing, blending, or opacity changes allowed. No other sneaky layer trick either.

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 14:31:22.

04/22/2010 02:32:10 PM · #63

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

I think what is meant is that you can do two things with layers under basic rules:
-Adjustment layers
-A duplicate layer for the express purpose of preserving your original image without changes. This way you can compare the original and edit. No masking, erasing, blending, or opacity changes allowed. No other sneaky layer trick either.

No, the opacity change part is OK. Or so I believe. The rest is spot on, much more succinct than my long-winded discussion :-)

R.

Yo_Spiff

04/22/2010 02:32:52 PM · #64

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No, the opacity change part is OK. Or so I believe. The rest is spot on, much more succinct than my long-winded discussion :-)

R.

I think I will have to re-read the rules.

salmiakki

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/22/2010 02:34:22 PM · #65

Interesting stuff, although you would have to be an avid reader of the forum to know that, for the rules are actually quite clear and certainly make no mention of that technique.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/22/2010 02:37:50 PM · #66

I was of the understanding that duplicate layers were not allowed and only adjustment layers with universal application are legal. I can't think of something you do universally that could not be done with an adjustment layer. But that's how I've been doing it, which in all probability is incorrect. I've also just made any adjustments to the base image. After converting from RAW the original RAW is preserved anyway.

04/22/2010 02:42:26 PM · #67

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Interesting stuff, although you would have to be an avid reader of the forum to know that, for the rules are actually quite clear and certainly make no mention of that technique.

I agree. I am curious how they would know if this is done (whether only one bg "dupe" is done at a time or if multiple layers are copied and then flattened at the end). Does PS save all of these edits? I actually did separate layers almost because I thought SC could follow what I did easier if it was on a separate layer. Unless history is saved (I dont' think it is) how do they know what was done??

I'm not complaining either way. I just want to do what's right. I can certainly be flexible and change my editing techniques.

By the way... hypothetically speaking of course... how far back could they go to attempt a dq?

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/22/2010 02:43:50 PM · #68

Originally posted by bohemka:

I can't think of something you do universally that could not be done with an adjustment layer.

Specifically, Photoshop's shadow/highlight. It has always been legal in basic editing, and at least through CS3 it is an adjustment but not available as an adjustment layer. So we've had to use it "destructively" on a pixel-containing layer. Also specifically, Gaussian blur; which likewise always has been legal in basic editing, but must be done on a pixel-containing layer. Again specifically, noise reduction, which must be done on a pixel-containing layer, and the addition of noise (legal in basic), ditto. Those come to mind off the top of my head.

R.

bohemka

Nikon D700

04/22/2010 02:45:36 PM · #69

Thanks for that breakdown, Bear_Music. I guess I haven't looked that deeply into it because I've done any noise reduction, etc., on the base image, without adding layers.

LevT

OM System OM-1

04/22/2010 02:47:21 PM · #70

Originally posted by bohemka:

I think you are correct (except for there are a couple of things you can do globally on a data layer and not on an adjustment layer, Shadows/Highlight being the most important). We had a similar discussion in our private DPL thread. While copying background layer and working on it amounts to basically the same thing as using adjustment layers, it certainly violates the letter of the rules as they are stated. Still, I find this particular rule meaningless and (in agreement with Robert) bad practice, so I would be happy if that rule was lifted. I don't think it would change the spirit of the basic ruleset in any significant way.

Yo_Spiff

04/22/2010 02:56:30 PM · #71

Ok, I need a clarification, as I would have thought the following would be illegal under basic:

Original image:

Create HSL layer and and change hue:

Reduce opacity of HSL layer to 33% in NORMAL MODE:

04/22/2010 02:58:04 PM · #72

Originally posted by bohemka:

Thanks for that breakdown, Bear_Music. I guess I haven't looked that deeply into it because I've done any noise reduction, etc., on the base image, without adding layers.

Here's the thing of it:

1. You can do your noise reduction on the BG image, look at it and decide it is too strong, go to history, backtrack to pre noise-reduction, and start all over again; after several attempts, hypothetically, you get it right.

2. You can do your noise reduction on the BG image, look at it and decide it's too strong, go to "edit>fade noise reduction", slide the slider 'til it looks right, and be done with it. But that's only available until you've touched some other adjustment, INCLUDING magnifying glass, so if you make the NR, then blow up a portion of the image to closely examine the effect, you can't fade it.

3. You can dupe the BG image, do the NR on the dupe, then fade the layer opacity at will, anytime. This is best practice.

As far as I know, this is tacitly accepted now. I am quite sure that SC addressed this issue sometime int he last 18 months and opined that the creation of a single dupe layer of the BG layer, for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the BG layer, was acceptable.

R.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/22/2010 03:01:29 PM · #73

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Ok, I need a clarification, as I would have thought the following would be illegal under basic...

Why would you think that? Seems perfectly kosher to me. Never been a proscription against changing the opacity of adjustment layers that I am aware of.

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/22/2010 03:19:33 PM · #74

Bear, I recall that same discussion where the SC did clarify that you can duplicate the bg layer for the purpose of using it as a backgound layer. I believe this came up in the Nik Silver Pro thread that Deb? started a while back. I'm on my iPhone so it's hard to search. Anyway th result was Nik app was legal in basic so long as the u-points and selective burning tools and vignettes weren't used

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 15:22:01.

glad2badad