Black and White Landscape - special rules!

04/22/2010 03:24:05 PM · #77

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

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.

Interesting ... can SC confirm this is ok or not please?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/22/2010 03:25:28 PM · #78

Originally posted by atupdate:

In Paint Shop Pro (which is what Yo_Spiff uses I believe), adjustment layers don't have an opacity option. ...

Actually, adjustment layers DO have opacity in PSP. I just double-checked. :-)

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

04/22/2010 03:51:15 PM · #79

Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.

Interesting ... can SC confirm this is ok or not please?

Sure, but you're still essentially working on a single data layer. The background layer is only serving as a handy backup and does not change the working file. Any use of multiple layers containing data that affects the final entry is illegal in Basic.

LevT

OM System OM-1

04/22/2010 05:16:01 PM · #80

so Shannon, what is the rationale for not allowing to use multiple data layers (derived as copies of the same background layer) and blended "normally" with different opacities? I think it is exactly the same thing as using adjustment layers, just in certain cases more convenient. Can you give me an example of what I can do extra this way that i cannot do within the current ruleset?

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 18:12:09.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

04/22/2010 06:10:26 PM · #81

Originally posted by LevT:

so Shannon, what is the rationale for not allowing to use multiple data layers (derived as copies of the same background layer) and blended "normally" with different opacities?

That's a DPC tradition that pre-dates my membership, and probably exists for the sake of simplicity: no data layers is an easy rule to understand. I asked this morning why we couldn't just allow them in normal mode, so maybe someday we will.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

04/22/2010 06:48:30 PM · #82

Originally posted by atupdate:

In Paint Shop Pro (which is what Yo_Spiff uses I believe), adjustment layers don't have an opacity option.

Yes it does. Take another look at my screenshot. It's the slider in the layers palette that is set to 33%.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

04/22/2010 09:29:17 PM · #83

From all my reading the last thing said is Topaz Detail was undetermined in basic. Has it been tested at this point?

Never mind I reread.

Message edited by author 2010-04-22 21:56:40.

jomari

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

04/23/2010 01:18:58 AM · #84

What about FilterForge photo effects vibrance? Is it allowed in basic? (I know it isn't relevant to black and white.)

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 01:24:26.

atupdate

Pentax K-R

Promaster 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR IF

04/23/2010 08:12:57 AM · #85

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by atupdate:
In Paint Shop Pro (which is what Yo_Spiff uses I believe), adjustment layers don't have an opacity option.

Yes it does. Take another look at my screenshot. It's the slider in the layers palette that is set to 33%.

I see where I was mixed up. When you use the Adjustment Menu for actions like clarify or brightness/contrast, there is no opacity option. You can adjust the opacity when you do an adjustment layer. It's a pity that clarify isn't available as an adjustment layer. I have learned something new today.

Thanks

Yo_Spiff and

glad2badad.

Tim

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 08:13:48.

Hipychik

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/23/2010 09:00:52 AM · #86

I am really confused now. OK...I'm working in cs2, I want to add noise reduction for example. I can duplicate my bg layer and add noise reduction on the new layer, adjust the opacity and then flatten and this is legal?

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 09:08:06.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

04/23/2010 09:50:38 AM · #87

Originally posted by Hipychik:

Yes.

Hipychik

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/23/2010 09:58:29 AM · #88

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Hipychik:
I am really confused now. OK...I'm working in cs2, I want to add noise reduction for example. I can duplicate my bg layer and add noise reduction on the new layer, adjust the opacity and then flatten and this is legal?

Yes.

Thank you, Robert!

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/23/2010 10:04:08 AM · #89

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Ok... but then TECHNICALLY, when you save as a JPG or export as a JPG, it does the flatten behind the scenes. So why then would you actually flatten in the application, save, and then UNDO to return to your edit state?

There is absolutely no difference or gain to doing so. And really no way for the SC or anyone to know as you explain your edit steps, you don't send your PSD file.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

04/23/2010 10:09:44 AM · #90

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No -- you cannot "adjust the opacity" and blend the two layers.

In Basic, you can't do anything with a pixel-containing layer which have an effect different from if you were only applying the modification directly to the Background layer.

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 10:19:19.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

04/23/2010 10:21:06 AM · #91

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Hipychik:
I am really confused now. OK...I'm working in cs2, I want to add noise reduction for example. I can duplicate my bg layer and add noise reduction on the new layer, adjust the opacity and then flatten and this is legal?

Yes.

No -- you cannot "adjust the opacity" and blend the two layers.

In Basic, you can't do anything with a pixel-containing layer which have an effect different from if you were only applying the modification directly to the Background layer.

That's contradicting what's been said before, General. You can apply the effect directly to the BG layer and fade it with the edit menu, anyway. It is the same difference.

R.

brownsm

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/23/2010 10:29:13 AM · #92

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Hipychik:
I am really confused now. OK...I'm working in cs2, I want to add noise reduction for example. I can duplicate my bg layer and add noise reduction on the new layer, adjust the opacity and then flatten and this is legal?

Yes.

No -- you cannot "adjust the opacity" and blend the two layers.

In Basic, you can't do anything with a pixel-containing layer which have an effect different from if you were only applying the modification directly to the Background layer.

That's contradicting what's been said before, General. You can apply the effect directly to the BG layer and fade it with the edit menu, anyway. It is the same difference.

R.

I thought the problem with the workflow is the duplication of the background layer. This is illegal in basic, correct? Any layers must be adjustment layers, not data-containing ones. Adjusting opacity of an adjustment layer is legal, as long as the layer is in normal mode.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

04/23/2010 10:40:51 AM · #93

Originally posted by brownsm:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Hipychik:
I am really confused now. OK...I'm working in cs2, I want to add noise reduction for example. I can duplicate my bg layer and add noise reduction on the new layer, adjust the opacity and then flatten and this is legal?

Yes.

No -- you cannot "adjust the opacity" and blend the two layers.

In Basic, you can't do anything with a pixel-containing layer which have an effect different from if you were only applying the modification directly to the Background layer.

That's contradicting what's been said before, General. You can apply the effect directly to the BG layer and fade it with the edit menu, anyway. It is the same difference.

R.

I thought the problem with the workflow is the duplication of the background layer. This is illegal in basic, correct? Any layers must be adjustment layers, not data-containing ones. Adjusting opacity of an adjustment layer is legal, as long as the layer is in normal mode.

No it's already been confirmed, earlier in this thread by Scalvert, that it's ok to dupe the BG layer for the purpose of preserving it, and work on the dupe.

The issue here is the opacity thing. It's weird, because you can apply any legal effect to a layer and immediately go to edit>fade in the menu and mute the effect. You can create an adjustment layer and adjust that layer's opacity at any time you wish. But apparently at least some, if not all, of SC believe if you are working on a copy of the BG layer you can't fade the layer opacity before flattening.

This produces a real inconsistency, because if I want to do hue/saturation, for example, I can go to the adjust menu and apply it directly to the image, or I can do it as an adjustment layer. If I do it directly and use edit>fade I'm OK, and if I do it as an adjustment layer I can fade the layer at any time I want, no problem, but apparently if I do it directly on the duped BG layer I cannot, at the end, fade that layer to lesser opacity, even though this is absolutely the same thing as the other two, legal approaches, as far as the effect it has.

Not only does it make zero difference in output, they'd have no way of determining at what point in the process of fading was done, or indeed IF it was done, since bumping saturation, say, by 20% and then fading to 50% is exactly the same as bumping saturation by 10% in the first place.

They could be consistent and tell us there is to be NO changing of opacity of ANYTHING, ever, but it makes no sense, because the whole PURPOSE of this fading is so you can expeditiously make tiny adjustments to tweak output, and if the opacity/fading thing wasn't allowed the way around THAT would be to do a whole test image using opacity/fade to tweak, and making a written note of the final parameters, then starting over again with a fresh iteration of the image and applying only the tweaked parameters.

Which of course would be a silly thing to require...

R.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/23/2010 10:44:36 AM · #94

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... But apparently at least some, if not all, of SC believe if you are working on a copy of the BG layer you can't fade the layer opacity before flattening. ...

I'd LOVE to be able to work on a dupe bg layer and change the opacity (PSP doesn't have edit-->fade). :-)

Go Robert, go Robert!!!

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

04/23/2010 10:54:29 AM · #95

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Not only does it make zero difference in output, they'd have no way of determining at what point in the process of fading was done, or indeed IF it was done, since bumping saturation, say, by 20% and then fading to 50% is exactly the same as bumping saturation by 10% in the first place.

Correct. ;-)

elan_hakan17235

Canon T5 (1200d)

04/23/2010 11:32:22 AM · #96

Please forgive me for being dumb, but everyone's definition of Urban and Rural are different. I'm not sure if this is where I should ask this but what is the site's administrators definition of Urban and Rural? For me Urban means like umm The Hood, The Bronxs, and Rural means Small towns and country roads. Again please forgive me for sounding dumb. However in my defense I am surrounded by farm land and cattle and I ain't the most intelligent.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

04/23/2010 11:33:53 AM · #97

Farm land and cattle is perfect for rural. Go for it!

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/23/2010 11:43:25 AM · #98

Originally posted by elan_hakan17235:

Urban = City
Rural = Country
Suburbs = Gray Vanilla :)

I get lots of "landscape" shots sent to my POTD site and they are not (to me) landscapes at all because they are primarily a close-up of an item (barn, store, building, etc.) with very little "scape" behind them to set the scene and give the image context.

Adams' photo of Multnomah Falls with the bridge is a great landscape because while there are distinct subjects in them, they are shown in context. A close up of the bridge itself would be very cool, but not a landscape (IMO). Likewise the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge is not a landscape. A shot of the bridge, bay, city lights, etc... urban landscape.