| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2005 01:02:27 PM · #1 |
| 'Levels' is probably the most widely used (or abused) command of Photoshop. I prefer to use this command in small steps, in successive layers. Then I compare the results by switching off/on the layers. Is it the right technique? Please comment. |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 01:04:29 PM · #2 |
A good idea. Working in adjustment layers gives you the ability to always go back to your raw image (background) and to continuously tweak any adjustments you've made along the way, as well as to fade in and out their intensity (opacity) or to choose different blending methods.
Photoshop is a very deep well. |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 01:14:01 PM · #3 |
I use levels as an adjustment layer (always) and overcook it slightly then fade the layer (usually). Then I set up a curves adjustment layer (levels to set the dark and bright ends, curves to tweak the grays) and fiddle with fading and/or mode adjusting on both layers to get what I want.
I do these on top of a duplicate layer from background, and a lot of the time when I have it looking right I merge levels and curves into the duplicate layer, rename the file "filename_flat" and start over from there with that as a basepoint for fine-tuning the rest of the image. Usually do all this before any colors adjustments...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 01:43:02 PM · #4 |
I've found that the more and more layers I tack on (usually they are just tiny incremental changes), the more apt I am to have multiple adjustment layers.
The concept of an adjustment layer is "non-destructive editing", so you could add 10 of them, bounce back and forth between several variations, all the while leaving your source image in it's original form.
I prefer to do this with sharpening, as well. Duplicate your layer and conduct Unsharp Mask. You can modify the opacity of this layer, which causes the unmodified source to show thru. This, in effect, gives you an "Unsharp Mask adjustment layer", and the ability to "undo" your sharpening later on simply by deleting that layer. |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 01:48:38 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by aboutimage:
I've found that the more and more layers I tack on (usually they are just tiny incremental changes), the more apt I am to have multiple adjustment layers.
The concept of an adjustment layer is "non-destructive editing", so you could add 10 of them, bounce back and forth between several variations, all the while leaving your source image in it's original form.
I prefer to do this with sharpening, as well. Duplicate your layer and conduct Unsharp Mask. You can modify the opacity of this layer, which causes the unmodified source to show thru. This, in effect, gives you an "Unsharp Mask adjustment layer", and the ability to "undo" your sharpening later on simply by deleting that layer. |
Yup Yup. Do that as a matter of course, I do. NOTHING touches my original layer, NOTHING.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 01:56:59 PM · #6 |
so do you guys have your history set to non liniear? I find it confusing and sometimes I wish I could turn one edit off & leave another alone
my computer gets veeery slow when I make layers but I do use them, just try to keep it at a minimum... |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 02:04:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
so do you guys have your history set to non liniear? I find it confusing and sometimes I wish I could turn one edit off & leave another alone
my computer gets veeery slow when I make layers but I do use them, just try to keep it at a minimum... |
Actually, I'm not sure what that means. Non linear? I'll have to look that up. Dang Photoshop. As soon as you think you know just about everything about it, someone brings up a feature you never even heard of...
But to answer your question about the layers, most of my images (for challenges and my portfolio) end up having probably close to 10-15 layers. Most of them make extremely small changes, and most of them are adjustment layers and carry no actual pixel information.
My machine is not the world's fastest. It's an Athlon XP 2800 with 1.5GB RAM. I'm starting to think I need more RAM. |
|
|
|
08/07/2005 08:32:42 AM · #8 |
Another question here (without wasting one thread).
Does it make a difference if we flatten image, or if we merge down all the layers. |
|
|
|
08/07/2005 08:46:01 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kbhatia1967:
Another question here (without wasting one thread).
Does it make a difference if we flatten image, or if we merge down all the layers. |
Sometimes, yes. There are certain kinds of layer effects that don't merge into each other properly. This is particularly true when one of the two layers being merged is set to less than 100% opacity. If you are "merging down" be sure to WATCH the image as you do it, and undo the change if it had a negative effect.
There's a third option, "merge visible"; you can turn off visibility on certain layers, combine all the rest, and then reactivate the invisible ones and they're back in the mix.
You can also "link" layers to each other, which keeps groups of layers in the same linear relationship to each other. You might do this if you had, say, 3 main selection areas defined (sky, subject, and everything else, say) and for each selection you had both a levels adjustment layer and a hue/sat adjustment layer, for example; by linking a BG copy layer to the 6 adjustment layers, you'd effectively have a "merged copy" of these 7 layers but each adjustment layer would be available for fine tuning. This is important because the ORDER in which layers are stacked can dramatically alter things.
I've never heard of non-linear history before. I'll see if it exists in 7.0, LOL. That would be nice.
Robt.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 09:54:20 AM EDT.
