order of adjustment layers - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2007 05:20:59 PM · #26

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by nards656:
By the way, does anyone know how to mask adjustment layers in Paint Shop Pro????

OOPS, off topic... sorry.

The mask is inbuilt into the adjustment layer. Simply choose your white or black paint and paint straight onto the image.

If you place your cursor over your adjustment layer on your layer palette and thumbnail will come up showing you the mask and the alterations you have made to that layer mask.

Hope that helps.

That helps a LOT!!!! Wow, thanks, Judi.

some tricks to add:

- you can also use gray in every tone to make nuances.
- when you click the channels, you can click the bottom channel of the layermask and then you can see where you have been painting the mask.

LevT

OM System OM-1

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

01/17/2007 05:26:30 PM · #27

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by BradP:

For instance, I'll do Layer, New layer via copy, then make adjustments on the new layer, like add film grain, then go to the eraser tool and erase back areas I didn't want changed, then flatten, Then new layer via copy again, and say use the marquis tool to select the eyes, make changes to shadow/highlights, levels, contrast, etc, then erase back around them to restore the areas I didn't want changed, then flatten again. It's kinda' like using layer masks from what I understand of them, just my way of doing it, and think it's probably a bit more precise.

Why would you say it is more precise this way? Like I mentioned below, that is the way I had been working, but what bothered me most about it (besides that there were all these things in PS that I didn't know how to use) is that the end results seemed less precise when compared to other people's pictures.

exactly. erasing parts of a layer is 100% equivalent to painting black on the (initially white) mask, with the important difference that you can paint and re-paint this mask over and over again at any time in your processing workflow without affecting subsequent steps, whereas after Brad has flattened his two layers and went ahead, there is no way back rather than undo all subsequent changes. Being able to fine-tune your work makes it more precise, all other factors being equal.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

01/17/2007 05:27:16 PM · #28

Originally posted by ursula:

Maybe it's precise for him? If I understand it right his is a more destructive oriented workflow but there's nothing wrong with it if you produce what you want in the end. More like working without a net basically. If you're really just making corrective edits and tonal adjustments either way works fine.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

01/17/2007 05:42:49 PM · #29

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by BradP:

For instance, I'll do Layer, New layer via copy, then make adjustments on the new layer, like add film grain, then go to the eraser tool and erase back areas I didn't want changed, then flatten, Then new layer via copy again, and say use the marquis tool to select the eyes, make changes to shadow/highlights, levels, contrast, etc, then erase back around them to restore the areas I didn't want changed, then flatten again. It's kinda' like using layer masks from what I understand of them, just my way of doing it, and think it's probably a bit more precise.

Why would you say it is more precise this way? Like I mentioned below, that is the way I had been working, but what bothered me most about it (besides that there were all these things in PS that I didn't know how to use) is that the end results seemed less precise when compared to other people's pictures.

I'm not putting down what you said, but I would like to know why.

Maybe it's precise for him? If I understand it right his is a more destructive oriented workflow but there's nothing wrong with it if you produce what you want in the end. More like working without a net basically. If you're really just making corrective edits and tonal adjustments either way works fine.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with his workflow. What I've been wondering for a while is, why is it that given the same camera, similar light conditions (more or less), same lens, same (or almost the same) settings, some people's images look so much "smoother" than other people's images ("smoother" as in overall looking better, more put together, creamier colours, richer textures, all that stuff). A lot of it is composition and all that, but when it comes to post-processing some methods seem to give better results than others.

The way Brad describes his workflow is what I was doing, and I wasn't happy with it. It felt to me that I was affecting too many things I didn't want to affect when trying to make a change. Does that make sense? I think (at this time) that I'm figuring out how to make these changes in ways that they will affect only those areas that I'd like to affect.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/17/2007 05:50:02 PM · #30

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by BradP:
I never have more than one at a time...

Yeah, right.

If you know exactly what you want todo alot of post processing can be done using only the background or in some cases a second layer. Second layers make recoloring B/W easier but you dont have to use layers for the majority of basic editing challenges if you dont want to.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

01/17/2007 06:16:35 PM · #31

Originally posted by ursula:

It's hard to imagine you having trouble producing smooth images but if you are having some problems it's probably something more specific than the chosen workflow. Maybe post some problem photos and have others including Brad have a crack at it?

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

01/17/2007 06:37:50 PM · #32

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by ursula:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with his workflow. What I've been wondering for a while is, why is it that given the same camera, similar light conditions (more or less), same lens, same (or almost the same) settings, some people's images look so much "smoother" than other people's images ("smoother" as in overall looking better, more put together, creamier colours, richer textures, all that stuff). A lot of it is composition and all that, but when it comes to post-processing some methods seem to give better results than others.

The way Brad describes his workflow is what I was doing, and I wasn't happy with it. It felt to me that I was affecting too many things I didn't want to affect when trying to make a change. Does that make sense? I think (at this time) that I'm figuring out how to make these changes in ways that they will affect only those areas that I'd like to affect.

It's hard to imagine you having trouble producing smooth images but if you are having some problems it's probably something more specific than the chosen workflow. Maybe post some problem photos and have others including Brad have a crack at it?

That's a scary thought! :)
I'll have to think about this. I usually do not like it at all if anyone else touches one of my pictures. I'm very particular that way. I'm not sure why, but I think it has to do with different people's vision for a scene or take; it rarely seems to match my own, and then, I have to go around saying, "Oh, that's a wonderful way to look at it!" and so on, when in reality I'm thinking, "Bummer, that sure is not what I had in mind."

I'll have to think about it. :)

[edited spelling]

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 18:40:21.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

01/17/2007 06:55:16 PM · #33

Ok, tried to figure out what I meant by precision and here is the best way I could:

This is a 100% view of a section of a picture.

Step 1:
I did a new layer via copy, then selected an oval around her eye, going way outside of it. I did levels, adjust, options and let it use the default 0.5 in the Shadows & Highlight boxes and clicked ok, then deselected to rid the screen of the marching ants. That brightened up the whole area selected. While still in the layer, I selected a soft-edge eraser brush, 100%opacity, 100% flow, zoomed in a bit and erased all around the eye, eventually dropping down a size in brush as I got closer to the edge of the eye, and obviously only did half of it to show the change. That left the whites and Iris brighter and closer to reality. Flattened layers.

Step 2:
New layer via copy again, elliptical marquee tool again, selecting the Iris. Image adjustments brightness & contrast to give her Iris a touch more punch and color. Again deselected, an erased slowly up to the edge, again only doing half of it to show changes. Flattened layers.

Step 3:
This was just for shits & giggles, actually, but again did a new layer via copy, selected the right half of the screen and dropped levels down to add some warmth to her skin, then deselected. Using first a large, soft-edged eraser, did the large spot on the bottom, then a smaller on for the midle, then a sharp-edged brush for the top one. Then zoomed way in and erased the area around her eyelash, but not the eyelash itself. Sometimes this requires a 1-3 pixel brush and the smaller it gets, opacity needs to be adjusted down and done in smaller increments to not leave a sharp division line. This is the precision I was referring to. By using the eraser, precision can be brought down to the 1 pixel level, which I know a layer mask can't. Larger, soft-edge eraser brushes can be used to feather in a change for a more natural look, or be exacting when using the sharp-edged brush.

I know, it's anal.
That's me. I may not be able to take great pics, but have learned how to fix them anyway.

Oh and Ursula,

Originally posted by ursula:

For what little bit it's worth, to me you have lots of ribbons.

Thanks - means more than the real ones.

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 19:07:52.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/17/2007 07:08:42 PM · #34

I been sleeping all afternoon and missed this. To add my 2 bits worth:

"The Myth of Brad" : He says he doesn't use layers, but it isn't really true. As he pointed out himself. He duplicates the layer, makes changes on the duplicate layer, then merges it with the base layer when he is happy with the changes. I'd call this "non destructive single-step" editing; he can always toss the current duplicate layer and get back to where he was when he started it.

Now, this works for Brad, and indeed it would work for anyone who knew what they were doing, but it's not a very good approach to Photoshop editing because it basically eliminates one of the great benefits of Photoshop â�� that when you have finished working on a properly-layered-and-masked document and save it, you have an entire workflow preserved so you can go back to it at any point and tweak it in any way you wish. Not only that, but you can pull individual adjustment layers off of it and drag them onto new documents, where they will copy themselves and apply their effects.

So, for example, if you went shooting in the high desert and got a bunch of similar shots, you might process one of them to perfection, then open others up one-by-one and drag all your global adjustment layers over to each successive image, giving you a much more advanced baseline on which to begin work on each individual image. That's just ONE reason to use layers and preserve them, as much as possible.

Going back to the Myth of Brad, he really DOES use layers, lots of them, he just collapses them when he is done with each step. He can no longer easily revert to an earlier state. Let's take, for example, an image that needs a little dodging and burning. Brad (if I understand him correctly) will duplicate the current state of his image on a new layer, then use dodge and burn tools directly on that duplicate layer. Then he will merge the finished product into the base layer, duplicate the composite to a new layer, and work on from there with his next effect.

Now, one thing he CAN do with this is fade the opacity of the new layer before merging it down, muting the effect of his dodging and burning. Unfortunately, he can't change the layer mode out of "normal" because the layer is global, it has everything in it. But the layer modes are EXTREMELY useful in altering the effects of what you have done. Anyway... A more normal workflow would be to create a new, empty layer in "overlay" mode, specify a neutral mask color (50% gray in this case), and go to work on this overlay layer with black and white paintbrushes. Functionally it works about the same as dodging and burning; that is to say, the image you are working on looks exactly the same, and you use the brushes in exactly the same way you would use the D&B tools, changing their size & opacity & how much they are feathered, but the difference here is that all this is happening on a mask, not on the actual image â�� so it is completely reversible and/or adjustable at any point in your workflow or in the future, as long as the layer remains intact. Not only that, but you can also START work with the layer set at, say, 75% opacity: now you can increase or decrease the amount of the effect to be applied simply by sliding the layer opacity pointer up or down.

When I am working with complex relationships between dodge & burn, which is relatively seldom, I will use two separate overlay layers, one for dodging and one for burning, so that I can alter the relationship between those two easily via layer opacity. I will sometimes create overlay layers with area masks (selections) included in them, so I can mask out the parts of the image I don 't want my adjustments to affect; this makes it very easy to do the burning or dodging without bleeding over. Then I can load that mask as an inverted selection, create a new overlay layer, and work on the inverse of what I just did; then I can vary the opacities of the two layers to show each to best advantage.

All of this sounds very complicated, but it really isn't. It's actually less complicated, or at least less stressful, than the duplicate-adjust-flatten-duplicate-adjust-flatten cycle used by people who have not started to explore layers and masks in Photoshop. Cntrl-shift-N creates a new layer, drop-down box sets layer mode, check box sets neutral mask color, and OK creates the layer. If you want to be using several of them, choose "duplicate layer" before you start working and clone off some blank copies to hold in reserve; you can always drag them to the trash if you don't use them.

R.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

01/17/2007 07:10:23 PM · #35

Flattenign after each adjustment is atleast 99% of not 100% the same as apply the adjustment directly to the image itself. One fo the nice things about layers is you can go back and readjust just that adjustment if your going to flatten after every single layer is done you mind as well not use layers at all.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/17/2007 07:10:59 PM · #36

double posted so i delted it

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 19:13:12.

LevT

OM System OM-1

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

01/17/2007 07:14:54 PM · #37

Originally posted by BradP:

Then zoomed way in and erased the area around her eyelash, but not the eyelash itself. Sometimes this requires a 1-3 pixel brush and the smaller it gets, opacity needs to be adjusted down and done in smaller increments to not leave a sharp division line. This is the precision I was referring to. By using the eraser, precision can be brought down to the 1 pixel level, which I know a layer mask can't.

Brad, this is not true. You can paint black on the layer mask with any brush size and type, just as you can use any brush size and type for erasing pixels. The same effect, the same precision, but totally reversible.

walrus451

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/17/2007 07:16:34 PM · #38

I'm definately not an expert, but rather than flatten after each adjustment, you can just "stamp visible" ....shift + ctrl + alt + e
sorry, I meant stamp visible....

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 19:23:30.

01/17/2007 07:23:23 PM · #39

Originally posted by walrus451:

I'm definately not an expert, but rather than flatten after each adjustment, you can just "merge visible" ....shift + ctrl + alt + e

That's how I'd do it: duplicate base layer, make base layer invisible, duplicate the duplicate to work on, the merge visible between steps. IF I was working like Brad. This would always leave an untouched base layer for comparison.

R.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

01/17/2007 07:24:46 PM · #40

Originally posted by LevT:

Originally posted by BradP:
Then zoomed way in and erased the area around her eyelash, but not the eyelash itself. Sometimes this requires a 1-3 pixel brush and the smaller it gets, opacity needs to be adjusted down and done in smaller increments to not leave a sharp division line. This is the precision I was referring to. By using the eraser, precision can be brought down to the 1 pixel level, which I know a layer mask can't.

Brad, this is not true. You can paint black on the layer mask with any brush size and type, just as you can use any brush size and type for erasing pixels. The same effect, the same precision, but totally reversible.

What Lev said: you can't GET any more precise than using a layer mask, it goes all the way down to the pixel level. Plus it's completely reversible and can also be fiddled with at any point in the workflow.

R.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/17/2007 07:25:22 PM · #41

Told ya I'm basically PS-challenged and haven't a clue.
Sounds like you mythed me Robert.

01/17/2007 07:32:06 PM · #42

Originally posted by BradP:

Told ya I'm basically PS-challenged and haven't a clue.
Sounds like you mythed me Robert.

I myth you more than you'll ever know, Brad ;-)

R.

01/17/2007 07:47:33 PM · #43

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'd call this "non destructive single-step" editing; he can always toss the current duplicate layer and get back to where he was when he started it.

True but that was already a given if he simply keeps his RAW/JPGs from the camera. As you go on to say he can't go back to specific editing steps because of his workflow therefore it's destructive in nature.

01/17/2007 07:54:06 PM · #44

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd call this "non destructive single-step" editing; he can always toss the current duplicate layer and get back to where he was when he started it.

True but that was already a given if he simply keeps his RAW/JPGs from the camera. As you go on to say he can't go back to specific editing steps because of his workflow therefore it's destructive in nature.

An interesting sidelight: none of us have mentioned "snapshots", which are easy to make and allow reverting to each stage in an image's development at any time, until you close the image anyway. Assuming you bother to make them. You can set preferences to create a snapshot every time yous ave the document.

Snapshots can be used to define the source state for the history brush, btw: so you can finish work on state 12, set state 10 as your history state, and use the history brush at low opacity to reveal elements of state 10 in the state 12 layer...

R.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/17/2007 07:58:03 PM · #45

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd call this "non destructive single-step" editing; he can always toss the current duplicate layer and get back to where he was when he started it.

True but that was already a given if he simply keeps his RAW/JPGs from the camera. As you go on to say he can't go back to specific editing steps because of his workflow therefore it's destructive in nature.

An interesting sidelight: none of us have mentioned "snapshots", which are easy to make and allow reverting to each stage in an image's development at any time, until you close the image anyway. Assuming you bother to make them. You can set preferences to create a snapshot every time yous ave the document.

Snapshots can be used to define the source state for the history brush, btw: so you can finish work on state 12, set state 10 as your history state, and use the history brush at low opacity to reveal elements of state 10 in the state 12 layer...

R.

Good point but if you are going to use that to "preserve" an older state you might as well just duplicate your layers and create a group folder out of it that way you don't have bunches of windows open in PS.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/17/2007 08:05:27 PM · #46

Originally posted by yanko:

A snapshot doesn't produce any extra windows.