A problem keeps coming up. When working with an image with several layers, I'll want to do something -- most recently adding a layer with catchlights -- but the layer structure either:
1) won't let my change through to be visible (e.g., if I do it at the bottom off a duplicate bg layer); or
2) blocks other changes I've made (if I put it higher or on top of the stack).
In all my PS reading, I don't recall a basic explanation of how/why layers interact with each other. Are there rules of thumb about what layers to do first, or what order works best?
You can't stack opaque layers on top of each other and see anything more than the one on top. What you could do (e.g., for the catchlight layer) is add a new empty layer and then put only the catchlights onto it.
Let's make that Blending Options, Layer Masking, and transparency. If it's something "weird seeming" or something seems to have dissappeared, it's likely your blending options -- I still goof that and go WTF? sometimes.
Oh, I thought Transparency was something different. Lowering the opacity doesn't help my issue, because I'd also be doing it to the changes I want. Yes, Layer palette open -- man, it would be impossible to work otherwise ...
Oops, transparency and opacity are pretty much equal to me, kind of like that associative property in math. To tell you the truth, despite thousands of hours in the pig, I just don't pay that much attention to the name above the slider when I use it all the time...Anyway, anyone else want to add to the layer-involved tools in PS without getting into locking them or the darn slide thingy I use when making animated GIFS. PS is like 6 dimensional now, and it's easy to get confused even when you've been using it forever...
Posting a screen shot of your layers palette would be helpful for sorting out your problem.
With masking the base layer of your image is always the bottom layer. Put what you want to blend on top of it then alt/opt + click the [0] (add mask) icon to add a black bitmap mask to the new layer which will totally block it. Note the foreground color must be set to black to do this. Now just take the eraser tool and erase the mask to blend in what is revealed in the top layer into the one below.
If just trying to add catchlights artificially with a brush just create a new transparent layer, drag it to the top, then use a white brush to paint in.
Brooke Clyde wrote:
A problem keeps coming up. When working with an image with several layers, I'll want to do something -- most recently adding a layer with catchlights -- but the layer structure either:
1) won't let my change through to be visible (e.g., if I do it at the bottom off a duplicate bg layer); or
2) blocks other changes I've made (if I put it higher or on top of the stack).
I suspect it's really several problems, depending on the "something" you're trying to do in any given case. You might get a better handle on this if you post a specific problem along with a screen shot of the layers palette.
Greg Feldman wrote:
You can't stack opaque layers on top of each other and see anything more than the one on top. What you could do (e.g., for the catchlight layer) is add a new empty layer and then put only the catchlights onto it.
Sure you can. not that this necessarily solves the OPs problem, but by regulating the opacity of any layer, opaque or not, you will see the layer below. A very easy way to demonstrate this is by adding a B&W adj layer (which is opaque) and then decreasing the opacity. At 100% all you see is B&W, but at 50%, you're going to get some very beautiful desaturated images.
Masks can be created empty then painted in with black to knock out the layer they mask (as with the photo in the upper left) or be filled entirely with black then erased to reveal the content of the layer (as with the red dot). The same result if obtained either way, its just a matter of picking the easiest one.
The text in the middle shows how the fill slider on the layer is used. If you apply an effect to black / color type, like bevel/emboss and drop shadow, then pull fill down to zero it reduces the opacity of the type color, which with the embossing will create a watermark effect.
I also used the fill / emboss technique for the watermark in the photo, but to make it visible in both the highlight and shadow I used a blue color with a 20% fill value. A duplicate of that layer is shown in the plain gray box in the lower right.
I think I just have to plan better, because what I often want to do is to add an opaque layer and make edits that I didn't on an earlier one (e.g., because I was going to lower the opacity one the first one). Next time I come to an example, I'll post it here ...
Greg Feldman wrote:
Maybe I should have said "100% opaque." To me, the idea of "regulating opacity, opaque or not" is an oxymoron.
Sorry, but that's wrong again. Not trying to pick on you, but iIf you create a new layer, brush on something that is NOT opaque, then that layer is NOT considered opaque and should not be confused with an opaque layer. If you follow the other example I suggested with a B&W adj layer, that layer is opaque.
Greg, good idea ...