When would you use layers?

Undot · 09-08-2014, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

Every time I open PS

Same here.

First I duplicate the image layer to keep an original in case I mess up somewhere. I make another copy to put (and keep) at the top. Toggling that on/off lets me easily check before and after.
On the following copy (or copies) I do the actual work with retouching, cleanup and whatnot - any of the destructive steps (one thing I don't like about PS - After Effects offers much more, when it comes to editable filters).
Rather than deleting parts of a layer I use layer masks, so I can always add or remove visibility if needed.
Wherever possible I use adjustment layers, as those are non-destructive and I keep the option to change things later. If making a selection before adding an adjustment layer it will create a matte with it, as to only affect parts of the image. That way I can use one adjustment layer to only affect the sky, one for the foreground, another for a face, and so on.

A few useful things, when working with layers:

Naming them is tedious but not so much as having to search through them later on - again and again
With the move tool active, right clicking into the image will give you a list of all layers that have content at that specific point, making it easy to pick the one you're looking for
Empty layers with "-----------------" as names can be useful for organising (not soo much anymore since they added folders, but still)

Yes, layers are my friend. They can be yours as well.

Liney · 09-10-2014, 03:22 AM

Undot

Thanks for the response, I can see the logic in your flow and understand how it works. I've been doing some reading on the subject of layers and following some of hte links that have been recommended.

The more I think about it, the tool itself (the use of layers of an image to affect teh final outcome) is only one part of the equation. the other is deciding what changes you are going to make to parts or all of the image. Up until now I've treated the image as a whole, and any change to colours, light levels or anything else has been all or nothing.

I guess I still have to develop the ability to identify the changes that will improve my images, once Identified I now have a better idea of how to do it!

**Tas** · 09-10-2014, 01:28 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Liney

UndotI guess I still have to develop the ability to identify the changes that will improve my images, once Identified I now have a better idea of how to do it!

I think you'll find you're already doing that everytime you capture an image by choosing to represent one scene over another.

But so far as what to do, the internet is your friend to research various images and styles. And what draws you to specific images is what you should be wondering. Why specifically this one and not another? I like to emulate styles I like from time to time, but for me the impact of the light in a scene is what I want to get right. The photo might have awesome crepuscular rays for example, but the image might look flat compared to the wow fact of being there and seeing it for yourself. Well, then the challenge in post is to recreate the scene to represent how spectacular it was at the time, or maybe walk a different path and go artsy with textures etc?

Enjoy what you do and try and avoid selective decolourisation. Boy that's cheesy.

**frogoutofwater** · 09-10-2014, 02:01 PM - **1 Like**

I'm pretty much a novice at Lightroom and Photoshop (PS especially), but I would add that another thing to consider if you use both programs (or are thinking about it) is what you do in LR, what you do in PS (and when you use layers in PS). I don't do anything very exotic in PP (yet), but these are the major steps for me in a LR-PS workflow to edit one of the photos I take of animals for the pet rescue group or farm sanctuary where I volunteer:

- Upload RAW images to computer and back them up
- I do most of my work in LR in terms of adjusting exposure, white balance, some noise reduction, etc. I also do some selective adjustments in LR (e.g., selectively sharpening eyes or raising the exposure on a face in shadow etc). I can go back to the LR file later and change these (without needing to use layers or masks), and I can also make a copy of of the image and do a completely different set of edits to it if I want to.
- Export to PS.
- I do cloning, healing etc in PS. If I have just a few minor changes to make (e.g., removing goobers from eyes, cloning out a cigarette butt on the sidewalk), I'll admit that I just do it on the main image itself, then sharpen it, save the PSD file and then save a JPEG or TIFF.
- But if I have more complicated clean-up to do (basically anything that takes more than a couple of minutes' work), then I use layers, and I tend to use separate layers for different kinds of clean-up. For example, if I'm trying to clone out the leash, that will be in one layer, while goober removal will be in another layer, and sharpening in another layer.
- If I add any text to the image (for example, adding the animal's name or adding copyright info), that always goes on a separate layer.
- I think that if I were doing the majority of my work in PS, I would use layers more, but I find that I have enough optionality in LR (to go back and reedit the RAW file or a copy of it in LR), that I don't feel like using lots of layers in PS for most of my "regular" work.

tibbitts · 09-13-2014, 01:49 PM

I don't understand the comments about destroying the original image. I've always saved the original raw files unchanged, figuring as I learned more and software improved, I'd always want the original to go back to. Doesn't everybody do that?

**timmijo** · 09-16-2014, 08:39 PM

For jpeg editing, the first thing I do when pulling a photo into Photoshop Elements (I do not have the "real" Photoshop program) is to save the jpeg as a TIFF. The original jpeg is not touched. The new TIFF file is a large, lossless file. I do my initial edits on the TIFF. They are usually conservative. White balance and exposure are what I correct first, if needed. Then I might clone small distractions out of the photo. When I am satisfied that I have corrected white balance,exposure and clone-outs, I save the TIFF as a "MASTER TIFF". That master gets copied one more time to do more extensive edits involving layers for more creativity. The MASTER TIFF with the basic edits is on file in case I screw up the second master. Both masters are what copies will be made from if I need a jpeg copies of the corrected photo.

This is probably very old-school, but it is my basic workflow.

Most people probably do a variation of this "MASTER" technique but they do it as a Photoshop PSD with layers that do not get merged so that they can always go back and fine-tune some of the editing steps.

To answer your question, yes, always save the original RAW or Jpeg file and work off of a copy instead.

Undot · 09-23-2014, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by tibbitts

I don't understand the comments about destroying the original image. I've always saved the original raw files unchanged, figuring as I learned more and software improved, I'd always want the original to go back to. Doesn't everybody do that?

It's not as much about "destroying the original image". When I work with PSD documents the original RAW file will still be there as backup of course. But there's destructive steps you can take in Photoshop and non-destructive ones. Non-destructive is using adjustment layers for example. The layer(s) beneath don't get changed and you can always go back to the adjustment's settings and change them around without further degrading image quality.

Applying a regular filter directly onto the image layer is destructive. Once it's added you can't remove or change it (not counting "fade" or "undo"). Or if you take a brush and paint black into the photo. All the pixel information that used to be there will get changed to black with no chance of bringing it back. Except for opening the RAW and starting from scratch again. That's why I keep anything that permanently changes a pixel on seperate layers (clone stamp, healing brush, blur, ...).

By working as non-destructive as possible you keep your options to change the photo without having to start over again.

Liney · 10-02-2014, 02:41 AM

So now I'm confused about destroying the original image. As with much of the work I do with IT applications, I open a file (document/spreadsheet/image etc.) and start making changes. If I don't save the edited file, then the original is still untouched as I have been editing a copy.

If I open a RAW image and edit it, but don't like the results then I will not save the changes. Are you saying that I have changed the original? If I like it that much that I want to keep the changes I will process it and save it as another format (mostly jpg), which is a file with the edited changes included. As I have saved as a new image, then the original file I started editing should be intact.

Am I missing something?

Undot · 10-02-2014, 03:30 AM

Sorry for confusing things. When you save files as a copy your RAW will not change, of course. I meant destructive only as creative steps taken within a work document. As far as I know Photoshop doesn't let you overwrite the original RAW anyways, but always asks to save to a different file (format).

**Just1MoreDave** · 10-02-2014, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Liney

So now I'm confused about destroying the original image. As with much of the work I do with IT applications, I open a file (document/spreadsheet/image etc.) and start making changes. If I don't save the edited file, then the original is still untouched as I have been editing a copy.

If I open a RAW image and edit it, but don't like the results then I will not save the changes. Are you saying that I have changed the original? If I like it that much that I want to keep the changes I will process it and save it as another format (mostly jpg), which is a file with the edited changes included. As I have saved as a new image, then the original file I started editing should be intact.

Am I missing something?

No. As long as you don't save and overwrite the original file, you haven't destroyed anything. You can still start over.

Photoshop layers allow much more flexibility. You could make fifty changes to an image, each on a layer. Then change your mind about change #17 and #32, and just delete the layers that have those changes. The other 48 changes, probably hours of work, are still intact. If you don't mind the extra disk space, you could save that layered file and make those changes years later. (Unless Adobe made your file format incompatible.)

The only times I ever have such a complex document, it is a stitched panorama. Photoshop does them by making each image and its modifications into a layer. It may distort or mask an image to fit with other images. Sometimes I want to improve on the automatic stitching process. It's easy to find the layer and change that.

09-08-2014, 09:13 AM	#16
Undot Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 176	Originally posted by Kerrowdown Every time I open PS Same here. First I duplicate the image layer to keep an original in case I mess up somewhere. I make another copy to put (and keep) at the top. Toggling that on/off lets me easily check before and after. On the following copy (or copies) I do the actual work with retouching, cleanup and whatnot - any of the destructive steps (one thing I don't like about PS - After Effects offers much more, when it comes to editable filters). Rather than deleting parts of a layer I use layer masks, so I can always add or remove visibility if needed. Wherever possible I use adjustment layers, as those are non-destructive and I keep the option to change things later. If making a selection before adding an adjustment layer it will create a matte with it, as to only affect parts of the image. That way I can use one adjustment layer to only affect the sky, one for the foreground, another for a face, and so on. A few useful things, when working with layers: Naming them is tedious but not so much as having to search through them later on - again and again With the move tool active, right clicking into the image will give you a list of all layers that have content at that specific point, making it easy to pick the one you're looking for Empty layers with "-----------------" as names can be useful for organising (not soo much anymore since they added folders, but still) Yes, layers are my friend. They can be yours as well.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
If you could take photos at one significant moment, when and where would	ASheffield	General Photography	34	08-14-2014 06:04 PM
Would You Use the Pentax 70-210 for Portraits?	Flinn	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	03-10-2014 01:58 PM
Would you use a lens tripod collar?	MSL	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	01-28-2014 10:58 PM
What would you be upgrading from when the mythical K3 arrives	txsbluesguy	Photographic Industry and Professionals	47	09-28-2013 07:20 AM
what program would you use	lguckert79	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	17	11-30-2010 02:40 PM

09-10-2014, 03:22 AM	#17
Liney Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,237 Original Poster	Undot Thanks for the response, I can see the logic in your flow and understand how it works. I've been doing some reading on the subject of layers and following some of hte links that have been recommended. The more I think about it, the tool itself (the use of layers of an image to affect teh final outcome) is only one part of the equation. the other is deciding what changes you are going to make to parts or all of the image. Up until now I've treated the image as a whole, and any change to colours, light levels or anything else has been all or nothing. I guess I still have to develop the ability to identify the changes that will improve my images, once Identified I now have a better idea of how to do it!

09-10-2014, 01:28 PM - 1 Like	#18
Tas Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Brisbane, QLD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,202	Originally posted by Liney UndotI guess I still have to develop the ability to identify the changes that will improve my images, once Identified I now have a better idea of how to do it! I think you'll find you're already doing that everytime you capture an image by choosing to represent one scene over another. But so far as what to do, the internet is your friend to research various images and styles. And what draws you to specific images is what you should be wondering. Why specifically this one and not another? I like to emulate styles I like from time to time, but for me the impact of the light in a scene is what I want to get right. The photo might have awesome crepuscular rays for example, but the image might look flat compared to the wow fact of being there and seeing it for yourself. Well, then the challenge in post is to recreate the scene to represent how spectacular it was at the time, or maybe walk a different path and go artsy with textures etc? Enjoy what you do and try and avoid selective decolourisation. Boy that's cheesy.

09-10-2014, 02:01 PM - 1 Like	#19
frogoutofwater Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 674	I'm pretty much a novice at Lightroom and Photoshop (PS especially), but I would add that another thing to consider if you use both programs (or are thinking about it) is what you do in LR, what you do in PS (and when you use layers in PS). I don't do anything very exotic in PP (yet), but these are the major steps for me in a LR-PS workflow to edit one of the photos I take of animals for the pet rescue group or farm sanctuary where I volunteer: - Upload RAW images to computer and back them up - I do most of my work in LR in terms of adjusting exposure, white balance, some noise reduction, etc. I also do some selective adjustments in LR (e.g., selectively sharpening eyes or raising the exposure on a face in shadow etc). I can go back to the LR file later and change these (without needing to use layers or masks), and I can also make a copy of of the image and do a completely different set of edits to it if I want to. - Export to PS. - I do cloning, healing etc in PS. If I have just a few minor changes to make (e.g., removing goobers from eyes, cloning out a cigarette butt on the sidewalk), I'll admit that I just do it on the main image itself, then sharpen it, save the PSD file and then save a JPEG or TIFF. - But if I have more complicated clean-up to do (basically anything that takes more than a couple of minutes' work), then I use layers, and I tend to use separate layers for different kinds of clean-up. For example, if I'm trying to clone out the leash, that will be in one layer, while goober removal will be in another layer, and sharpening in another layer. - If I add any text to the image (for example, adding the animal's name or adding copyright info), that always goes on a separate layer. - I think that if I were doing the majority of my work in PS, I would use layers more, but I find that I have enough optionality in LR (to go back and reedit the RAW file or a copy of it in LR), that I don't feel like using lots of layers in PS for most of my "regular" work.

09-13-2014, 01:49 PM	#20
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I don't understand the comments about destroying the original image. I've always saved the original raw files unchanged, figuring as I learned more and software improved, I'd always want the original to go back to. Doesn't everybody do that?

09-16-2014, 08:39 PM	#21
timmijo Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Delaware Photos: Gallery Posts: 239	For jpeg editing, the first thing I do when pulling a photo into Photoshop Elements (I do not have the "real" Photoshop program) is to save the jpeg as a TIFF. The original jpeg is not touched. The new TIFF file is a large, lossless file. I do my initial edits on the TIFF. They are usually conservative. White balance and exposure are what I correct first, if needed. Then I might clone small distractions out of the photo. When I am satisfied that I have corrected white balance,exposure and clone-outs, I save the TIFF as a "MASTER TIFF". That master gets copied one more time to do more extensive edits involving layers for more creativity. The MASTER TIFF with the basic edits is on file in case I screw up the second master. Both masters are what copies will be made from if I need a jpeg copies of the corrected photo. This is probably very old-school, but it is my basic workflow. Most people probably do a variation of this "MASTER" technique but they do it as a Photoshop PSD with layers that do not get merged so that they can always go back and fine-tune some of the editing steps. To answer your question, yes, always save the original RAW or Jpeg file and work off of a copy instead.

09-23-2014, 01:42 AM	#22
Undot Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 176	Originally posted by tibbitts I don't understand the comments about destroying the original image. I've always saved the original raw files unchanged, figuring as I learned more and software improved, I'd always want the original to go back to. Doesn't everybody do that? It's not as much about "destroying the original image". When I work with PSD documents the original RAW file will still be there as backup of course. But there's destructive steps you can take in Photoshop and non-destructive ones. Non-destructive is using adjustment layers for example. The layer(s) beneath don't get changed and you can always go back to the adjustment's settings and change them around without further degrading image quality. Applying a regular filter directly onto the image layer is destructive. Once it's added you can't remove or change it (not counting "fade" or "undo"). Or if you take a brush and paint black into the photo. All the pixel information that used to be there will get changed to black with no chance of bringing it back. Except for opening the RAW and starting from scratch again. That's why I keep anything that permanently changes a pixel on seperate layers (clone stamp, healing brush, blur, ...). By working as non-destructive as possible you keep your options to change the photo without having to start over again.

10-02-2014, 02:41 AM	#23
Liney Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,237 Original Poster	So now I'm confused about destroying the original image. As with much of the work I do with IT applications, I open a file (document/spreadsheet/image etc.) and start making changes. If I don't save the edited file, then the original is still untouched as I have been editing a copy. If I open a RAW image and edit it, but don't like the results then I will not save the changes. Are you saying that I have changed the original? If I like it that much that I want to keep the changes I will process it and save it as another format (mostly jpg), which is a file with the edited changes included. As I have saved as a new image, then the original file I started editing should be intact. Am I missing something?

10-02-2014, 03:30 AM	#24
Undot Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 176	Sorry for confusing things. When you save files as a copy your RAW will not change, of course. I meant destructive only as creative steps taken within a work document. As far as I know Photoshop doesn't let you overwrite the original RAW anyways, but always asks to save to a different file (format).

10-02-2014, 04:27 PM	#25
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Liney So now I'm confused about destroying the original image. As with much of the work I do with IT applications, I open a file (document/spreadsheet/image etc.) and start making changes. If I don't save the edited file, then the original is still untouched as I have been editing a copy. If I open a RAW image and edit it, but don't like the results then I will not save the changes. Are you saying that I have changed the original? If I like it that much that I want to keep the changes I will process it and save it as another format (mostly jpg), which is a file with the edited changes included. As I have saved as a new image, then the original file I started editing should be intact. Am I missing something? No. As long as you don't save and overwrite the original file, you haven't destroyed anything. You can still start over. Photoshop layers allow much more flexibility. You could make fifty changes to an image, each on a layer. Then change your mind about change #17 and #32, and just delete the layers that have those changes. The other 48 changes, probably hours of work, are still intact. If you don't mind the extra disk space, you could save that layered file and make those changes years later. (Unless Adobe made your file format incompatible.) The only times I ever have such a complex document, it is a stitched panorama. Photoshop does them by making each image and its modifications into a layer. It may distort or mask an image to fit with other images. Sometimes I want to improve on the automatic stitching process. It's easy to find the layer and change that.