What is the point?!

[Studio7Four]

Back to the OP's original issue(s)...

One reason for using multiple layers, rather than multiple manipulations of the same layer, is that it is easier to modify a previous step without losing everything you've done since then. Let's say you wanted to change a person's sweater from brown to red, so you could use it in a holiday card. You could select it on your initial layer, perform any operations you need, then move on to the next change you want to make. Or you could create a new layer, with appropriate masks, and perform your operations on that. Okay, now you've spent another hour doing some other editing steps and you realize you'd rather have that sweater be green rather than red. If you had changed it the first way, now you either have to reselect the right area and go through your operations again or hit "undo" until you get back there...and then recreate everything you've done since. Had you done it with layers, just go to that layer and make your modifications.

It's also a great way to see the effect of different options. For instance, if you create a black and white layer, you can hide/show that layer at any point to decide if you prefer the B&W or color version (or even ultimately create versions of each). If you had instead converted your base layer to B&W, you've thrown away the color data and cannot easily flip between them.

 

[jwbryson1]

I do not think anybody said that images "should not need any adjustment if they are using their cameras properly." That is not what I suggested. You might want to re-read what I wrote before using my statement, and twisting it around with an ill-formed gross misinterpretation KenC...

Temper, temper ...

I didn't intend to twist your words and I agree that you didn't rule out all manipulation, but it wasn't clear from your post exactly how much you considered to be too much. It seems as though we essentially agree on this.

Yeah, whatever...so, even though as you state, "it wasn't clear from your post exactly", you took comments from me, and KmH, and misinterpreted them, broadened them, and then continued from there...yeah temper, temper my ass...I get pretty tired of that happening here. People mis-reading my words, or Keith's words, and then going off...yeah...that raises my ire...it's a behavior I'm not fond of.

My advice to this particular beginner was, and I will quote it was, "...you might want to consider some ways to make photos that require less manipulation in order to be considered finished photographs".

There's no disservice in that. None. Whatsoever. It is in fact, phrased as a very gentle urging to "consider" some ways that require "less manipulation"--which allows for some manipultion--in order to create what she considers to be finished photographs".

To follow up on Derrel's comment with one of my own, I think he was being helpful to the OP. Let me compare his approach with one of my own "work related" analogies. As a young attorney, I got frustrated with the older attorney giving me minimal guidance before undertaking a new legal task. I would think "Hell, if he gave me 10 more minutes of explanation up front" that would save me hours on the back end. And it's true. Years later when I was training a newbie attorney, I spent an extra 30 minutes of my time up front giving explicit direction and guidance which in the end saved me time reviewing his bad work, and saved him time on the back end by doing good work from the start.

In the same way, as Derrel suggested, if the OP learns how to get really good shots straight out of the camera, that may translate to less time spent in PP and ultimately better and more enjoyable photos.

That's just my $0.02. YMMV.

 

[CCericola]

Learn how to do dodge and burn.

But learn dodging and burning non-destructively using masks and layers.

 

[KmH]

Yes, that's part of learning to dodge and burn.

I make a new layer, set the blending mode to Soft Light, put a check mark in the fill with 50% gray box, name the layer 'Dodge' (double click the layer to rename it), then make another new layer the same way but name it 'Burn'.

 

[DiskoJoe]

dARREL - You tha Man!!! and I mean that. Guy is always on point.

AMOMENT - girl you are working to hard. There is no way you are at a level where this type of manipulation is needed. You would benefit greatly but reading some of the threads on using flash and lighting before moving to photoshop madness.

And if you really do want help with PS techniques you have to post some pictures. You can tell us what you mean until you turn blue in the face but a picture would do all that with almost no explanation.

 

[MTVision]

It sounds to me as if your pictures are really bad, because you have to go through SO MANY STEPS to get them to be the way they need to be. I'm not sure where or why this obsession with Photoshopping the living chit out of images came to be regarded as normal or expected, as opposed to extraordinary and heroic...I mean, wow, all the editing and manipulating you're talking about...that just sounds like way more than is needed. You write, "I must be missing something." I would agree; I think you are missing perspective on how photographs can be "made" by making better decisions at the camera stage. And I mean that sincerely---I do not want to offend you (believe me, I could easily do so if I wanted to...), but I do think you might want to consider some ways to make photos that require less manipulation in order to be considered "finished photographs".

I don't think your pictures are that bad you just don't understand how to process an image so you are making more work for yourself. I gave you a website to check out in another post. It walks you through a sample workflow process. I would also recommend just searching for a pse9 photo editing workflow so you get an idea of a basic workflow for a clean edit. Are you processing your raw files in camera raw?

One thing that should always be done is sharpening the photo. Not sure if this is right but you sharpen once for the web an twice for printing. Cameras gave an anti-aliasing filter (?) that can make a photo look slightly blurred. I don't mean sharpening with fixed a blurred photo but try it out. Go to the filter menu an choose high pass ( I believe it's under other). Change the blending mode to soft light and play around with it to see what I mean.

The website is photokaboom.com I believe. I also have some great tutorials saved on my computer that I can send you. I used to spend a long time on editing just because I didn't know what I was doing and I was trying to learn!

 

[jwbryson1]

MTV wrote: "One thing that should always be done is sharpening the photo. Not sure if this is right but you sharpen once for the web an twice for printing. Cameras gave an anti-aliasing filter (?) that can make a photo look slightly blurred. I don't mean sharpening with fixed a blurred photo but try it out."

(How do you quote just part of what somebody wrote???)

Can somebody please explain this to me and how it would work in LR3?

Thanks.

 

[MTVision]

MTV wrote: "One thing that should always be done is sharpening the photo. Not sure if this is right but you sharpen once for the web an twice for printing. Cameras gave an anti-aliasing filter (?) that can make a photo look slightly blurred. I don't mean sharpening with fixed a blurred photo but try it out."

(How do you quote just part of what somebody wrote???)

Can somebody please explain this to me and how it would work in LR3?

Thanks.

I wrote back to you.

To quote just one part - you do what you normally would to quote the whole thing and then erase the parts you don't want. Maybe here is an easier way but that's how I do it.

 

[clanthar]

Sharpening is a somewhat complex topic. Digital photos typically require sharpening. How a photo is sharpened (method) and how much it is sharpened is determined by output. If you aren't at the output stage then you don't know how to sharpen or how much to sharpen and so don't sharpen.

If you're printing a photo how and how much sharpening is determined by the type of printer, the characteristics of the printer, the size of the file and the size of the print. You can't sharpen properly if you don't know those parameters.

If you're publishing to a website then you sharpen differently again based on the parameters of viewing a photo on an electronic display at a given size.

Sharpening for one output can precluded ever being able to sharpen ideally for another output. As such all of my processed photos are saved unsharpened until I output them. In LR3 I believe you would have sharpening access through tab item labeled detail -- don't have LR3 here now.

Joe

 

[KmH]

Image content (image detail frequency) and output use (electronic, print)
has everything to do with how (sharpening method, method settings),
how many times (capture, edit, output),
and where in the image (global, local)
sharpening is done.

 

[marmots]

(How do you quote just part of what somebody wrote???)

like this?

ill try and get some pictures up later