It seems to me that gimp works a bit differently from photoshop. In photoshop (actually, I'm still using 'elements-2', can you believe? Although I have got Richard Lynch's excellent "hidden power" installed which releases a lot more of the underlying photoshop 7 functionality - and the book was great for learning about image manipulation in general - but I digress...) In photoshop you can add an adjustment layer, which operates on the layer underneath it. And you can go on adding new adjustment layers, and then going back to earlier ones to "tweak" the parameters - so I might have a base image with a brightness/contrast adjustment layer above it and a hue/saturation layer above that. Both adjustment layers operate on the base layer, I can go back to the middle (in my eg, the brightness/contrast), tweak the parameters and view the result - with the effects of the upper hue/sat layer still applied. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems that in gimp I have to make a copy of the base layer and apply any adjustments to the copy; and repeat this for any new adjustment. This seems to be much less flexible, as subsequent changes to the middle layer would be obscured by the upper layer? The photoshop method appears to be far more flexible. I was thinking that doing things this way might also have a beneficial effect on the file size, though judging by the size of photoshop format files, I doubt this is actually the case. But I tend to save as layered tiff with zip compression applied to the layers, which makes them much smaller and preserves much of the layer information (though things like selections won't be saved. But I can live with that). These, I guess, are my main reasons for hanging on to photoshop rather than migrating to gimp. So if I'm wrong, I'd love to know... /Gary
Ok, perhaps I'm on the right track, now. Someone tell me if I'm moving in the right direction. Seems if I copy the background layer leaving the mode normal, I can then perform most any operation on that new level and give it a name suggestive of that operation. Then, make a copy of that new level, and perform some other operation on the new level, rename it to suggest that second operation, and so on. Is that how it works? Seems to give me a result that I can follow up and down the stack by turning on and off the visibility of the levels in sequence (or out of sequence, for that matter. I feel like I'm on the right track. Would appreciate verification and/or additional advice.
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user