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 
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...

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

Reply via email to