On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gary Collins<gcatl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?

This is certainly true; all of your points are true.
This is being worked on.
However, the specific idea of 'effect layers' is regarded as severely
broken (basically cause it makes nonsense of the whole layers concept:
all layers have content, but oh! effect layers don't. all layers have
blending mode, but oops! effect layers don't. it's user-unfriendly in
this marked inconsistency.)
The implementation I believe we are currently aiming for is instead
oriented around the idea of being able to attach any number of effects
to a given layer group (btw, martin nordholts is doing some great work
on layer trees presently and in the last few months.. they are shaping
up well.)

> 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.
Photoshop format generally saves a lot of cached data -- for instance,
there is a thumbnail for each layer, and a composited version of the
image rendered at full size.

> 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).
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to