If I'm going to take the time to do it, I may as well do it in such a way that if I ever have to modify it I don't have to do it all over again. This is particularly true for images that have required complex masking.
It's a carryover philosophy from my paying job. Cheers, Dave On 4/11/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice and very professional, but I don't see the point in that. If I > have my original conversion, I don't need an original background > layer. Plus, storing those multi-layer files sucks up hard drive > space in a hurry. > Paul > On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:40 AM, David Savage wrote: > > > My edits are done as non-destructively as possible. The only things I > > do to the original background layer (or more correctly a copy of) is > > spotting dust, cloning in or out details as needed & sharpening. And > > recently I haven't always been doing my sharpening to the background > > layer (or it's copy). > > > > Everything else is done with adjustment layers. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > On 4/11/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I generally retouch in PS without adjustment layers. I almost always > >> know exactly what I want to do, and if I change my mind, I simply > >> flip back in the history. I'm not modifying the original, the RAW is > >> still on file with all my adjustment parameters intact. For big > >> retouching jobs, layers are great. For minor adjustment of > >> photographs, they're unnecessary. > >> Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
