[Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
I really appreciate the replies. In the work flow example I gave earlier in this thread, am I correct that there is no other practical way to accomplish those steps on a photo other than to perform them destructively on a single layer (set levels, hit ok, correct color, hit ok, etc. so that you can't go back without undoing in sequence or just scrapping your work and starting over from scratch)? And flattening or merging layers is really sort of a 'kicked down the road' way of 'hitting OK' albeit you are committing to a batch of changes rather than accepting them one at a time - better, I guess, in that you get to see the net effect of all the layers in the stack before committing to their effect. So, if I'm correct, then, I finally think I've grasped how to use layers in editing a photo. I am no expert but I think you are nearly there. One thing to bear in mind is that, with a tool like levels, every time you use it and press OK you will lose some detail. So it will pay not to accept your changes until you are really satisfied with the result. If you need to go back then it will probably be better to redo that layer from fresh. In other cases with a layer stack you can, of course, turn layers on and off with the little icon on the left and so work on any layer you wish. Norman Thanks, Norman. -- Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Thanks for the info. It seems exciting things are on the horizon. I eagerly await with much anticipation. /Gary 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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
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
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gary Collinsgcatl...@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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
I hope you don't change GIMP too much. I'm just getting used to the way it works now. I've never used PS so I don't care how PS does things. David Gowers wrote: 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.) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
On 08/12/2009 04:21 PM, David Gowers wrote: btw, martin nordholts is doing some great work on layer trees presently and in the last few months.. they are shaping up well. You are confusing me with another M.N. It is Michael Natterer that has been doing great work recently on preparing for layer groups / Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Martin Nordholtsense...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/12/2009 04:21 PM, David Gowers wrote: btw, martin nordholts is doing some great work on layer trees presently and in the last few months.. they are shaping up well. You are confusing me with another M.N. It is Michael Natterer that has been doing great work recently on preparing for layer groups Oops! Sorry, Martin and Michael :) David ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix something that you might decide needs adjusting? Yes, which is why you don't merge until. you're absolutely sure that everything you're merging is to your satisfaction. And if there are a couple of layers which you're not quite certain about yet, one can merge the layers below those, and still reduce the file size. I haven't explored this yet, and may be wrong, but it might just be that if there is one small area that needs a fix, that one can make a layer just big enough to manage the fix, rather than making the layer the full size of the image. One thing that might reduce the size of the file a bit, is that if there is only a small bit of something that needs fixing, to make I would thing that layers in an xcf file would only represent references to adjustments and the underlying file I think a better visualization of layers is to consider them like an overlay on a projector, and that the layer containing the change is independent of the layer to which the change relates, until the two are merged together. I'm just a-wonderin' why the xcf files grow so large. I suspect that becuase you have a number of layers all the same size as the image. Also the size of the file will grow even larger when you start to use layer masks. Norman ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Hi Robert, On 10 Aug 09 07:29 Norman Silverstone nor...@littletank.org said: The short answer is yes, this is how I would do things. The only difference is that when I am satisfied with a stage I would merge the layers otherwise the file becomes very large. Also, from time to time I would save my work and keep watching 'meetthegimp' Norman stole my words! :-) Greg Chapman http://www.gregtutor.plus.com Helping new users of KompoZer and The GIMP ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
I've learned the hard way to SAVE OFTEN!!! Or you can lose your work when GIMP freezes and dies. Greg Chapman wrote: Hi Robert, On 10 Aug 09 07:29 Norman Silverstone nor...@littletank.org said: The short answer is yes, this is how I would do things. The only difference is that when I am satisfied with a stage I would merge the layers otherwise the file becomes very large. Also, from time to time I would save my work and keep watching 'meetthegimp' Norman stole my words! :-) Greg Chapman http://www.gregtutor.plus.com Helping new users of KompoZer and The GIMP ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
I've learned the hard way to SAVE OFTEN!!! Or you can lose your work when GIMP freezes and dies. I don't suffer from Gimp freezing or dying but I have been known to press the wrong button and loose an hours careful cloning. Norman ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix something that you might decide needs adjusting? I thought that was the main point of using layers. I see that xcf files seem to take a long time to save - I guess that is, I suppose, due to their size. One thing puzzles me, though. I would thing that layers in an xcf file would only represent references to adjustments and the underlying file (not unlike an edit decision list in a video editing application or the contents of an indd. file in Adobe InDesign (and none of those files are large, although the underlying files might occupy gigabytes of data. I'm just a-wonderin' why the xcf files grow so large. At any rate, I'm glad to be (finally) on the right track. Thank you all for your helpful replies. Caruso big snip The .xcf file archives my progressive work on the photo so that I can go back and refine my work/revise my edit decisions, etc. The TIFF gives me a full resolution final product. The RAW file archives the original image as it came out of the camera. This business with the layers is new to me as of today. I'd never worked with layers in this manner. In fact, I had never worked with layers much at all until today. So, my question: Does the above make sense with regard to layers, or is there a better way to work with layers within a photo than what I describe? Nothing seemed to work for me before because I couldn't get much to show in terms of adjustments in layers added beyond that initial duplication of the background layer. The short answer is yes, this is how I would do things. The only difference is that when I am satisfied with a stage I would merge the layers otherwise the file becomes very large. Also, from time to time I would save my work and keep watching 'meetthegimp' Norman -- Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Carusoswi wrote: Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix something that you might decide needs adjusting? Yes, which is why you don't merge until. you're absolutely sure that everything you're merging is to your satisfaction. And if there are a couple of layers which you're not quite certain about yet, one can merge the layers below those, and still reduce the file size. I haven't explored this yet, and may be wrong, but it might just be that if there is one small area that needs a fix, that one can make a layer just big enough to manage the fix, rather than making the layer the full size of the image. One thing that might reduce the size of the file a bit, is that if there is only a small bit of something that needs fixing, to make I would thing that layers in an xcf file would only represent references to adjustments and the underlying file I think a better visualization of layers is to consider them like an overlay on a projector, and that the layer containing the change is independent of the layer to which the change relates, until the two are merged together. I'm just a-wonderin' why the xcf files grow so large. I suspect that becuase you have a number of layers all the same size as the image. ns ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
I have never really worked much with levels (in Gimp or anywhere else such as PS) because I've really never gotten the hang of it. So, I was starting through the 'meet the gimp' tutorials (from session 001!!) and realized that part of my problem is that I need to change the mode in order to see the effects of any changes I make to a level (am I correct in that?). So, one of my most often used tools is the COLORS -- LEVELS tool where I can make quick adjustments to rid my RAW -- TIFF conversions of the general haze they seem to have out of my camera.Generally, pulling in the little carrots a bit from each edge does this for me. I generally always check the AUTO results, but also generally find that adjustment to radical for my liking. In any event, I'm thinking that a more proper way to do this would be to create a 'levels' layer and make the adjustment on that layer. After watching the tutorial, I thought I had it down, but, adding a layer, then trying to adjust levels on the layer still seems to have no effect. What is it that I'm doing wrong? I tried copying the background layer, tried adding a white layer, ran through all the modes on the copy of the background layer, but I still seem lost. Any advice would be appreciated. If you can direct me to a discussion of this topic (or another tutorial) that would be great, too. Thanks in advance. Caruso -- Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
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. Thanks. Caruso I have never really worked much with levels (in Gimp or anywhere else such as PS) because I've really never gotten the hang of it. So, I was starting through the 'meet the gimp' tutorials (from session 001!!) and realized that part of my problem is that I need to change the mode in order to see the effects of any changes I make to a level (am I correct in that?). So, one of my most often used tools is the COLORS -- LEVELS tool where I can make quick adjustments to rid my RAW -- TIFF conversions of the general haze they seem to have out of my camera.Generally, pulling in the little carrots a bit from each edge does this for me. I generally always check the AUTO results, but also generally find that adjustment to radical for my liking. In any event, I'm thinking that a more proper way to do this would be to create a 'levels' layer and make the adjustment on that layer. After watching the tutorial, I thought I had it down, but, adding a layer, then trying to adjust levels on the layer still seems to have no effect. What is it that I'm doing wrong? I tried copying the background layer, tried adding a white layer, ran through all the modes on the copy of the background layer, but I still seem lost. Any advice would be appreciated. If you can direct me to a discussion of this topic (or another tutorial) that would be great, too. Thanks in advance. Caruso -- Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Hi Carusoswi On 09 Aug 09 22:37 Carusoswi for...@gimpusers.com said: 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. Of course it depends on the kind of image on which you are working and you don't tell us that. Nor do you tell us what you are doing on the levels dialogue, only how you are protecting yourself from mistakes. I'm going to assume you are working with a photograph. If that's the case, then this page might suggest some of the reasons you should use Levels: http://www.gregtutor.plus.com/digphoto/levels.html Greg Chapman http://www.gregtutor.plus.com Helping new users of KompoZer and The GIMP ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Levels tool with Layers
Hi Carusoswi On 09 Aug 09 22:37 Carusoswi for...@gimpusers.com said: 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. Of course it depends on the kind of image on which you are working and you don't tell us that. Nor do you tell us what you are doing on the levels dialogue, only how you are protecting yourself from mistakes. I'm going to assume you are working with a photograph. If that's the case, then this page might suggest some of the reasons you should use Levels: http://www.gregtutor.plus.com/digphoto/levels.html Greg Chapman http://www.gregtutor.plus.com Helping new users of KompoZer and The GIMP Greg: Thank you for the reply. I'm sorry I wasn't more explicit in explaining my task, but, yes, I'm touching up digital images captured on my DSLR. I consider myself reasonably familiar with Gimp's basic tools (and similar tools in Windows only aps (well, Windows and MAC, I guess) having owned and used most versions of PS through CS4 and also earlier offerings such as those from Micrographx. . . . and I have had some success in producing good results. However, until today, I had simply worked on the background layer making all my adjustments there until I was satisfied with the results. If a series of adjustments didn't work out, I just either undid back to the point where I felt my efforts went off track, or I trashed that version of the photo and started over from scratch - neither method was fatal to the results, but I've always known that manipulaters 'in the know' didn't operate using those methods. How to add a layer has always seemed straightforward, how to make it work for my adjustments had always escaped me. Starting through the MTG tutorials convinced me at last that I needed to master this levels thing. Part of my problem was always that, if I added one layer, performed an operation, tried to add another, that third layer (second added one) seemed to either undo my adjustment(s) in the previous layer or seemed unresponsive to further adjustments. Today, I was tinkering around and feel I may have stumbled upon the method to make layers work for me, and, in my follow-up post asked for confirmation (you may or may not have seen that follow-up prior to your response). Can you offer comment specific to the question in that follow-up? Is it proper to stack successive layers in a photo by copying the previous layer (with its adjustment(s) in tact), make additional changes in the new layer, duplicate that new layer with its changes to make successive adjustments and so on? Or, is there some way to add layers without copying the previous one. I understand that, mechanically speaking, you add a new layer by just adding a new layer. But that hasn't seemed to help my photos. Let me describe what I did today I feel that it was a more successful use of layers than I have experienced heretofore: I open a RAW photo by right clicking the file and requesting it be opened using GIMP. This invokes UFRaw where I make an initial analysis of the basics (whether or not the photo is worth developing, how accurate UFRaw feels the exposure is (I like those blinking over-under exposure indicators), overall color balance, etc. Next, I click OK and UFRaw exports the file as a TIFF into GIMP. I duplicate the background layer, rename it (for my convenience, let's say I call it 'Levels'). At that point, I might make an adjustment to the entire image on that layer using the levels tool, or, depending upon what I think is needed, I might select certain areas, or I might select all but certain ares, etc., and make selective level adjustments. Then, I duplicate that duplicated layer, rename it (let's say 'skin tones'), mask off faces and bare arms and legs, then, use the color balance tool (I find that fastest to adjust skin tones) or the level tool again, and make adjustments such that offending skin tones are corrected to my liking. I might next duplicate that 'skin tones' layer, rename it 'clone', and use the clone or healing tool to remove the fly that has landed on Aunt Jane's nose. Next, I duplicate that 'clone' layer, rename it 'sharpen', use Unsharpen or Sharpen to sharpen the photo, save as an .xcf, then save again as a TIFF, and, if pleased at this point, I'm finished. The .xcf file archives my progressive work on the photo so that I can go back and refine my work/revise my edit decisions, etc. The TIFF gives me a full resolution
