>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 "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. Thanks again for your initial response, thanks in advance to you or others who can further enlighten me. 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
