I'm using a Windows 7 icore7 machine. The file I'm working on is composed of six layers: 1) a masked Levels layer; 2) a masked Noise layer; 3) a masked Hipass layer; 4) a convert to BW layer; 5) a copy of the background layer; 6) the background layer. All the eyes on the layers are ON.
When I Flatten Image the contrasty look I've created with the Levels adjustment layer AND with the Hipass layer disappears and the flattened image no longer exhibits those qualities - in other words it reverts back to being soft, low contrast.
All the eyes are ON.
I tried various combinations of MERGE VISIBLE and the same thing happens.
I swapped Hipass for Unsharp Mask and for Smart Sharpen and even more weirdness happens - These filters have no effect at all.
Short of a re-install, what can I do?
Thanks....
Charles O. Slavens
Please note the entire explanation at the bottom.
Now that I've installed this new driver my Nik Silver effects Pro will not convert a color image to B&W.
http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/296.10/296.10-desktop-win7-winvi sta-64bit-english-whql.exe
Geforce g210
The low contrast still exists any magnification.
C:\NVIDIA\DisplayDriver\296.10\WinVista_Win7_64\English
Blimey! I'm not so sure it's a good idea linking to exe files on this foorum.
Noel is making a good point regarding viewing at 100%, but there a definitely times when flaterning the layer stack leads to unexpected results. The workaround is to add a Copy Merged Layers layer to the top of the stack before flaterning. (Shift Ctrl Alt e)
Trevor.Dennis wrote:
there a[re] definitely times when flaterning the layer stack leads to unexpected results. The workaround is to add a Copy Merged Layers layer to the top of the stack before flaterning. (Shift Ctrl Alt e)
I'm wondering how... Incomplete transparency all the way through, perhaps? Bottom layer over transparency using something other than Normal blending?
Perhaps it would be good to get into specifics here... What, exactly, does your Layers panel look like before the flatten operation, oslavens?
Ideally, could you crop a small part of your document and save it as a relatively small PSD file, then share it here? We could use that to both try to reproduce the problem elsewhere, and (assuming we can) examine it to see what's up. I know that with such an example in hand I could tell you why it's happening, as I'm sure could others here.
-Noel
Noel, it is no doubt lazy of me, but I tend to take a 'black box' attitude, and use the workaround and get on with stuff, but I have just had a quick seach:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Adobe-Photoshop-1028/2008/3/Merge-layers-lo sing-effects.htm
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/370669
BTW Thanks for fixing my typo. I am definitely pants with a keyboard! ![]()
I tried to send the layered files via www.yousendit.com . However, the above address is rejected as invalid.
Do you have a less complex email address.
I greatly appreciate the time you're taking to assist me in tracking down this very frustrating problem. This entire project has ground to a halt.
Another quirky little thing that seems to be happening is that it's only the MASKED part of the image that changes.
Throughout the entire process I use positive and negative masks to control the foreground and the background separately. I start with the color image, in addition to the BACKGROUND layer and a COPY layer, I have two LEVELS masks, two HUE/SAT masks, a SHARPENING mask for the foreground, and a NOISE mask for the background. This is a standard workflow that I've been using in various combinations for years. When I flatten the COLOR layers the change in contrast does not take place.
This series of photos that I'm working on at the moment requires a conversion to BW. So the next step is flattening of the color layers and converting to BW. Here again I use a combination of masks to control various elements of the image.
The loss of contrast only happens when I flatten after converting to BW... and it doesn't matter if the conversion is done in Nik, or in Photoshop.
When flatten the color layers
Thanks.... Charles O. Slavens
I had the same problem six years ago and addressed it to the Forum and was told it was a problem with not viewing at 100%. However, when I made a print of the unflattenned and then the flattenned print, there were definite differences of loss of shadow details and other subtle differences which lead me to believe that there was a real difference in some images between unflattenned and flattenned. Try printing a flattenned and unflattenned version of the image.
Viewing at 100% does not change the effect caused by flattening - loss of contrast. An odd twist is that only that part of the image that is revealed by a mask is effected by this change.
I'd be happy to send the layered files of both the color (no problems here) image and the BW layered image where the low contrast effect does take place.
I tried uploading the files (240mb each) to www.yousendit.com but your email address seems to be too complicated for their program. Do you have a less complex email address? If so I'll send them immediately.
I tried your suggestion - created an empty layer and filled with black (also tried white). In addition I moved the layer up and down the stack with no change in results. The portion of the image revealed by the mask is where the low contrast change takes place.
I'd be happy to send the layered files of both the color (no problems here) image and the BW layered image where the low contrast effect does take place.
I tried uploading the files (240mb each) to www.yousendit.com but your email address seems to be too complicated for their program. Do you have a less complex email address? If so I'll send them immediately.
thanks for taking the time to consider my dilemma.... Charles O. Slavens
Waaaaaaaaaaa? You cannot examine a photo at 100%. At 100% you can only see a small portion of the entire image. These photos will never be printed, they are for web distribution ONLY.
I put the UNflattened, layered file through the SAVE FOR WEB process. Please notice the attached image. The contrast is missing from the revealed portion of the masked layer.
This is a phenomenon that has recently arisen. I've been using this work flow for YEARS! And NOW I can't flatten an image and retain the adjustment layer effects.
Something is happening that I can't control.
Problem not solved so far...... thanks for your time... please don't give up on me!
oslavens, I don't see any images and files attached in any of your posts. If you can't examine and see an entire image intended for web usage at 100% zoom, then the question is what kind of screen are you using - it should very small in comparison ot the monitors of the intended web users. If you have an average size monitor and you can't see the entire image at 100% zoom then probably no one on the web will see it either unless the image is resized by the web program which naturally will remove detail information and can indeed loose contrast.
Hmmmmmm ..... I just examined all of my sent items and all but one of my returns to you guys has images attached. Another cyber mystery.
Regarding your definition of "100%".... There must be a discrepancy in TERMS here. I'm using two 17 inch screens with a dual head video card and I normally view the image on one screen while the 2nd screen shows my layers, tools, and adjustments. If I magnify an image to 100% I can only see part of the image. Yes, you are correct - If I raise the magnification to 100% and flatten there is no APPARENT CHANGE in contrast... BUT... when I reduce it to full screen size the contrast disappears and I'm back to the original problem. The exercise of enlarging to 100% seems kinda pointless if the REAL result is still a loss in contrast.
Please note the attached examples of the low contrast shift.
Thanks for your continued help on this matter. Please understand, I've been using this workflow for years with consistent results, but now I'm absolutely at a stand-still on this project because I can't save flattened images that retain contrast..... charles o. slavens
Images attached to emails are useless on this Forum.
»If I raise the magnification to 100% and flatten there is no APPARENT CHANGE in contrast...«
Now you finally state it … it has been asked several time!
Views of other than Actual Pixels mean that Layer Masks and the other Layers are interpolated and therefore the result can differ.
I gotta say, I'm a little flummoxed here. We're talking discussing a VISUAL medium and you're saying that I can't send visuals to demonstrate my problem? Would you like me to post the image on PICASA? I think it's important that you are able to see what I'm taking about.
The key word here is APPARENT. Yes, you are correct - If I raise the magnification to 100% and flatten (while still at 100%) there is no APPARENT change in contrast... BUT... when I reduce it to normal full screen size the contrast disappears and I'm back to the original problem.... no contrast. The exercise of enlarging to 100% seems kinda pointless if the REAL result is still a loss in contrast.
And oh.... just a little note here... this change in contrast ONLY occurs in the REVEALED portion of the mask.
And, I'd like to re-state - I've been using this workflow pattern for years with consistent results. This is a recent phenomenon and it has absolutely stopped me in my tracks.
You can post images on the Forum in the browser (with the camera icon), but not via email replies.
The previews are derived at from the interpolated elements (so for example a layer with only pure black and white may develop intermediate tones that are then affected by Adjustment Layers that dio not affect the actual pixels); any preview size other (at least bigger) than actual pixels can differ from the actual result therefore.
If the workflow has worked for you so far without noticing that it seems likely that this image differs significantly from the ones you usually edited.
I'm sorry about the missing attached images, I had no idea that you couldn't attach images to the emails. I'll go to the Forum browser and do that. Regarding the appearance of the "preview" image..... I'm not sure what you mean by "preview". I make adjustments on my photos based upon what I see in my layered image. When I flatten it I expect it to retain all the corrections that I've worked so hard to achieve. Are you telling me that I should ignore the appearance of the flattened image and proceed to print?
I'll print some of those images today just to see if what you say is correct. HOWEVER.... as I've stated previously... print is not the intended use here and the images which I'm generating DO retain the lack of contrast problem that I'm trying to find the solution for. Regardless, how can I expect to make correct creative decisions as I proceed to work on the image if the image does not reflect the sum of all my efforts? You're saying... 'just ignore what it looks like and plunge forward?'
I'm not sure what you mean by "preview".
When Photoshop displays the effect multiple (Adjustment) Layers have on each other it does not actually calculate a flattened resulting image in full res and downsamples that to the magnification you view at, but performs those operations with the resampled elements, so it is a preview.
Edit: The issue applies to Layer Masks and Layers alike.
Are you telling me that I should ignore the appearance of the flattened image and proceed to print?
Others and I are telling you that any preview other than Actual Pixels is not reliable, so what you think you have achieved you may not have achieved at all so long as you don’t see it at Actual Pixels-view.
Well, I'm lucky... I learn something every day.
But I gotta say... I've been using PS since about 2000 and what I see on my screen and what I'm sending out seem pretty much the same to me. I don't think what I'm doing today differs from what I did last week when I didn't have this problem.
Also... I want to reiterate.. this ONLY occurs on the REVEALED portion of the layered image.
If I could find the "CAMERA" button on for Forum screen I'd send some PRINTSCREEN examples. Please give me a hint where it is, cuz I've examined the screen from top to bottom
Please hang in there... and... thanx...
This is basically how you make images intended for viewing on the web.
First find out what is the average pixel count size of the monitors of your intended viewers. This is a link to a web site that can give you a clue for the general trends http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp and if you are interested in specific group and web sites you can use tools like this http://www.tastyplacement.com/monitor-size-statistics-for-web-design-html . After you know the average pixel count size of the monitors of the intended viewers then you can decide how large as pixel count you want your images to appear in that space. You have to make this decision by viewing your images at 100% zoom. At 100% zoom one pixel of your image fits into one pixel of your monitor. When you zoom out less then 100%, a group of pixels from the image will be represented using their average color with one monitor pixel and this causes loss of detail and changed image appearance like the one you are experiencing. When you zoom in more than 100%, one pixel from the image will occupy a group of monitor's pixels and this will give enlarged pixel appearance (steps like effect) jaggies. Web browsers by default display images at 100%. If your images are for a web site that is yet to be designed, and you are one of the design decision makers, create a new Photoshop document with a pixel count that is the average pixel count size of the monitors of your intended viewers and having in mind the other elements of the web page, decide the amount of space your images will be occupy in the overall design. If your images are going to appear on existing web site/s. Visit the site and make a screen capture of your screen, go back in Photoshop, choose to create a new document which automatically is set to the the pixel count of the content on your clipboard, and after that paste the screen capture. Then create or scale down your images to fit in the desired space. Again, the final effect will be what you view at 100% zoom. With all that said, have in mind that if your images are going to be posted on certain web site like this Adobe forum - images posted here are displayed in the messages as previews with certain size limit. Images larger than this limit will be scaled down automatically by the site but if you click on the preview image, it will show the full size as it appears at 100% zoom in Photoshop. You have to check how your images will be treated on the web sites you plan to use and then you can create them with the optimal pixel count size.
Another thing that you also have to be aware is that you don't have control over the physical size of your images because different monitors and display devices have different size pixels and this will make an image with the same pixel count displayed with the same zoom to appear at different physical sizes on the various monitor models and devices such as smart phones.
These are screen shot examples of the flattened image loss of contrast problem.... thanx for your time'
Charles O. Slavens
"The apparent is never the real!"
WEBSITE - http://winterscreen.com
FLICKR - http://www.flickr.com/photos/37058183@N06/
PICASA - https://picasaweb.google.com/home
FACEBOOK - http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=1386465259
There are no images contained in your forum post, probably because you’re not using the camera icon, in the web-forum version of the posts, yet—see the link to the web-forum posts in my other post, just now.
Perhaps you can create a hidden gallery on your winterscreen.com site and post a link to it. A hidden gallery containing the screenshots you’re unable to post, here.
BTW, your Fotoblur link in your sig leads to a page that doesn’t exist, and the Picasa link in your sig is something generic that shows everyone their own photos, not yours for others to see.
I seem to have committed multiple error in communications procedure during this session. I'm very unfamiliar with the processs. I was REPLYING to the email responses rather than clicking on the REPLY button. Apologies to all and I'd like to thank everyone for the patience. I always thought my fallback position would be to uninstall/reinstall CS5.5. This is on a Windows 7 machine with SP3. HOWEVER.... upon googling that thought I've now discovered another galaxy of problems which make my current issue pale in comparison.
North America
Europe, Middle East and Africa
Asia Pacific