Um, that makes no sense.
You can't have 2 *+/ 3 = ?????
It's 2 numbers in, resulting in a single number out (or color in some cases). That's all you can do with blend modes.
Chris... I'll say it again. You come across as such an blunt arrogant @#$@. Please don't respond to any of my posts in the future. You're not helpful.
Two numbers in, one number out. Because a layer stack has a linear ordering.
But it would be possible to apply a given layer twice in succession, the first time with blending mode A, the second time (to the result of the first) with blending mode B.
Possible, but to my mind, clearly on the far side of the line that separates coherent, easily understood concepts from recipes for confusion. Bearing in mind that exactly the same effect can be achieved using duplicate layers.
Please stop reading your problems into my responses, and read what I write.
I'm trying to answer your questions, provide more information, correct your mistakes, etc.
I'm sorry if the fact that I am being helpful is a problem for you.
Chris, I think you could stand to drop the sarchasm, opinion and
defensiveness. I challenge you to NOT REPLY to this and choose instead
to let it go. Thanks
Pixels in... MOJO out!
m • (913)940-0024
Become a Facebook FAN http://www.facebook.com/retouchMOJO
What the …?
I’ve been following these Photoshop Fora for some time now, but I fail to see why all of a sudden Mr. Cox is being rebuked so sharply for the tone he takes.
Which is not that abrasive in my opinion and anyway does not impede the informative value of his replies.
Yes. And I think if I for example wrote exactly as CC does (assuming I knew enough), nobody would see any sarcasm in my tone whatsoever.
But if I had "Employee" under my name, perhaps a certain class of person would think that even this post was sarcastic or abrasive.
This is silly. He's not the company, not personally to blame for bugs, for pricing, or for Adobe's success and market dominance.
The last thing I would want is for an Adobe employee to be discouraged from posting here frequently and freely. I wish more of them did, and good on Chris for taking the trouble.
At this point in time, given that quirks and teething problems in CS5 are turning out to be a bit more serious than was probably hoped, having an open channel from the user community to the company, and from the company back to us, is tremendously important. It would be a good thing, overall, even if the person in question was a rubbish communicator, or saw his or her role primarily as one of fending off criticism. But that's not the case, Chris is a good communicator and I don't think he ever dismisses a criticism or suggestion without thinking about it. (Urging a degree of measure is a different thing.) He's almost always one of the first to ask for further information that turns out to be pertinent.
I think Chris has a very good brain for the tech-talk however he lacks in people skills and has often talked down to forum members. His tone is often blunt, arrogant, and negative. While some of you may find the information he provides useful, typically the way he presents it is abrasive and crude.
For those who are content with the forums the way they are, and accept Chris' behaviour for what it is, I say have at it and enjoy. In my opinion these forums could use the manners and thoughtfulness of someone like John Nack. He is leaps and bounds more helpful and personable than Chris has ever been.
Nice to see that your own tone has risen back out of the gutter.
You said you were leaving the forums. I hope you don't, but also that you don't get "arrogant, negative, ... abrasive and crude" again too often. If you have a personality clash with Chris (which seems likely), then manage it.
You obviously haven't read Jack's responses to comments like yours on his blog. Mee-ow!
Carson, he is informing you that you cannot combine blend modes like that. Because each mode is a fixed calculation, its impossible in theory to have more than one acting on a layer at the same time. It just doesn't work.
This is information that you did not have before. Be grateful that it came from the horses mouth and not from someone just making a stab at an answer.
Because each mode is a fixed calculation, its impossible in theory to have more than one acting on a layer at the same time. It just doesn't work.
Yes, but possible in theory to have more than one blending mode applied to a layer sequentially. (But as above, I still don't think that would be a helpful development.)
As in once for color and once for contrast? Smart objects are no help. Shouldn't duplicates (as opposed to copies) be a reference to the same PSB, and with maximize compatibility off be curve-adjustment-layer small?
Duplicate Smart Objects will reference the same PSB (or other child file).
But Smart Objects are much more heavy weight than adjustment layers - because they can do a lot more.
Well I was speaking about equivalent orders of magnitude only. Imprecision's one of my many crutches.
A singe white SO PSD is 1.1 MB. A PSD with 10 duplicate white SOs is 1.4 MB. Try it with clouds and you get 3 and 12 MB. One set of SOs is doing more than the other? And what's the difference between the OP's request and the one where I ask for multiple filters (à la SOs)?
One set of SOs is doing more than the other?
One of them (with the white SO) produces smaller data in compression, so it results in a smaller file-size.
A non-smart object psd with ten white layers as opposed to one with ten structured layers should produce like results (minus the size of the so itself).
Exactly. Why? These are copies. Shouldn't the pixel data be stored once, opening up all kinds of awesome workarounds like multiple blending modes?
Each instance exists within the file as the pixels that result from the scale, rotation, filters, etc.
So except for the times when the data is created anew (transformations, applications/changes of filters, …) I suppose a Smart Object can be considered as basically just another Layer …
Again, copies of a Smart Object DO store the child object only once, with each instance referencing the same child.
But the layer data (the rendered data in the parent) still has to be stored in the parent for each of those layers -- that cannot be shared, especially since eash one can have a different transform on it (all from the same shared child object).
So that means that there are at least TWO versions (resolutions) of the pixel data held within the file. One for the parent and one for the child. Thats the drawback of Smart Objects. This potential file size ballooning disadvantage aside, Smart Objects are currently saving my life on a job.