That's not what we generally mean by destructive, but rather that applying any effect this way throws away the original pixels. You can't go back to them. When you use adjustment layers, you can disable it, delete it, mask certain portions of it, and even change the settings on it later on (or use completely different adjustments instead). The underlying pixels on the layer underneath remain unchanged. That's the big difference: you're not throwing away the original pixels.
I have noticed that Image > Adjust > Brightness/Contrast is very destructive if you get too far away from zero.
Thanks for giving the proper definition of "destructive".
I know that with Brightness/Contrast, for example, once you apply a "setting", you can't undo it -- (except with "Edit > Undo Brightness/Contrast" or the history brush, of course). Sometimes, if I apply Brightness = +20, say, and if the image is too bright, I can "restore" it somewhat by applying Brightness = - 20 (or thereabouts), *but I'm sure* -- based on what you said -- that this 2-step approach does not restore the image to its original state. I will definitely check out adjustment layers.
In my PS layers, I *never, never* apply any "action" to an original image -- I always apply the action to a duplicate layer, so if I mess it up, I can simply delete it. (I know -- that's basic PS operation.) I understand that an example of a non-destructive process would be a type layer that has not been rendered (rasterized) yet. It can be edited an infinite number of times. But once the layer is rendered, it can, of course, no longer be edited. If you want to change the size of this rendered layer, you have to resort to a numeric transform, for example.
Another cool thing you can do with type is using clipping paths (using the letters to reveal parts of a photo/texture/gradient or what not) -- without having to rasterize the type and then using it as a channel mask (then you couldn't edit the text anymore; it also lets you easily move both independently of each other). I just saw yet another nice example of that used on a local musem's website a couple days ago (pic here).
In achieving a *perfect* line of type, I usually put *each letter* on a different layer so that I can adjust the spacing between letters to achieve *perfection*. Then I make a duplicate layer for each letter, and then merge the duplicates into one type layer for ease of "handling". I can, of course, apply a pattern to this whole type layer. (I also can apply a different pattern to *each individual letter*, as your museum pic shows.)
The technique I use to make patterned type is to put the layer with the pattern above the type layer and then Alt-click *exactly* in-between these 2 layers. If I used a different pattern for *each letter* in the name and Alt-clicked for each letter, this would result in the type showing a different pattern for each letter, exactly as in your museum pic. IMO this feature (or effect) is ultra-cool
! This patterned type is rasterized, but I can transform it to resize it, say -- or apply any other type of transform. I also can apply any desired layer effect, stroke, etc. In the same way, I can make a stroke around a line of type and apply a pattern to this stroke. This works well, say, if you have a 2 px stroke around some letters and want the stroke (outline) to be a gradient fade from lighter on top to darker on bottom, for example. (Or anything else.)
I generated the lettering in my photo in "My Profile" using this pattern technique. I made a stacked 2-line larryb/123456 pattern from an abstract "shades of yellow and gold" image, applied an outer bevel, and free transformed it to fit the picture. I liked the result. My favorite type of pictures have areas so bright that "they will put your eyes out" and also totally-black areas. I like the picture since (IMO) you're not really sure if the people are watching a sunrise or an atomic bomb going off. (lol)
Photoshop (at least the modern versions -- not totally sure when that was introduced. With 7/CS perhaps?) are pretty powerful as far as type goes. You can easily make use of nice opentype features (real small caps, fancy ligatures, etc -- just check this out) like edit leading, tracking, kerning, shift the baseline, tweak hyphenation, etc (there's 2 palettes just for this)
Thanks for the reference. I looked through all of it. I think the way I put each letter or number on a separate layer and then adjust the spacing accomplishes much and "allows" PS 5.0 to accomplish more than it was intended to (if I'm not overstating this). For example, consider the "Superscrip/Subscript" example: [Co(NH3
. I'd put [, C, o, (, N, H, ), and ] all the same size on different layers -- for a total of 8 layers. I'd then make 3, 6, (, 3, and ) the appropriate smaller size on 5 separate layers. I now have a total of 13 layers. I'd adjust the character spacing and orient the subscripts and superscript accordingly by moving each layer independently. Of course, at this point, all type is editable. I'd then duplicate each layer and merge the 13 layers for ease of handling. To this layer we can apply all kinds of effects -- stroke, outer glow, emboss, drop shadow, apply a pattern, etc. Of course, we still have our 13 original editable letters, so we can duplicate them again and go back and change the color of the 3, 6, and (3) to the blue shown in the image to the right. I guess this example provides a little insight into the way I work with my PS 5.0. (By no means am I claiming that this is "genius" -- lol ! -- it's just a simple, basic way to work that I'm sure that everyone knows and uses.)
Feel free to PM me anytime for anything Photoshop related Mind you I haven't used v5 in over a decade...
Thank you so much for your generous offer, CoffeeFiend.
I don't think we'd have to reference everything back to PS 5.0 per se
, but it might be that I might not be able to understand the *basic concept* behind "clipping paths", for example. I've learned PS 5.0 up to this point mostly by my own trial and error, and trying to find pointers on the 'net. The PS 5.0 "Help" is not much "Help". Definitely a misnomer there.
Just for the record, the Gimp has a price that cannot be beaten:
Thanks for responding, jaclaz. Finally, a price that I can afford ! Your link required Windows XP SP2 or later. I'm back in the "Stone Age" with Windows 98.http://gimp-win.sour...ge.net/old.html
has a download for Windows 98, GTK+ 2 Runtime Environment (version 2.6.10-20050823). But they say: "Unless you have a very good reason, it's recommended to always use the latest stable version, and not the versions available on this page." I had seen Gimp mentioned on the 'net before, but I kind of "glossed over" the info. I'm curious now to find out more about it. I think I'll download it with the Help files and just leave it on my Desktop for the time being. The way my mind works, I'm afraid if I start learning Gimp, I'll be trying to "Gimp" on Photoshop with disasterous results.
Again, Many Thanks.