Thanks for exposing me to the 21st century (my PS 5.0 was from the 20th century).You should see the selection tools we've got now.
I watched your video 6 or 7 times, asking myself, "Could I achieve the same result with my PS 5.0 work-arounds ?"
My *basic approach
* in making a .psd file is dragging a layer that I want to modify into a "New File" (most always with a transparent background), making what changes I want in this New File -- (i.e., resizing, removing background, etc.) -- and then dragging the resultant layer *back into* the file I'm working on.
Consider how I'd approach the case shown in the video, where the sister in the swing -- (at the left) -- is to be moved closer to her brother on the right:
For starters, I'd open the original JPEG, drag it into a New File -- (with a transparent background) -- and then close the original JPEG. (That way, I'd *always* have my original image, unaltered.)
I'd then duplicate this layer in the New File.
On this duplicate layer, I'd *obliterate everything involving the sister*, by mostly using the Rubber Stamp Tool, with the appropriate setting(s) in the Brushes Palette.
The Line Tool is also useful (IMO) in this process, also.
Now, we need to turn attention to removing the background around the sister, swing, and chain holding the swing up.
What I usually do in a case like this is use the Eraser Tool, with Options: "Pencil", "Opacity=100%", and "Fade=0".
I quickly go around the image with the Eraser Tool (but, of course, trying to be as close to the image as possible).
But, of course, after this, the outside of the image still has an "aliased" (i.e., stair-steppy) look.
Next I use a trick I developed myself -- (I honestly don't know if this "trick" is common knowledge or not. It's so simple, it probably is common knowledge.) -- to turn the aliased outer edge into "anti-aliased".
I go around the outer edge -- (a couple of pixels at a time) -- using the Line Tool, with Options: "Normal", "Opacity=100%, Weight=1px, and, of course, with the "Anti-aliased" box checked.
As I go around the outside edge of the image with the Line Tool, I sample the color just inside the image at that point, and use that color in my 2px (or so) anti-aliased straight line.
This technique is very, very fast, and essentially it is based on the Fundamental Principle(s) of Calculus, which state that any curve of any shape can be well approximated by a series of straight-line segments, as long as the length of these segments is short.
To get the *exact* vertical shape of the 2 chains -- (with all the *exact* details) -- I'd probably just crop each chain out -- (as close to the "verticals" as i could get) -- of the image in 2 "New Files" (on transparent layers), and drag the crops back into the original file and position them where they should be.
All of this work sounds "long-winded', but this is the way I'm used to working, and what I've described wouldn't take me very long at all to do.I typically use smart objects.
But, I don't think *smart* objects would be compatible with *dumb* people ! (lol)But no, I don't do that "resize & sharpen a bunch of times" thing.
It would allow you to visit Prehistoric Times, and see the way the Cavemen used to do it.
Many Thanks for this *Instructive Post*, CoffeeFiend.
The video was definitely interesting to watch, but I didn't understand *all* of it, with all the advanced terminology, and especially with the speed at which it went.
However, I did get a strong sense
that I could more or less duplicate what was shown using Prehistoric PS 5.0.
Again, Much Appreciated !
P.S.,Could you please answer this for me ?
It concerns the .psd files I made for bphlpt.
You said that PS 5.0 couldn't even open .psd files made by more-advanced versions.
(I'd guess that's because PS 5.0 would have no way of knowing what the "features" of the more-advanced versions are.)Finally, my question:
Can much-later versions of PS open PS 5.0 .psd files ?
My guess is that the answer to this question is "Yes".
Kind of like: "Stephen Hawking can understand a 4-year-old -- (when the 4-year-old talks about *anything*) -- but the 4-year-old can't understand Stephen Hawking, especially when he discusses Physics".
Edited by larryb123456, 01 January 2012 - 03:52 PM.