alt.graphics.photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
alt.graphics.photoshop@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* How can i stretch inkjet printed canvas on the frames? - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/416b5908a3094a51?hl=en
* slideshow image - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/645ca85237be579c?hl=en
* Technique? - 16 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/c674375f43506014?hl=en
* Web Page from CS3 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/2cb09b86c38aace8?hl=en
* KatWoman on leave? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/c4b224121b1c0a07?hl=en
* Is it possible to protect PDF files from local saving? - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/06eb8e6443ad4853?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can i stretch inkjet printed canvas on the frames?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/416b5908a3094a51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 8:09 pm
From: John J
Mike Russell wrote:
>>> Why could you not do it, nameless one?
>
>>> You must have some materials purchasing rate and
>>> learning curve. OR you just
>>> like asking questions for the sake of asking.
>
> Is there something in the water today?
Floooride! It's diminishing our natural bodily fluids!
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 3:57 am
From: Jurgen
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:37:47 -0600, John J wrote:
> Roy G wrote:
>
>> You must have some materials purchasing rate and learning curve. OR you
>> just like asking questions for the sake of asking.
>
> And you just like disrespecting anyone who is genuinely curious.
The real problem is far more sinister.
These cretins are bored. They've infested most of the low volume
newsgroups and driven newbes away in their droves. Now they troll the few
useful groups left, looking for a post they can gain self gratification
from by insulting the poster. Juvenille minds in control of powerful
computers and nothing to do with them except destroy what they came to
enjoy.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:17 am
From: Dave
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:12:43 +1000, "PeteR"
<paul.reasonau@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>` "Dave" <dave@durbs.sa> wrote in message
>news:2ucmh4l9l928vhp9svqlufluhkvlq14dra@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:00:38 +0100, [mfk] <mafarka@TOGLIMIemail.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>how can i stretch the inkjet printed canvas on the wood frames?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>
>> I copied your question and pasted it in Google Search.
>> In .46 seconds I had numerous answers.
>> Why could you not do it, nameless one?
>> Go find yourself a name somewhere
>> and learn about search machines.
>>
>
>
>Why do you do this?
>
>Regards
>PeteR
>
>
Why I did this? Only one day earlier (go read 'Web Page from CS3')
I supplied, like may times before, a complete answer. With no come
back. Some of them are to stupid to know where they posted and time
and effort gets wasted thus, by answering them.
Secondly, somebody posting messages without using a name,
usually is trolls not wanting to be traced or be remembered.
You ask the regulars how often we do not get a come back on answers
given. We do not want a thank you, but only a sentence saying the
advice was tested.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:02 am
From: "Roy G"
"Jurgen" <Jurgen_haus@ezilon.com> wrote in message
news:6o2j1bF1govlU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:37:47 -0600, John J wrote:
>
>> Roy G wrote:
>>
>>> You must have some materials purchasing rate and learning curve. OR you
>>> just like asking questions for the sake of asking.
>>
>> And you just like disrespecting anyone who is genuinely curious.
>
>
> The real problem is far more sinister.
> These cretins are bored. They've infested most of the low volume
> newsgroups and driven newbes away in their droves. Now they troll the few
> useful groups left, looking for a post they can gain self gratification
> from by insulting the poster. Juvenille minds in control of powerful
> computers and nothing to do with them except destroy what they came to
> enjoy.
These judgements on my character are a bit over the top.
Just look at the timeframe involved in this poster's ( Troll? )
questions.
There is no way he could have got a canvas print ready for stretching, just
2 days after not even knowing about the existance of photo canvas, and not
even having the sense to look up the Epson site.
Then he says he is going to buy a 3800 printer, just like that.
He is at it.
Roy G
==============================================================================
TOPIC: slideshow image
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/645ca85237be579c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 2:15 am
From: "Colin.D"
Colin.D wrote:
> Ragnar wrote:
>> Why don't you make your mind up what your name is?
>> You have posted as "Tyler Moore" and "Jones Diana", and cross-posted
>> elsewhere as "Green Joshua" and "Green Tyler".
>> Are you real or is it some scam?
>> R.
>
> And Margaret Johnson, whom I answered in good faith.
>
> Either an uninformed newby or some sort of troll?
>
> Colin D.
Just twigged. It's probably spam from the MultiExtractor outfit to
spread the word about their program - which does work, but it's an arm
and a leg to buy.
Colin D.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Technique?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/c674375f43506014?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 2:18 am
From: "Colin.D"
tony cooper wrote:
> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> help?
>
> Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> do I make the background line up precisely?
>
>
Crop one image to remove the unwanted bits, then lay it over the other,
then flatten the composite image. Or, stitch the two images, which
should result in perfect alignment.
Colin D.
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 3:45 am
From: Joel
"Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> > precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> > help?
> >
> > Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> > taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> > something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> > shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> > do I make the background line up precisely?
> >
> >
> Crop one image to remove the unwanted bits, then lay it over the other,
> then flatten the composite image. Or, stitch the two images, which
> should result in perfect alignment.
>
> Colin D.
I believe he wants auto-align (not the subject but the whole photo edge to
edge), but it may not work out the way he wants (even Photoshop has the
option).
And back to the very same technique I have been trying to pass to him and
other, but it doesn't seem that many got it. And again, Layer, Masking etc.
is a very good technique and it can be used on just about anything.
Same with trying to blend 2 or more photos together which sounds simple
but almost 98-99% isn't exactly what most people really want. Or the chance
for the opposite of both photos are complete destroyed is very very and very
rare. So lets say
- One photo has 99% right but 1% wrong, or just the eye, eyeglass, mouth,
position, shadow whatever of a single person in a large group.
FINE! we don't need to swap the whole 1/2 of the photo, and my trick
should work with all of the issues above and whatever more.
- Lets say the eye of one person is closed and they look fine on other
photo, then just replace the EYE(s) instead of trying to replace the whole
1/2 of the whole photo. And again, it's still better or easier to use Layer
& Masking than most other commands which I believe they would do, but won't
be easier or more reflexible than Masking.
- Lets say just able everything is fine except a small SHADOW issue.
Samething, we don't want to swap the whole 1/2 of the image but using the
exact same Layer & Masking technique.
And keep mastering the same technique on many different issues, we will
have more practicing and the more we practice the sooner we can master the
technique.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:21 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:45:25 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>"Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> > There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> > precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> > help?
>> >
>> > Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>> > taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>> > something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>> > shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>> > do I make the background line up precisely?
>> >
>> >
>> Crop one image to remove the unwanted bits, then lay it over the other,
>> then flatten the composite image. Or, stitch the two images, which
>> should result in perfect alignment.
>>
>> Colin D.
>
> I believe he wants auto-align (not the subject but the whole photo edge to
>edge), but it may not work out the way he wants (even Photoshop has the
>option).
>
> And back to the very same technique I have been trying to pass to him and
>other, but it doesn't seem that many got it. And again, Layer, Masking etc.
>is a very good technique and it can be used on just about anything.
>
> Same with trying to blend 2 or more photos together which sounds simple
>but almost 98-99% isn't exactly what most people really want. Or the chance
>for the opposite of both photos are complete destroyed is very very and very
>rare. So lets say
>
>- One photo has 99% right but 1% wrong, or just the eye, eyeglass, mouth,
> position, shadow whatever of a single person in a large group.
>
> FINE! we don't need to swap the whole 1/2 of the photo, and my trick
>should work with all of the issues above and whatever more.
>
>- Lets say the eye of one person is closed and they look fine on other
>photo, then just replace the EYE(s) instead of trying to replace the whole
>1/2 of the whole photo. And again, it's still better or easier to use Layer
>& Masking than most other commands which I believe they would do, but won't
>be easier or more reflexible than Masking.
>
>- Lets say just able everything is fine except a small SHADOW issue.
>Samething, we don't want to swap the whole 1/2 of the image but using the
>exact same Layer & Masking technique.
>
> And keep mastering the same technique on many different issues, we will
>have more practicing and the more we practice the sooner we can master the
>technique.
My project was a table-top shot using a tripod, so the two images were
exactly the same except for a change in how an external light was
placed. The move with shift held works perfectly for this. I used a
mask to reveal the different lighting on the object in one side of the
image.
Your suggestions work for shots of people, but no two shots of a
person will be identical if they are taken more than seconds apart.
There is always some movement which makes the shift/move impractical.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:39 am
From: Dave
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> No Bridge as bridge won't help you to cross the river of trouble. Just
>learn to take advantage of the technique I am trying to share to you and
>other. It's same with how to remove/adjust shadow etc. I answered other
>messages before.
>
>1. Have two photos on 2 separated layers.
>
>2. Using Quick Mask command to blend them together and that's it.
>
Joel, Joel..uncle Joel, obviously you never heard of a panorama.
Have you ever noticed PS consists of many more facilities than 'Mask'?
You always brag about how good you are with masks but do you know what
the other buttons are for? You should try them and surprise yourself.
Dave (without a mask)
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:47 am
From: Dave
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> help?
>
>Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
of Tony's question. His question was:
>There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>help?
>Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>do I make the background line up precisely?
This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
Dave
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:58 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:47:46 +0200, Dave <dave@durbs.sa> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
>Elzenga) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>>> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>>> help?
>>
>>Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
>
>
>Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
>of Tony's question. His question was:
It does work, Dave. It aligns two images if the images are the same
size.
>>There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>>precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>>help?
>
>>Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>>taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>>something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>>shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>>do I make the background line up precisely?
>
>This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
>him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
>
No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
positions.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:14 am
From: John J
tony cooper wrote:
> No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
> lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
> best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
> object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
> positions.
Using 20/20 vision, then of course the shift-drag is the answer and I
think it was the first thing mentioned in a couple replies, however
given the relatively unsophisticated photography involved in most
queries here, we (or I) tend to believe it's the norm.
Indeed, using a tripod is the first step to achieving what you wish to
do, and I am happy to see someone following first principles of
photography to find his ends.
I hope it works well for you.
BTW - In version 7 there are options to "add" and "subtract" and "apply"
images (if my memory is correct). I never used them, but since you are a
version 7 person, you might want to explore them. For all my personal
work, Verson 7 was fine! And I'll bet it runs like lighting on our later
computers.
Best of luck,
John
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:31 am
From: Dave
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:58:23 -0500, tony cooper
>
>It does work, Dave. It aligns two images if the images are the same
>size.
>
>>
>No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
>lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
>best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
>object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
>positions.
Thanks for clearing up, Tony, and sorry Johan, you were right, thus.
To explain, this was a complete misunderstanding, Tony, when you spoke
of something on the left in one and on the right in the other one. And
it had to align. Maybe my understanding of the English language is not
always as good as I thought:-)
>>Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>>taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>>something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>>shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>>do I make the background line up precisely?
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:49 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:14:55 -0600, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
>> lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
>> best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
>> object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
>> positions.
>
>Using 20/20 vision, then of course the shift-drag is the answer and I
>think it was the first thing mentioned in a couple replies, however
>given the relatively unsophisticated photography involved in most
>queries here, we (or I) tend to believe it's the norm.
>
>Indeed, using a tripod is the first step to achieving what you wish to
>do, and I am happy to see someone following first principles of
>photography to find his ends.
>
I consider a tripod essential in table-top photography. In most
table-top photography, the scene is composed by the photographer on
the fly. The objects are arranged and lit, an exposure is taken, the
results are looked at, and the objects are rearranged and relit to
improve the result. The camera stays stationary since the field of
view never changes. I usually use the self-timer to ensure that
there's no camera jiggle.
>I hope it works well for you.
>
>BTW - In version 7 there are options to "add" and "subtract" and "apply"
>images (if my memory is correct). I never used them, but since you are a
>version 7 person, you might want to explore them. For all my personal
>work, Verson 7 was fine! And I'll bet it runs like lighting on our later
>computers.
V 7.0 does have "apply image", but - to be honest - I've never
understood what that does. In color correcting in channels, after
changing to Lab mode, I "apply image" because that's a step that Kelby
recommends.
Your comment prompted me to look this feature up. There's info at
http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=727922 on this, and
I'll study up on it.
I don't know what the "add" and "subtract" features are other than the
use of this in Selections, and I routinely use that. That's not a
drop-down, though.
What's this "unsophisticated" bit? I'm hurt. I'm very sophisticated
in my approach to photography. It's only my results that look
unsophisticated.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:59 am
From: John J
tony cooper wrote:
> I consider a tripod essential in table-top photography. In most
> table-top photography, the scene is composed by the photographer on
> the fly. The objects are arranged and lit, an exposure is taken, the
> results are looked at, and the objects are rearranged and relit to
> improve the result. The camera stays stationary since the field of
> view never changes. I usually use the self-timer to ensure that
> there's no camera jiggle.
I included all of what you wrote so that perhaps others can appreciate
it. So many picture-makers try to do everything in photoshop rather than
doing it right in-camera to begin with - and it shows!
> What's this "unsophisticated" bit? I'm hurt.
Not you, Sir! I was referring to the masses who became involved in
photography when photoshop was considered the larger part of the
discipline and the camera, making the picture, was just the unfortunate
grunt-work.
Hell, I shoot 8x10" film!
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:54 am
From: Joel
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:45:25 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> >"Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> tony cooper wrote:
> >> > There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> >> > precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> >> > help?
> >> >
> >> > Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> >> > taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> >> > something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> >> > shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> >> > do I make the background line up precisely?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Crop one image to remove the unwanted bits, then lay it over the other,
> >> then flatten the composite image. Or, stitch the two images, which
> >> should result in perfect alignment.
> >>
> >> Colin D.
> >
> > I believe he wants auto-align (not the subject but the whole photo edge to
> >edge), but it may not work out the way he wants (even Photoshop has the
> >option).
> >
> > And back to the very same technique I have been trying to pass to him and
> >other, but it doesn't seem that many got it. And again, Layer, Masking etc.
> >is a very good technique and it can be used on just about anything.
> >
> > Same with trying to blend 2 or more photos together which sounds simple
> >but almost 98-99% isn't exactly what most people really want. Or the chance
> >for the opposite of both photos are complete destroyed is very very and very
> >rare. So lets say
> >
> >- One photo has 99% right but 1% wrong, or just the eye, eyeglass, mouth,
> > position, shadow whatever of a single person in a large group.
> >
> > FINE! we don't need to swap the whole 1/2 of the photo, and my trick
> >should work with all of the issues above and whatever more.
> >
> >- Lets say the eye of one person is closed and they look fine on other
> >photo, then just replace the EYE(s) instead of trying to replace the whole
> >1/2 of the whole photo. And again, it's still better or easier to use Layer
> >& Masking than most other commands which I believe they would do, but won't
> >be easier or more reflexible than Masking.
> >
> >- Lets say just able everything is fine except a small SHADOW issue.
> >Samething, we don't want to swap the whole 1/2 of the image but using the
> >exact same Layer & Masking technique.
> >
> > And keep mastering the same technique on many different issues, we will
> >have more practicing and the more we practice the sooner we can master the
> >technique.
>
> My project was a table-top shot using a tripod, so the two images were
> exactly the same except for a change in how an external light was
> placed. The move with shift held works perfectly for this. I used a
> mask to reveal the different lighting on the object in one side of the
> image.
>
> Your suggestions work for shots of people, but no two shots of a
> person will be identical if they are taken more than seconds apart.
> There is always some movement which makes the shift/move impractical.
My suggestion or technique should work with just about anything, one or
more person, tripod or no tripod. Also, I am a professional photographer so
I have always aware that almost none 2 shot are 100% identical, expecially
with alive subject (not the living tree but people and animal etc.) so
unless the tripod and subject are 100% still between the shots, the chance
for 2 or more shot to be 100% identical is very slim. And that's why we
would want to use the technique similar to mine to work on SINGLE photo
instead of 2 or more photos.
Unless you want to replace a small part of the photo like eye, mouth etc.
then you can use small part of other photo to replace the original.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:58 am
From: Joel
Dave <dave@durbs.sa> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>
> > No Bridge as bridge won't help you to cross the river of trouble. Just
> >learn to take advantage of the technique I am trying to share to you and
> >other. It's same with how to remove/adjust shadow etc. I answered other
> >messages before.
> >
> >1. Have two photos on 2 separated layers.
> >
> >2. Using Quick Mask command to blend them together and that's it.
> >
>
> Joel, Joel..uncle Joel, obviously you never heard of a panorama.
> Have you ever noticed PS consists of many more facilities than 'Mask'?
> You always brag about how good you are with masks but do you know what
> the other buttons are for? You should try them and surprise yourself.
>
> Dave (without a mask)
Hahahaha unless you realize that I may enjoyed the panorama before you
were born. So Paranoma may be new to you so you impress with paranoma, but
it won't impress me.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:47 am
From: Dave
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:58:50 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> Hahahaha unless you realize that I may enjoyed the panorama before you
>were born. So Paranoma may be new to you so you impress with paranoma, but
>it won't impress me.
Faintly,very faintly, but somehow like in a flash, I recall a photo
which was taken of me while I was knee-height. One of those single
paragraphs sometimes popping up. The camera was on a tripod and the
photographer had his head under a black cloth.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:00 am
From: nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga)
Dave <dave@durbs.sa> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
> Elzenga) wrote:
>
> >tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> >> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> >> help?
> >
> >Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
>
>
> Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
> of Tony's question. His question was:
>
> >There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> >precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> >help?
>
> >Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> >taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> >something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> >shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> >do I make the background line up precisely?
>
> This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
> him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
Nope. If you read the question carefully, this is what the OP asks: He
has two images. The images are essentially the same, but in one image
there is something on the right side he doesn't want and on the other
there is something unwanted on the left side. Perhaps a car, or a person
moving though the scene. So he wants to stack the two images, so he can
mask out the unwanted car/person. Mind you, he doesn't ask HOW to mask
out the unwanted element, only how to ALIGN the images perfectly.
So the answer to the entire question is: hold the shift key while you
drag one image on top of the other. That's all (and if you read the OP's
reaction, he agrees that's the answer).
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:42 am
From: Dave
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:00:30 +0100, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
>Dave <dave@durbs.sa> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
>> Elzenga) wrote:
>>
>> >tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> >> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> >> help?
>> >
>> >Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
>>
>>
>> Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
>> of Tony's question. His question was:
>>
>> >There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> >precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> >help?
>>
>> >Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>> >taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>> >something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>> >shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>> >do I make the background line up precisely?
>>
>> This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
>> him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
>
>Nope. If you read the question carefully, this is what the OP asks: He
>has two images. The images are essentially the same, but in one image
>there is something on the right side he doesn't want and on the other
>there is something unwanted on the left side. Perhaps a car, or a person
>moving though the scene. So he wants to stack the two images, so he can
>mask out the unwanted car/person. Mind you, he doesn't ask HOW to mask
>out the unwanted element, only how to ALIGN the images perfectly.
>
>So the answer to the entire question is: hold the shift key while you
>drag one image on top of the other. That's all (and if you read the OP's
>reaction, he agrees that's the answer).
Thanks for this explanation, Johan. I truly read it wrong.
Reading it again (only now!) I realize I missed the words 'masking the
left and right sides'. Maybe I read 'masking' as 'making' or something
to this effect but not even this make sense or is a good enough
excuse:-) Sometimes I make the mistake of running my eyes over
a few sentences and then (miss)fit the words to form something
completely else. Thanks for pointing out I should read slower:-)
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:57 am
From: Joel
Dave <dave@durbs.sa> wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > No Bridge as bridge won't help you to cross the river of trouble. Just
> > >learn to take advantage of the technique I am trying to share to you and
> > >other. It's same with how to remove/adjust shadow etc. I answered other
> > >messages before.
> > >
> > >1. Have two photos on 2 separated layers.
> > >
> > >2. Using Quick Mask command to blend them together and that's it.
> > >
> >
> > Joel, Joel..uncle Joel, obviously you never heard of a panorama.
> > Have you ever noticed PS consists of many more facilities than 'Mask'?
> > You always brag about how good you are with masks but do you know what
> > the other buttons are for? You should try them and surprise yourself.
> >
> > Dave (without a mask)
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:58:50 -0600, Joel <Joel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hahahaha unless you realize that I may enjoyed the panorama before you
> >were born. So Paranoma may be new to you so you impress with paranoma, but
> >it won't impress me.
>
>
> Faintly,very faintly, but somehow like in a flash, I recall a photo
> which was taken of me while I was knee-height. One of those single
> paragraphs sometimes popping up. The camera was on a tripod and the
> photographer had his head under a black cloth.
Agree! agree! you not only have much to learn about paragraph but lot to
learn about how to learn as well.
Just to let you know that even the newer Phothsop not only have built-in
some panorama feature that older Photoshop doesn't have, and even with the
feature it still an ok for newbie to enjoy the new trick, but not the good
way to master the photo.
So even I know panorama, I know the newer feature, I know the auto-align
the layer etc. it's still not the best way to do. And you know what I am
talking about when you grow up and learn to think.
Wanna impress me? well I believe you can, and you don't need to impress
me with fancy style, but using a very simple command on a very complex
problem will impress me more. So sticking you head under the black cloth or
under the black dress won't impress me either, knowing what you are talking
about or being yourself may impress me even more.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Web Page from CS3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/2cb09b86c38aace8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:20 am
From: Dave
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:34:13 -0800, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>"Dave" <dave@durbs.sa> wrote in message
>news:s4kjh456hp5r861f3nquslqlonfa207on7@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:59:56 -0600, "bolo_2" <someone@somplacelse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, I cross posted this on Adobe.Photoshop.Windows, but i thought i
>>>might
>>>catch someone here that did not go there.
>>>
>>
>> you need at least two images. Create content on one layer, then
>> duplicate the layer and edit it. You can also use layer styles to
>> apply effects.
>>
>
>I think the OP's "HTML writer" is Bridge (Tools | Photoshop | Web Photo
>Gallery) and he doesn't want to use a better tool.
>
>-Bob
>
>
Completely right, Bob, and very obviously one of those bloody twits
making me feel sorry for the effort I did. Maybe we
should ignore outsiders completely.
Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: KatWoman on leave?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/c4b224121b1c0a07?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:42 am
From: Dave
Is KatWoman on leave or why is she so quiet?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is it possible to protect PDF files from local saving?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/06eb8e6443ad4853?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:55 am
From: "Evan Deez"
"Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
news:vqkgh4pjtaucam1da1ma4rhc3ogph8a05u@4ax.com...
>
>>I want people to see it. Just not save / print / edit (copy from) it. If
>>they can save it anyway, I'd still like to know how to prevent the other
>>two. But it has to be at least viewable.
>
> In Acrobat press F1
Or stated more succinctly, RTFM.
I did, and did not find anything resembling "protect from editing". I saw
passwords and certification mentioned, but nothing along the lines of a "do
not allow copying/importing individual images" checkbox.
So again, I ask : How do I protect my PDF file's individual images from
copy/import? I realize a screenshot will allow copying the final product,
but I'm talking about the individual image layers.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:57 am
From: "Evan Deez"
"Evan Deez" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:gfhpqn$egc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in message
> news:vqkgh4pjtaucam1da1ma4rhc3ogph8a05u@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I want people to see it. Just not save / print / edit (copy from) it. If
>>>they can save it anyway, I'd still like to know how to prevent the other
>>>two. But it has to be at least viewable.
>>
>> In Acrobat press F1
>
> Or stated more succinctly, RTFM.
>
> I did, and did not find anything resembling "protect from editing". I saw
> passwords and certification mentioned, but nothing along the lines of a
> "do not allow copying/importing individual images" checkbox.
>
> So again, I ask : How do I protect my PDF file's individual images from
> copy/import? I realize a screenshot will allow copying the final product,
> but I'm talking about the individual image layers.
I should probably mention that I don't want a password to be involved. I
want the images protected, period. I don't even want a password to be
prompted.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.graphics.photoshop"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.graphics.photoshop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment