Technique?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:43:00 -0500, 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?

How about using Bridge’s ‘Photomerge’ facility, Tony?
Bridge/Tool/Photomerge.

Dave

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:40:56 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:43:00 -0500, 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?

How about using Bridge’s ‘Photomerge’ facility, Tony?
Bridge/Tool/Photomerge.

My error. I should have specified that I have Photoshop V 7.0. I don’t have Bridge.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

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?

Again, the very same technique I shared and you corrected me before. Again. And all you need to do is adapting the very same technique to other need.

1. Make a dupe of the original, since you have 2 different photos or you want to combine to different photos into single then you don’t need to dupe the original.

2. And, samething, all you need to do ising using the Quick Mask command to combine them together.

I told other that this is an advanced technique but you don’t agree <bg>. Yes, it’s a very simple basic command, but also an advanced technique if you know how to use it well.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:43:00 -0500, 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?

I presume the two images were not made using a tripod – that they are not perfectly aligned, otherwise just shift-drag from one canvas to the other.

The cheap and easy way is to put one image in a layer above the other and increase transparency and then nudge it until it aligns properly. Then return the layer to 100%. Of course, it helps if they have the same perspective and aspect ratio.

Don’t know which version you have so I can’t go much further.

tony cooper wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:40:56 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:43:00 -0500, 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?

How about using Bridge’s ‘Photomerge’ facility, Tony?
Bridge/Tool/Photomerge.

My error. I should have specified that I have Photoshop V 7.0. I don’t have Bridge.

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.

It’s easier or harder depending on your Photoshop skill, but the technique is same with removing shadow, replacing background, blending multiple photos together etc.. they are different needs but you can adapt the very same technique to all of them, and learning to adapt one technique to different needs is how you master you technique.

Few small detail which I already explained several times before.

– Using Opacity to create a smooth blending

– Using different Brush size and Hard/Soft Brush depending on how much you want to remove (or Review/Conseal when using Quick Mask)

– Do not use high Opacity but low opacity but do it multiple times. Example, if you need 50% then instead of setting Opacity to 50% you set to 7-10% then move the brush over 10-20 times. Tablet is a good tool for this.

And as I have mentioned so many times, that LAYER and MASKING are a very handy tool which I use almost 90-95+%. DO NOT try neither Bridge, LightRoom, ARC etc, which have nothing to do with blending.

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?

Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) 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?

Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.

There you go. I knew it was something other than just dragging and aligning. Holding down the shift allows precise alignment.

And, yes, I was shooting with a tripod. Just different settings between two shots to bring out a feature in each.

Thanks.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

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.

"Colin.D" 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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:45:25 -0600, Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" 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

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel 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 00:01:40 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) 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?

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

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:47:46 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) 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?

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

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

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?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:14:55 -0600, John J 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

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 8×10" film!

tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:45:25 -0600, Joel wrote:

"Colin.D" 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.

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel 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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:58:50 -0600, Joel 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.

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) 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?

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

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:00:30 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) 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?

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:-)

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:53:18 -0600, Joel 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 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.

tony cooper wrote in
news::

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.

Just my two cents ~ kz

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.

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head. Don’t read it the way I read Tony’s message and made a fool of myself. Go read it again and impress me by learning what I am telling you in that same message. Hint; this was not pointed at you, not degrading you, but seriously telling you about the incident. Maybe, to many people it would not be obvious, but to a professional photographer, reading your two sentences on which I answered, it should be understandable. Good night:-)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:14:54 GMT, kz wrote:

tony cooper wrote in
news::

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

Wow! That’s a heavy hit! Thanks!

PS (CS) has so many just-right little things.

Always learning,
John J

tony cooper wrote:

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

kz wrote:

tony cooper wrote in
news::

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz

The problem that there are plenty of option to be able to align 2 or more photos, but the real issue would be how to COMBINE 2 or more photo into single photo without showing the tracing of merging.

To me, the best way is still making the dupe of a single photo instead of trying to merge 2 or more photo together. Or to me, if the photos are that too bad to begin with then it may not worth the trouble, or most average photo should be able to adjust using few Photoshop command’s, and as I understand that these are very new photos *not* the ones taken decades ago.

IOW, if you work on portrait then sooner or later you may have to deal with single photo with some issue (like eyes, mouth, nose, clothe etc.) and all you have to do is using replacing the bad part with the good part of the very same photo. And with little trick to make the duped looks a little different than the original.

Example if you need to replace the EYE then you may not want a person with 2 Left/Right eyes (especially where the eye pupil may be). Or you don’t want the eyes look like

<o > < o>
< o> <o >

But you make sure they look more like

< o > < o >
<o > <o >
< o> < o>

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

The part that without using the correct or specific command, the 3008×2000 can be just about anywhere it want to be. The part some understands that some newer Photoshop versions have the command to drop to the *exact* location.

Same with other command like scaling, some allows you to scale to any size you wish, and some will maintain the exact RATIO.

IOW, Photoshop has so many different commands that some can understand some but not all.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:13:39 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

If you’ll note, I’m the one with the two 3008 x 200 images, *and* the one that commented on the technique to get two images to the same size.

That’s called "thread drift" where there’s a comment or question, the comment or question is dealt with, and the thread continues with a discussion of related point or tips.

We don’t always have the same circumstances to deal with, so expanding the discussion benefits more than the OP.

That’s a good thing, Johan. It’s a sharing of tips and techniques.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

(attributes lost! sorry)

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head.

That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?

—
John J

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0600, John J wrote:

(attributes lost! sorry)

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head.

That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?

Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago

Joel wrote:

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

The part that without using the correct or specific command, the 3008×2000 can be just about anywhere it want to be. The part some understands that some newer Photoshop versions have the command to drop to the *exact* location.

Same with other command like scaling, some allows you to scale to any size you wish, and some will maintain the exact RATIO.

IOW, Photoshop has so many different commands that some can understand some but not all.

True, but the first point is not to understand Photoshop, but to understand the question that is asked by the OP. 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

tony cooper wrote:

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

If you’ll note, I’m the one with the two 3008 x 200 images, *and* the one that commented on the technique to get two images to the same size.

That’s called "thread drift" where there’s a comment or question, the comment or question is dealt with, and the thread continues with a discussion of related point or tips.

We don’t always have the same circumstances to deal with, so expanding the discussion benefits more than the OP.

That’s a good thing, Johan. It’s a sharing of tips and techniques.

OK, point taken. It’s just that in this thread it seemed that nobody was really reading (or understanding) what it was you asked.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0600, John J wrote:

(attributes lost! sorry)

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head.

That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?

Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago

That would be some trick. But remind me – what pictures?

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Joel wrote:

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

The part that without using the correct or specific command, the 3008×2000 can be just about anywhere it want to be. The part some understands that some newer Photoshop versions have the command to drop to the *exact* location.

Same with other command like scaling, some allows you to scale to any size you wish, and some will maintain the exact RATIO.

IOW, Photoshop has so many different commands that some can understand some but not all.

True, but the first point is not to understand Photoshop, but to understand the question that is asked by the OP. 😉

That’s also very true! but sometime we may have to look beyond the question, because dropping to the exact location may not have the exact alignment (I am not talking about the FRAME/canvas but the subject inside the frame).

And that is/was one of the reasons why I ignored the dropping question but trying to shoot for the real problem. Or if the OP asks to drop the very same photo (the duped of original photo) then I may give a different answer, or to give the OP exactly the answer s/he (not directly to Tony) asks for (if I remember the command at the time).

Yes, I have read the OP (Tony) mentioned about the photos were photographed using tripod and within 1-2 seconds or so. And my background was martial arts tournament photographer so I used to shoot lot of brust mode, and some digital camera (usually P&S) as some special mode to be able to capture around 20+ fps (almost like video clip). And like many model photographers they ften use brust mode (usually less than 10 fps) to capture the movement, and pick out the best one out of the series.

IOW, I don’t mean that I don’t trust what the OP says, but I look beyond it, and I try to give the Photoshop’s technique to deal with the difference between the photos (I am pretty sure that they may be very close but not 100% identical)

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don’t you guys understand?… 😉

If you’ll note, I’m the one with the two 3008 x 200 images, *and* the one that commented on the technique to get two images to the same size.

That’s called "thread drift" where there’s a comment or question, the comment or question is dealt with, and the thread continues with a discussion of related point or tips.

We don’t always have the same circumstances to deal with, so expanding the discussion benefits more than the OP.

That’s a good thing, Johan. It’s a sharing of tips and techniques.

OK, point taken. It’s just that in this thread it seemed that nobody was really reading (or understanding) what it was you asked.

Actually, the whole thing is pretty similar to our very own lives. It can be very simple or complex depending on how we deal, look at it. Same with the question.

– If one knows exactly what to ask then one may already know the answer

– One can only be able to ask what s/he can understand.

– If we only know one answer then it won’t be hard to give the answer to the question we only know one answer. But if we know more than one then we may have to ask ourselves exactly which one if the right answer to give.

That’s why I almost never try to correct anyone with any answer, and I won’t mind to challenge anyone who try to correct me. Because I think if someone can correct me then I guess s/he may have the right answer, or a better answer that I can learn for my own benefit.

And I learn Photoshop pretty much the same way I live my life. Before I retired I was a martial arts instructor which I have to learn life/death can be within a split-second decision, before become a instructor I have to listen and learn very carefully from my instructors, and not all instructors have the same opinion, technique, style etc.. So same with Photoshop, I learn to study the image before making any decision, and because with so many decades with the same bad habit I often look beyond the question. example

– 2 100% idential is very rare.

– If 2 photos are 100% identical then we wouldn’t have to try to figure out which is the better one

– if they are not 100% identical then they may show more/less difference(s) and THIS is my main goal. How to deal with the difference

– Then instead of trying to find the hardest technique to deal with a simple problem, I always try to use the simplest technique. And nothing easier than the one we know best, and that’s why I often suggest, encourage other to MASTER some very basic commands and learn to adapt the same technique on different problems.

Example, someone may ask something like

– How to remove a LINE. And the answer is either Clone, Mask, Heal Brush/Patch, Paste, Paint Brush etc..

– How to remove a SCAR. Then the answer is pretty much similar to how to remove the LINE. Except if the scar is on the face then we just need to be more careful.

– How to remove a HAIR on the face. Then it’s pretty much similar to how to remove the LINE, SCAR

– How to remove the FLARE. Samething.

– How to remove BACKGROUND. No different

The only difference that one already MASTERED some commands to know exactly what to do, and the one who tries find a way to cheat. And believe it or not, even I know lot of dirty tricks, but the command I use the most isn’t very fancy but the BRUSH STROKE, one hand scratching the tablet like having real bad itching, while other hand sending the Keyboard commands.

And after hundreds of thousands of photos I often do without questioning what to do next.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:10:56 -0600, John J wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0600, John J wrote:

(attributes lost! sorry)

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head.

That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?

Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago

That would be some trick. But remind me – what pictures?

Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic tricks he performed ‘before I was born’. This was my way of telling him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the impression that was half a century ago’s photographers.
And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not as clear as I would love to believe.
I love calling him ‘uncle’ because the first thing he said when introducing him to this group, was about him being ‘old’.

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:10:56 -0600, John J wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0600, John J wrote:

(attributes lost! sorry)

I told you something in the message about the photographer with the black cloth over his head.

That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?

Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago

That would be some trick. But remind me – what pictures?

Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic tricks he performed ‘before I was born’. This was my way of telling him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the impression that was half a century ago’s photographers.

Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8×10" view cameras. Black cloth and all.

And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not as clear as I would love to believe.
I love calling him ‘uncle’ because the first thing he said when introducing him to this group, was about him being ‘old’.

I am probably older than he.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:26:56 -0600, "John J"

Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic tricks he performed ‘before I was born’. This was my way of telling him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the impression that was half a century ago’s photographers.

Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8×10" view cameras. Black cloth and all.

Genuine? Hiding under a black cloth? Jeeez you guys should import your photographic equipment from South Africa. We are shooting digital here! Really, no bullshit. Automatic cameras, you do not even insert a film!

And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not as clear as I would love to believe.
I love calling him ‘uncle’ because the first thing he said when introducing him to this group, was about him being ‘old’.

I am probably older than he.

You surprise me:-) He made sure we know he’s not our friend but rather our papa’s friend. You certainly are young; remember… age is between the ears:-)))

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:26:56 -0600, "John J"

Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic tricks he performed ‘before I was born’. This was my way of telling him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the impression that was half a century ago’s photographers.

Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8×10" view cameras. Black cloth and all.

Genuine? Hiding under a black cloth? Jeeez you guys should import your photographic equipment from South Africa. We are shooting digital here! Really, no bullshit. Automatic cameras, you do not even insert a film!

With respect, Dave, there are things that can be done with a view camera that today’s digital cannot do at all. A digital-view camera exists, but the format is still quite small and the price and overhead on them is huge.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:54:45 -0600, "John J"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:26:56 -0600, "John J"

Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic tricks he performed ‘before I was born’. This was my way of telling him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the impression that was half a century ago’s photographers.

Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8×10" view cameras. Black cloth and all.

Genuine? Hiding under a black cloth? Jeeez you guys should import your photographic equipment from South Africa. We are shooting digital here! Really, no bullshit. Automatic cameras, you do not even insert a film!

With respect, Dave, there are things that can be done with a view camera that today’s digital cannot do at all. A digital-view camera exists, but the format is still quite small and the price and overhead on them is huge.

……The front and rear standards can move in various ways relative to each other, unlike most other types of camera, giving control over focus, depth of field and perspective…..

See, I know so little of it, I had to learn more via Wikipedia:-) This (film against digital) is to be heard sometimes on Internet but is it not like MAC versus PC or Obama versus McCain?:-)))

Only joking, I believe you, John, although I have no experience with film cameras.

tony cooper wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:14:54 GMT, kz wrote:

tony cooper wrote in
news::

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.

Just my two cents ~ kz

An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are roughly the same but not the same size.

Excellent tip! ~kz

Joel wrote in
news::

kz wrote:

tony cooper wrote in
news::

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?

I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and realized that I was overthinking your situation.

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer’s blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out. (4) Restore top layer’s mode to NORMAL.

For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.

Just my two cents ~ kz

The problem that there are plenty of option to be able to align 2 or more
photos, but the real issue would be how to COMBINE 2 or more photo into single photo without showing the tracing of merging.

To me, the best way is still making the dupe of a single photo instead of
trying to merge 2 or more photo together. Or to me, if the photos are that too bad to begin with then it may not worth the trouble, or most average photo should be able to adjust using few Photoshop command’s, and as I understand that these are very new photos *not* the ones taken decades ago.

IOW, if you work on portrait then sooner or later you may have to deal
with single photo with some issue (like eyes, mouth, nose, clothe etc.) and all you have to do is using replacing the bad part with the good part of the very same photo. And with little trick to make the duped looks a little different than the original.

Example if you need to replace the EYE then you may not want a person with
2 Left/Right eyes (especially where the eye pupil may be). Or you don’t want the eyes look like

<o > < o>
< o> <o >

But you make sure they look more like

< o > < o >
<o > <o >
< o> < o>

Gosh, guys… I KNOW-w-w-w a decent bunch of Photoshop and photo-editing basics… Look, I was just throwing in another technique for aligning images–that is all. As I said:

You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely- similar images:

I’m not saying "do it like this," I’m just saying "try this if you ever need to for other reasons." I thought it might be useful to whoever comes across this thread.

Anyway, you are correct, there are many many options to do the same things. And I have indeed come across many instances where I had to replace body parts in one photo with parts from another. And sometimes more troubling than the edge work is making sure everything else can be matched up, like color balance, lighting, etc. Not a lot of fun! ~kz

"Dave" wrote in message

…..The front and rear standards can move in various ways relative to each other, unlike most other types of camera, giving control over focus, depth of field and perspective…..

Hey, maybe I should send you one. It might change your life! 🙂

See, I know so little of it, I had to learn more via Wikipedia:-) This (film against digital) is to be heard sometimes on Internet but is it not like MAC versus PC or Obama versus McCain?:-)))

I run Windows, Linux and OS-X on the same system at the same time. Can copy/paste between the operating systems, and run them simultaneously in separate windows. Then use work spaces to have a BUNCHA windows and apps running at once to really confuse my boss. Good thing I have two 30" monitors. And great that I didn’t have to pay for them!

Now if I could only get them to swing, shift, tilt…

naaaaaa

"tony cooper" wrote in message

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?

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

HOLD SHIFT while you drag

OR

place two layers select move tool
align vert and horiz