If by folder you mean a "group," then no you can’t assign a filter to it. You could, however, turn a layer into a smart object. The smart object can have smart filters assigned to it that are readjustable. From there you can double-click on the smart object to open the individual layers contained in it and define your variables in there. Save your edits and they will be reflected in the smart object (which still has your unsharp mask filter applied on it).
Hi PeterK,
Thanks for the response. Yeah, I did mean "group". I tend to call it a folder because the little icon is a folder but I think it’s been referred to as a layer set or layer group w/ the most recent Photoshop versions.
Anyway, I was trying the smart object route, however, the positioning is totally off on the pixel replacement, for some reason. That is, it works perfectly until I convert the image being replaced into a smart object and then the subsequent images get replaced in the wrong position.
Anyway, I’m still messing with this positing point but I was hoping possibly someone knew of some other non smart object or smart filter route.
mike
Mike, a group with a solid fill layer in it will turn smart object with the same size "canvas" as the original doc, but I think somehow your problem remains, just hidden. Other "canvas size" strategies? Anyone?
with just the group visible do a shift+option+command+E this will give you a flattened version of the group. make it a smart object and apply the filter to that.
Well, I’ve been doing a bunch more tests on this and it doesn’t look like ‘pixel replacement’ even works with ‘smart objects’.
There’s literally no way to define the variable once I convert my ‘original’ image to a smart object. The ‘pixel replacement’ option disappears. I hadn’t even noticed that, at first, when I made my earlier posts.
I was turning on "visibility" in the variable type and pasting in my variable in the "Name" field and wondering why it wasn’t working. OOps..
So, it doesn’t look like ‘smarts’ will work here…
So I guess I either need ‘pixel replacement’ to work with smart objects or be able to apply filters to a group.
Maybe I should make some feature requests….
why not try what I said in post 4 without making a smart object.
Alright, thanks for the suggestion.
I didn’t realize those were the quick keys for flattening a group. That’s all it’s doing right… Or does that do something else besides just flatten it? When I look in my history it’s calling it a "stamp".
However, It literally just gave me a flattened version of my group, which allowed pixel replacement to work again but any filters I applied to the flattened group were just appled to the original and not the images that get pulled in.
Alright, thanks for the suggestion.
I didn’t realize those were the quick keys for flattening a group. That’s all it’s doing right… Or does that do something else besides just flatten it? When I look in my history it’s calling it a "stamp". Not familiar with that…
It didn’t seem to do much but give me a flattened version of my group, which allowed pixel replacement to work again but any filters I applied to the flattened group were just appled to the original and not the images that get pulled in.
Not sure if I did what you were suggesting….
Post-merge processing. Data merge (pixel replacement), then flatten and sharpen. Why can’t you sharpen as a second process to all graphics (full-canvas flat art)? Or just use bicubic sharper as your default algorithm which I’m assuming applies to resampling done by the "fit" commands in pixel replacement.
Well, I tried sharpening as a final process after flattening, however, it’s just the replaced image that I want to apply the sharpen to, not the entire canvas area. The replaced image is appearing in a masked portion of the final image and I don’t want to sharpen then entire image.
Unless there’s a way to sharpen in a specifically masked section of the photo as a final process. that might work.
try this: flatten a copy(command+shift+option+e), sharpen that layer, add a layer mask to constrain the sharpening to only the desired areas and then flatten the whole thing
Yeah, that would work. A little messy… I’m using it on several thousand product shots so I would have to try and create a batch action that will do it automatically. After the pixel replacement is run.
I guess I was trying to find some feature or functionality that maybe I didn’t know about, that could be applied to this.
I would consider the above a more brute force solution.
try this: flatten a copy(command+shift+option+e)
Nobody reads post 4
Hi Buko,
I saw post #4, thanks. What I ran into though is, the problem is not that I couldn’t flatten a group, its still that pixel replacement didn’t work on a smart object. and if I flatten my smart object it doesn’t become so smart anymore…
Unless I’m still not tracking with what you are saying.
Nobody reads post 7.
Don’t make it a smart object.
Yeah, saw post #7 too, thanks, I applied a filter to the flattened image, however, that doesn’t work either…?
If you double click on the smart object, you can then apply your variables to the layers within, which are just regular layers like any other. I’m not sure if it will work as you need it to, but that’s the important distinction. The smart object is not like a regular layer, but the layers inside the smart object can be your usual bitmap layer elements (or even unusual elements like vector art).
Its a good concept, I tried that earlier and then just tried it again, however, the layers within a ‘smart object’ do not show up as a layer I can define a variable for. It just shows the ‘smart object’ layer itself, not the layers within the ‘smart object’…:(
Hey Peter, I’m still trying to figure this out.
I think the difference between what you’re doing and what I’m doing is, I’m trying to assign the pixel variable to the overall file. You tried to assign the pixel variable within the smart object.
In the smart object I can assign a pixel variable, as well, but that doesn’t help me as I export the overall file and need it assigned there.
I’m starting to think it is feature request, material.
I’m not sure I’m understanding what you need. If you apply the variable to the layer in the smart object, that layer, whatever is brought in to replace it, will become the content of the smart object, and in turn have the unsharp mask applied to it. You can’t apply the variables directly to the smart object, but you can double click on the smart object and apply them to the layer within. From there you would treat the replacement as normal, the smart object would update with that change, and the sharpen filter would apply on to that updated smart object. It may be that double-clicking on the smart object to get to the layer that will have pixel replacement done is one step too many for whatever automation needs you may have, although it does work once you go into the smart object and start defining your variables there.
Maybe, I’m not explaining the whole picture well enough.
I need to be able to export the data sets of the overall .psd based on the variables I defined in the overall .psd file.
It doesn’t work to just assign the variables within the smart object and then try to export my data sets for the overall file. The overall file doesn’t have the variables I defined in it.
