The blend mode of the top layer is applied between that layer and the entire set of layers beneath it, as if all those underlying layers had been merged into a conglomerate "substrate". What you see when you deactivate the top layer is effectively a single pseudo-flattened layer (the substrate) with which the top layer will blend in the mode assigned to the top layer when it is activated. The blend modes of the underlying layers do not come into play except as they affect the substrate.
Thanks George. So if I have more than one "blend layers", there is no way of merging them first (i.e. sans the rest of the layers, the "substrate"), without altering the way the (flattened, on-screen) image looks like, right ?
And any ideas as to my example with the stars and the blue sky ? Thanks a lot!
The lighten blend has behaved just as you should expect—the resultant color at each pixel site is the lighter of the top and bottom, so the white stars are the only parts of the bottom layer showing through. All other parts of the bottom layer, being darker than their upper layer counterparts, defer to the upper layer color.
Unable to decipher the remainder of your scenario.
Yes, of course, for the first part. What is unclear about the rest?
To sum it up briefly -> I ended up with two layers: the first image of the persons and the mountain range (unchanged) on one layer and on the other I had the light (near white) pixels from the stars image, but all the black was gone, the black pixels had disappeared. So I was left with white circles scattered across a transparent layer. (Now obviously there are other ways to achieve this, but that’s not the point.) I got to this point by first choosing the "lighten" blend mode for the stars-layer and then merging it with "something else", which – and that’s the whole point – I don’t remember. I tried everything, without success.
You would have to have had no background, i.e., a transparent background. That the stars-on-black layer was in lighten blend mode or any other blend mode is of no consequence if there was no layer under it. You could well have selected all the black by, for example, clicking anywhere on black with the Magic Wand and then hit Delete. That would yield the layer of stars on transparency.
Blending a layer with an underlying transparency does nothing. And blending with anything else never produces transparency. For blending purposes, transparent pixels effectively do not exist.
Thanks for helping. I’m sorry to repeat myself, but there are obviously other ways to achieve this, that’s not my problem. The stars, etc… this was just an example.
"Blending a layer with an underlying transparency …"-> First of all, I said "merging", and then "…does nothing" is not true. Try this for example: open the blending options of the "stars-layer" (or any layer for that matter), choose "blend if">"this layer" and drag the slider until a visible part of the image has disappeared, but a part is still there. Then create a new empty, transparent, layer and merge these two layers. Voilà.
Now, that’s *not* the way I proceeded in my original example. Just to demonstrate that merging with an empty layer can be a workaround.
In the example here, you can see that a new layer has been created containing pixels with RGB and transparency values that produce exactly the same flattened-on-screen-image as before. You can go back and forth in the history and don’t see any changes on-screen.
In my original example, I used another blending technique (not "blend if" but "lighten"). But after merging, I also had a new layer containing pixels in "normal mode" that reproduced exactly the same on-screen picture as did previously the pixels in "lighten mode" in such a fashion, that – again – you would see no difference on-screen when going back and forth in history.
Your initial post stated "…NO, I didn’t do any ‘blend if’ or ‘color range’ or something therelike, I only used the blending modes!". My comments were based on that assertion.
To be sure, stuff happens using "Blend If". In fact, the black areas on the stars-on-black layer go transparent immediately upon dragging that layer’s slider any distance to the right in the Blend-If dialog box, creating the stars-on-transparency just as you have said.
Excluding Blend-If and sticking to "regular" blending (the word ‘normal’ is pre-empted by its use as one of the blend modes), transparencies don’t participate in the action. I am actually surprised that they somehow do under Blend-If and I don’t immediately see what goes on there. I’ll put a sticky note on the corner of my monitor reminding me to check this out. To-Do list #47!! And thanks for raising an interesting issue.
You’re welcome. I have a natural talent for discovering odd and sometimes interesting issues 🙂
§1: Ok, if your comments were limited like this, I have no immediate evidence to contradict that.
But the fact is, still, that I got the "stars-on-transparency" just by using "regular blending" (as defined by you).
In case anybody has the slightes clue as to how I got there, please tell me, you’ll get the award of "most helpful posting in the history of Internet", okay ? 🙂
I’m so angry at myself, because as I merged the layer, it was new to me, but such a logical behaviour of the program, that I didn’t take any notes, being sure to reproduce that at any time. I promised to myself now, to always take notes irrespective of how ridiculously easy it seems. I really feel like on the Quest for the Golden Fleece. It sucks big time. :p
I suggest that although you put the layer in a blend mode, that move was irrelevant and that you subsequently achieved stars on transparency via selecting and deleting black, having started with no background layer. IMHO, striving to relate the blend mode to the result is an exercise in futility—the blend mode had nothing to do with it.
No, I know that the stars-on-transparency were the result of blending. I have the .psd file right in front of my eyes. Believe me, I wouldn’t have used any other technique, because I wanted the stars to blend exactly like in the blend mode. Deleting black pixels, "blend if" etc. did make them look unnaturally copied into the picture. If I had not been able to isolate the stars, I would just have kept the entire layer in blending-mode. The only reason I settled for the stars-on-transparency was a significant decrease in filesize and after having made sure (by repeatedly going back and forth in the history) that the merging didn’t alter the final image, I decided to only keep the stars-on-transparency as I didn’t need the pixels which didn’t show up in "lighten" mode anyway. Photoshop is part of my job, and while there are still quite some things I didn’t need so far, I don’t get confused about those things I regularly use.
I did succeed in producing the white-stars-on-transparency layer via the Lighten Blend mode and this will force me to rethink the role of transparency when blending. Back to the drawing board for me!
Place a transparent layer under the stars-on-black layer. Make sure the eye is on for both layers, highlight the top layer, and set its blend mode to Lighten. Turn off the top layer or even delete it. You’re left with a stars-on-transparency layer. Since the stars may be hard to see against the transparency checkerboard, click on any transparent point with the Magic Wand and the resulting marching ants will define the star-transparency edges. I’ll be darned!
"I’ll be darned!" –> he he, I told ya, smilez! 😉 I wonder at your still trying, given that you basically wrote me off right before. You know what, you almost got me to begin to have (some very minor) doubts myself. But only almost 🙂
But your technique doesn’t ring a bell, it must be different from what I did, since you didn’t merge any layers apparently, right? Also (although I swear I believe you!) you must admit that what you claim sounds – by a longshot – even more improbable than my already quite unbelievable claim. I mean, hey, come on: You delete one layer – or even better – you just temporarily turn off the visibility (the eye) and this should have an effect on any other layer ???
Again, I believe you. Really! But I couldn’t get your method to work. Possibly, because I was not always sure which layers you were currently talking about and what blend mode they all have. If you can, could you please give some more details ?
Thanks a lot!
Sorry, it was the selection tool that did the job in post #11. Not blending. Not merging. Nothing at all was selected until the Magic Wand was invoked and it made the selection even though the top layer was disabled.
Oh yeah—a blooper: Strike the phrase in post #11 "…or even delete it…". You could delete it later but not at the point I indicated.
Noooooooo… , mercy !! What a nightmare. You did this on purpose, just to bug me, right ? 😛 (just kidding).
Ok, again, if somebody else thinks he/she has got it working, please post 🙂
BP, forgive the premature excitement. I have not confirmed your discovery of a new planet (-:
I owe you an explanation: When applying the Magic Wand to the transparency layer, my basic error was thinking I had disabled the top layer when I had merely made it invisible.
I did have the "use all layers" box unchecked, but the top layer was highlighted. Thus, I was seeing the transparency layer while the wand was giving me a selection based on the top layer.
George
OK, I see 🙁 Thanks for your update though.
And if anybody else has an idea of what I did, please feel very welcome to share your views.
Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the more I realize that technically what I was so sure I did, is probably impossible.
The facts: "Blend if">"this layer" works independently of any underlying layers. So obiously, "applying" (as defined above) the blend effect is possible. However, other blend modes than "normal" interact with the layers underneath, so you can’t "apply" anything without loosing this interaction. So from that mere technical point of view, I think I must have been victim of some sort of illusion (although I am working with PS for a long time and can hardly imagine that) …
