Diffue Glow Filter on a Separate Layer?

Why not sinply duplicate the background layer and apply the filter to that? I guess that’s not what you are asking? Are you wanting to have a separate layer with just the diffuse glow showing minus the original image? If so, then I’m not sure if that’s possible?

Paul

"ItsLouieD" wrote in message

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.
I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.
I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?
The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

Thanks for the help!

ItsLouieD wrote:

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.
I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.
I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?
The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

What should work is the following: copy the image to a new layer and apply the filter. Set the blending mode to ‘Difference’. Ctrl-klik on the RGB icon in the channels palette to select the result by luminosity. Create a mask from that. Set the blending mode back to normal. You should now have a layer with a mask that masks out anything that isn’t different from the underlying image.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

Thanks Johan…now at least I know how to do that!

Paul

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

ItsLouieD wrote:

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.
I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.
I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?
The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

What should work is the following: copy the image to a new layer and apply the filter. Set the blending mode to ‘Difference’. Ctrl-klik on the RGB icon in the channels palette to select the result by luminosity. Create a mask from that. Set the blending mode back to normal. You should now have a
layer with a mask that masks out anything that isn’t different from the underlying image.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

Why not sinply duplicate the background layer and apply the filter to that? I guess that’s not what you are asking? Are you wanting to have a separate layer with just the diffuse glow showing minus the original image? If so, then I’m not sure if that’s possible?

This is what I thought. I’ve used a filter on a duplicate layer, but seems like I had to get rid of some of the background on the filter layer. Like "extract" background first. So, the subject (if there is one) was on the new layer with part or all of the background gone. I duplicate the layer to put effects on anyway. If you just have one layer you can’t use the fx effects on them anyway. I have CS3 and that’s what I’ve found, using that. Seems like we’d have to see or know more details about the picture you are using and what (in the picure) you want to put the diffuse glow on. Wouldn’t there have to be SOMETHING to put the diffuse glow on? Not just a top layer.
I probably should have opened PS and tried this myself first, just going by memory and what you seem to be asking.

Paul

"ItsLouieD" wrote in message

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.
I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.
I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?
The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

Thanks for the help!

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.

I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

On Aug 18, 6:09 am, "Carrie" wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

news:4e4ca41e$0$2445$> Why not sinply duplicate the background layer and apply the filter to

that? I guess that’s not what you are asking? Are you wanting to have a separate layer with just the diffuse glow showing minus the original image? If so, then I’m not sure if that’s possible?

 This is what I thought. I’ve used a filter on a duplicate layer, but seems like I had to get rid of some of the background on the filter layer. Like "extract" background first.  So, the subject (if there is one) was on the new layer with part or all of the background gone. I duplicate the layer to put effects on anyway. If you just have one layer you can’t use the fx effects on them anyway. I have CS3 and that’s what I’ve found, using that..      Seems like we’d have to see or know more details about the picture you are using and what (in the picure) you want to put the diffuse glow on. Wouldn’t there have to be SOMETHING to put the diffuse glow on? Not just a top layer.
      I probably should have opened PS and tried this myself first, just going by memory and what you seem to be asking.

Paul

"ItsLouieD" wrote in message

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.

I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.

I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?

The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

Thanks for the help!

"ItsLouieD" wrote in message
I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.

I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

Oh, I see what you mean now. Not sure if effects can be put on a transparent layer on their own. But I’m still a newbie at this (doing tutorials and trying to figure things out). Its an interesting idea though, and if it can’t be done it SHOULD be.
I was thinking some kind adjustment layer or action. (I have an action that I got elsewhere that puts gold sparkles over the image- then you can lighten this after. I havent’ found anything too useful to do with it yet, but apparently the effect is on a layer) I’m still kind of new at all that. And so much one can do, in so many different ways. Don’t like to pass up a chance to learn something new- or try to.

On Aug 18, 6:09 am, "Carrie" wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

news:4e4ca41e$0$2445$> Why not sinply
duplicate the background layer and apply the filter to

that? I guess that’s not what you are asking? Are you wanting to have a separate layer with just the diffuse glow showing minus the original image? If so, then I’m not sure if that’s possible?

This is what I thought. I’ve used a filter on a duplicate layer, but seems like I had to get rid of some of the background on the filter layer. Like "extract" background first. So, the subject (if there is one) was on the new layer with part or all of the background gone. I duplicate the layer to
put effects on anyway. If you just have one layer you can’t use the fx effects on them anyway. I have CS3 and that’s what I’ve found, using that. Seems like we’d have to see or know more details about the picture you are using and what (in the picure) you want to put the diffuse glow on. Wouldn’t there have to be SOMETHING to put the diffuse glow on? Not just a top layer.
I probably should have opened PS and tried this myself first, just going by memory and what you seem to be asking.

Paul

"ItsLouieD" wrote in message

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.

I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.

I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?

The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

Thanks for the help!

On 2011-08-18 22:41:36 -0700, ItsLouieD said:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

From what you are saying it seems your best approach is to work on a duplicate layer, or a duplicate layer converted to a "smart object". That way your background layer will always be intact and unadjusted.

I would suggest getting Matt Kloskowski’s book "Layers" from Kelby Training, or Amazon.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

"Carrie" wrote:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

Oh, I see what you mean now. Not sure if effects can be put on a transparent layer on their own. But I’m still a newbie at this (doing tutorials and trying to figure things out). Its an interesting idea though, and if it can’t be done it SHOULD be.
I was thinking some kind adjustment layer or action. (I have an action that I got elsewhere that puts gold sparkles over the image- then you can lighten this after. I havent’ found anything too useful to do with it yet, but apparently the effect is on a layer) I’m still kind of new at all that. And so much one can do, in so many different ways. Don’t like to pass up a chance to learn something new- or try to.

Well, the chance to teach yourself a new trick is

1. Learning to understand the basic commands, then you understand how thing work in general

2. Studying (or just a quick look if you know Photoshop well enough) a plug-in, action etc. to see what Photoshop can do to learn the IDEA then you have it.

IOW, if you know Photoshop well enough, knowing few basic commands/tricks then you DO NOT want to spend too much time learning the step-by-step *but* to adapt the IDEA then use your *already* learned skill(s) to match it.

*If* you waste your time learning Step-by-Step then you may only be able to learn ONE thing, but if you *adapt* the IDEA then you may be able to do and come up with hundreds or thousands differrent things/ideas.

Example, if you have learned how to add a HAIR to the head, then you should adapt the idea/technique to add a leave to a tree, a rock to a mountain, a star to the sky etc.. Similar to fading or whatever, if you know how Layer, Masking etc. work on forground/background then you should be able to adapt the same technique to it.

I don’t do Golden Sparkles but I have created a BRUSH with my name, logo, signature etc. to add to some photo. And you too can create your personal brush with your own name, signature, or a SPARKLES. Then with a sparkle brush you can spray all over any image with many different spraying styles (setting)

"Joel" wrote in message

"Carrie" wrote:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

Oh, I see what you mean now. Not sure if effects can be put on a transparent layer on their own. But I’m still a newbie at this (doing tutorials and trying to figure things out). Its an interesting idea though,
and if it can’t be done it SHOULD be.
I was thinking some kind adjustment layer or action. (I have an action that
I got elsewhere that puts gold sparkles over the image- then you can lighten
this after. I havent’ found anything too useful to do with it yet, but apparently the effect is on a layer) I’m still kind of new at all that. And
so much one can do, in so many different ways. Don’t like to pass up a chance to learn something new- or try to.

Well, the chance to teach yourself a new trick is

1. Learning to understand the basic commands, then you understand how thing
work in general

2. Studying (or just a quick look if you know Photoshop well enough) a plug-in, action etc. to see what Photoshop can do to learn the IDEA then you
have it.

IOW, if you know Photoshop well enough, knowing few basic commands/tricks then you DO NOT want to spend too much time learning the step-by-step *but*
to adapt the IDEA then use your *already* learned skill(s) to match it.
*If* you waste your time learning Step-by-Step then you may only be able to learn ONE thing, but if you *adapt* the IDEA then you may be able to do and come up with hundreds or thousands differrent things/ideas.
Example, if you have learned how to add a HAIR to the head, then you should adapt the idea/technique to add a leave to a tree, a rock to a mountain, a star to the sky etc.. Similar to fading or whatever, if you know
how Layer, Masking etc. work on forground/background then you should be able
to adapt the same technique to it.

I don’t do Golden Sparkles but I have created a BRUSH with my name, logo, signature etc. to add to some photo. And you too can create your personal brush with your own name, signature, or a SPARKLES. Then with a sparkle brush you can spray all over any image with many different spraying styles (setting)

That’s a good idea, about learning the basics, and applying them. The idea of creating your own signature brush, too.

In article
,
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

ItsLouieD wrote:

Hey all. Not sure if this is possible… I’m on Photoshop CS5 64-bit.
I have a flat image that I want to apply a diffuse glow to. However, I would like to have the original image on one layer and the output of the filter on a separate layer, as opposed to all on the same layer.
I realize this may not be completely possible so here’s an alternate that could work but I’m not sure how to do. Could I take the original image and "subtract" it from the new image with the diffuse glow?
The ultimate goal is to be able to display the original image on a bottom layer and then applying the diffuse glow on a top layer without redrawing the entire image.

What should work is the following: copy the image to a new layer and apply the filter. Set the blending mode to ‘Difference’. Ctrl-klik on the RGB icon in the channels palette to select the result by luminosity. Create a mask from that. Set the blending mode back to normal. You should now have a layer with a mask that masks out anything that isn’t different from the underlying image.

Wow. Never considered that. It’s been masks until now.

Thanks for that.

I think this question has been well answered!

May I suggest an experiment that works for some images (not all).

http://www.digoliardi.net/jk.jpg

The point of the photo shown here is the selected glow or out-of-focus done without touching up.’Natural’ you might say. And some images are ambiguous as in the case above where his glasses (foreground) are sharp, as is much of the VW Bug in the middle-ground, with the rest soft.

It’s a reverse of one particular sharpening method.

Copy original layer
Desaturate it
Invert it
Change layer mode to overlay
Filter- other – high pass. Use slider to get desired effect

(Working from old memory – hope I got all the steps there. No photoshop on this computer.)

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-08-18 22:41:36 -0700, ItsLouieD said:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

From what you are saying it seems your best approach is to work on a duplicate layer, or a duplicate layer converted to a "smart object". That way your background layer will always be intact and unadjusted.
I would suggest getting Matt Kloskowski’s book "Layers" from Kelby Training, or Amazon.

You can’t do anything with an original background layer anyway, unless you copy it first. Or rename it.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-08-21 05:42:05 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-08-18 22:41:36 -0700, ItsLouieD said:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

From what you are saying it seems your best approach is to work on a duplicate layer, or a duplicate layer converted to a "smart object". That way your background layer will always be intact and unadjusted.
I would suggest getting Matt Kloskowski’s book "Layers" from Kelby Training, or Amazon.

You can’t do anything with an original background layer anyway, unless you copy it first. Or rename it.

Yup! I have been doing that for years now.

I still think LouieD should get himself the "Layers" book. You might want to check it out for yourself.
<
http://kelbytraining.com/product/layers-the-complete-guide-t o-photoshops-most-powerful-feature-2nd-edition/

—
Regards,

Savageduck

"John J Stafford" wrote in message

I think this question has been well answered!

May I suggest an experiment that works for some images (not all).
http://www.digoliardi.net/jk.jpg

The point of the photo shown here is the selected glow or out-of-focus done without touching up.’Natural’ you might say. And some images are ambiguous as in the case above where his glasses (foreground) are sharp, as is much of the VW Bug in the middle-ground, with the rest soft.
It’s a reverse of one particular sharpening method.

Copy original layer
Desaturate it
Invert it
Change layer mode to overlay
Filter- other – high pass. Use slider to get desired effect
(Working from old memory – hope I got all the steps there. No photoshop on this computer.)

That’s nice! I love learning new things. And I’m just getting into using the layer modes, like overlay, etc.
I learned one something like this one time, that ends up with it looking like a sketch or ink drawing (depending on how you do it). Same up to overlay, but use color dodge,then gaussian Blur (till it looks like what you want)
Just tried it (what I mean) it’s desatuate>copy>invert>color dodge>gaussian blur.
I know what you mean about getting the steps right and all there, I had to do it, to make sure.
Now I want to try what you said.
There are so many ways to do so much.

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-08-21 05:42:05 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-08-18 22:41:36 -0700, ItsLouieD said:

I want the effect over the entire image because it gives it a washed out, flared out look that accentuates the light sources. Think of some of the scenes in minority report for example.

I alsomwant the effect to live on a separate layer that I can toggle on and off, but I want to be able to export the effect alone as a raster and the image alone as a raster, separately.

Basically I want a top layer with transparency that houses the effect alone, and the image as background underneath. I want to be able to export the two and recreate the scene dynamically by drawing the effects layer with transparency over the background art.
I think what Johan wrote fits the bill best. Haven’t had the chance to try it yet. Thanks!

From what you are saying it seems your best approach is to work on a duplicate layer, or a duplicate layer converted to a "smart object". That
way your background layer will always be intact and unadjusted.
I would suggest getting Matt Kloskowski’s book "Layers" from Kelby Training, or Amazon.

You can’t do anything with an original background layer anyway, unless
you copy it first. Or rename it.

Yup! I have been doing that for years now.

I still think LouieD should get himself the "Layers" book. You might want to check it out for yourself.
<
http://kelbytraining.com/product/layers-the-complete-guide-t o-photoshops-most-powerful-feature-2nd-edition/

It’s too expensive for me.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

"John J Stafford" wrote in message

I think this question has been well answered!

May I suggest an experiment that works for some images (not all).
http://www.digoliardi.net/jk.jpg

The point of the photo shown here is the selected glow or out-of-focus done without touching up.’Natural’ you might say. And some images are ambiguous as in the case above where his glasses (foreground) are sharp, as is much of the VW Bug in the middle-ground, with the rest soft.
It’s a reverse of one particular sharpening method.

Copy original layer
Desaturate it
Invert it
Change layer mode to overlay
Filter- other – high pass. Use slider to get desired effect
(Working from old memory – hope I got all the steps there. No photoshop on this computer.)

I tried this last night, was late and I was aiming at going to bed. Didn’t seem to work, it ended up with the photo turning back to color, but odd colors. Maybe I didn’t do it right, will try again today.

Carrie was inspired to say

"John J Stafford" wrote in message

I think this question has been well answered!

May I suggest an experiment that works for some images (not all).
http://www.digoliardi.net/jk.jpg

The point of the photo shown here is the selected glow or out-of-focus done without touching up.’Natural’ you might say. And some images are ambiguous as in the case above where his glasses (foreground) are sharp, as is much of the VW Bug in the middle-ground, with the rest soft.
It’s a reverse of one particular sharpening method.

Copy original layer
Desaturate it
Invert it
Change layer mode to overlay
Filter- other – high pass. Use slider to get desired effect
(Working from old memory – hope I got all the steps there. No photoshop on this computer.)

I tried this last night, was late and I was aiming at going to bed. Didn’t seem to work, it ended up with the photo turning back to color, but odd colors. Maybe I didn’t do it right, will try again today.

I have to say that I tried it (on PS Elements 5) and it produced an effect that I didn’t expect! Amazing what you learn here….

I’ve played with all the blending modes in the past and found only a few that seem useful. Is there a tutorial anywhere that shows when they are useful.

Mike

—
Michael J Davis
<><