Another way of making "destrucive" changes safely is by copying the original image (often on a layer named "background") and pasting it onto another layer (underneath your adjustment layers) then making your dodge/burn adjustments. If you go too far or somehow wreck your image, you can simply make another copy and try again. However, Frank's advice hold true. This is an easy way to make very large files.
I just saw this dialogue involving Photoshop guru Tim Grey:
On Monday, 10 July you responded to the question:
I would like to apply a blur effect to a single image (a portrait) as though I had done two exposures on film with one in focus and one out of focus. But I want to be able to keep the eyes sharp without the halo effect of the blur. Is that possible?
I notice there was no mention of using the History Brush tool to reduce and/or eliminate the blur previously applied. Is there any disadvantage to using the history brush tool?
==========
My problem with the History Brush tool is that it requires you to directly alter pixels in the image. I would very much rather mask away the blurred areas that you want to appear sharp in the image. The net effect is exactly the same as you would achieve using the History Brush, but the difference is in flexibility. If you decide later that you've hidden too much of the blurred area and want to bring it back, you don't have too many options when the History Brush was employed, unless you've been careful about taking snapshots or you have caught the error before getting too far into your work. With a layer mask, on the other hand, you can simply modify the mask (paint with white to reveal) to bring back the blurred areas. As far as I'm concerned, this approach is much better than the use of the History Brush tool, so I never use the History Brush. Ever. I always employ a layer mask in situations where I might otherwise use the History Brush.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks