Using Photoshop

[Pere Casals]

I can see the need for layers when working with a team on a complex Advertising type of image, where multiple images are merged into on complex subject...

Bob, I find layers extremly useful for other situations, for example in a landscape we can adjust the sky and clouds in a layer and the mountains in another one, then we can mix both adjustments with the original image, so at the end we can apply to certain degree the each of the adjustments, so we can later balance one adjustment to the other.

Another example would be adjusting the shadow areas in one layer and the highlights/glares in another one, then when mixing layers we can balance the overall result, for sure that depending on how we leave the mids we would like to balance the shadows again...

Just using an adjustment layer to tune the curve in the sky and another one for the ground it's more than enough to belive in layers, it allows a great degree of flexibility that ends in better results, because all you made in each adjustment can be modified or balanced later when seen under the effect of the last adjustments.

[bob carnie]

Bob, I find layers extremly useful for other situations, for example in a landscape we can adjust the sky and clouds in a layer and the mountains in another one, then we can mix both adjustments with the original image, so at the end we can apply to certain degree the each of the adjustments, so we can later balance one adjustment to the other.

Another example would be adjusting the shadow areas in one layer and the highlights/glares in another one, then when mixing layers we can balance the overall result, for sure that depending on how we leave the mids we would like to balance the shadows again...

Just using an adjustment layer to tune the curve in the sky and another one for the ground it's more than enough to belive in layers, it allows a great degree of flexibility that ends in better results, because all you made in each adjustment can be modified or balanced later when seen under the effect of the last adjustments.

Yes I get that ... but once you apply both layers together your done, no need to keep them active... I use layers all the time to work, could not survive with out them but I flatten once the effect is applied.

Peter may have answered the OP to his original question... A series of actions that one makes MAY also work. do the effect , record it and save it for future reference as a action.

[Peter De Smidt]

The really nice thing about layers is that they allow you to make adjustments later. Bob is extremely experienced as a printer, and so for him the regular flattening of layers works. But for other people, it's really not a good idea. For example, after working on an image for a long time one's perception can become skewed. I often find that I need to make tweaks to an image a day or so after the initial edit. Whether this works also depends on how extreme the edit is. If it's minor, it's unlikely that changing it later, even if it's burned into the pixels, will be a big problem.

[Pere Casals]

Yes I get that ... but once you apply both layers together your done, no need to keep them active... I use layers all the time to work, could not survive with out them but I flatten once the effect is applied.

Peter may have answered the OP to his original question... A series of actions that one makes MAY also work. do the effect , record it and save it for future reference as a action.

Yes, you are right, OP speaks about "14GB with all the layers. Started out as 1.92 GB file." I understand you, sure you are managing monster files...

Adjustment Layers and converting to Smart Objects saves a lot of memory, but there are other techniques.

We can reduce the image size, then we make all adjustments and brush strokes, when edition finished we can resize the image size to the original, then we'll have a pixelated image, but we can copy on the original image in the base layer and make again the layer duplications. In this way we make all the edition with an small file, but final blend is made with the original size quality. I guess we only should use brush strokes in mask layers, as masks are normally used fuzzy then its pixelization would be irrelevant.

This trick was very popular long ago when computers had way less RAM.

[bob carnie]

Yes, you are right, OP speaks about "14GB with all the layers. Started out as 1.92 GB file." I understand you, sure you are managing monster files...

Adjustment Layers and converting to Smart Objects saves a lot of memory, but there are other techniques.

We can reduce the image size, then we make all adjustments and brush strokes, when edition finished we can resize the image size to the original, then we'll have a pixelated image, but we can copy on the original image in the base layer and make again the layer duplications. In this way we make all the edition with an small file, but final blend is made with the original size quality.

This trick was very popular long ago when computers had way less RAM.

I kind of remember West Coast Imaging putting a video series on this actual method you are describing...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I like the two options, 1 to create an action at the beginning that way you can always redo the image or a similar image as a starting point. 2, converting the image to a layer and then deleting the image so all you have is layers. Both would work and both would create sort of a history that is repeatable of how you progressed thru an image and even on how your technique improved or degraded as you get more experienced. I use luminosity masks and layer adjustments and even brush work to further tweak image. It may be that the only options are the 2 I mentioned above that are suggested here. Yes, file is huge, but I would not try to send that file to my printer, it would puke! I would create a separate file for printing where I flatten everything. I would also have a separate file for each size I printed along with the soft-proofing adjustments if any. Ie, a master printing file that is left undisturbed yet all prints are made from.

[Peter De Smidt]

I like the two options, 1 to create an action at the beginning that way you can always redo the image or a similar image as a starting point. 2, converting the image to a layer and then deleting the image so all you have is a layer

The background layer is a layer. Why get rid of it?

[Chance2]

If I understand the OP's original question correctly, see "Duplicate a Photoshop layer or group in another image" at the link below for one option.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/us...er-basics.html

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The background layer is the image. So in getting rid of it, the file size should decrease dramatically.

[Pere Casals]

The background layer is the image. So in getting rid of it, the file size should decrease dramatically.

Steven, you can edit the base layer if you rename it, and then you can delete it if you have another layer on it, but if you have no othe layer (will be of the same size...) you cannot delete the base layer. Still you have a choice, this is downsizing it, even it can be resized to 1 pixel.

Beyond all said, also you can use presets: https://lifehacker.com/5766835/how-t...s-in-photoshop