Ann please explain this.

[zoozx27@adobeforums.com]

Again a question about the difference viewing flattened and not flattened images.
Let me explain.
I have an RGB image 35" x 44" at 360 dpi around 700 mb, 3 layers with 3 adjustment layers.
Printing images resemble flatten images and are nothing close to non flattened images.
This image is somewhat noisy which adds to the problems.
My adjustment layers are 1 curve & 1 hue saturation. The image looks perfect until i flatten where it looses about 35 % density and contrast.
So for experimentation and because I have a complex curve I don't want to fool with I add a contrast adjustment layer on the non flattened image. I can crank this up to 70 % which makes it look posterized but when I flatten the image, it shows almost no change as before this contrast adjustment layer is added when veiwing it flattened.
Also at actual pixels the change is slight.
How in the heck do you deal with this. There are no visual clues or consistency with this to make proper adjustments.
Visual clues are zilch?

Thanks

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

The problem here is neatly summed-up in your comment: "at actual pixels the change is slight".

At "actual pixels", that is exactly what you are looking at: each pixel displaying in its correct RGB values. At any magnification of either less or more than 100%, you are looking at pixels which have either been interpolated between the true pixels or are representative of the true pixels which exist around them but which cannot currently be displayed because of the lack of sufficient pixels on your monitor. If you open a second window at 100% resolution you will be able to see the true colors of your pixels -- but only in a small part of your picture at a time.

My method for dealing with layered files is to put an empty layer at the top of the layer-stack, select it, and then use Option Merge Visible (Cmd. Option Shift E) to merge all visible layers (and the effects of their adjustment layers) UPWARDS into this new top layer.
[This is also known as Stamping Visible layers.]

I then duplicate just that one merged-layer to a new document; flatten it; and change mode to CMYK in the new file.
(The original layered file is saved as a separate RGB Master file).

Providing that your monitor is properly calibrated, that you are using good Profiles, and your color management options are set correctly; what you now see on your monitor, should be very close to the way that your image will actually print.

[barry_gray@adobeforums.com]

Ann,
Why not skip the "stamp", dup. doc. merged then flatten, if you wish?

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

Because I want to keep a separate layered RGB file for possible future use -- as well as a create a flattened version which I convert to CMYK using the correct profile, and resolution, for its designated purpose.

It is actually quicker and more efficient (because you are working with a smaller file) to do it my way.

Also, I may need to create several versions (using a different group of components which are all stored in the master layered file.

This is a very efficient way of working when you need to produce a set of ads. which have to differ just a little from each other but share a number of common components.

[Doug_Katz@adobeforums.com]

barry wasn't suggesting the sacrifice of your layers. He was suggesting an alternative that might be equivalent:

Image>Duplicate. In the dialog there is the option to "Duplicate merged layers only." This oddly phrased option will duplicate a "merged" (flattened) version of the original "master" file.

In this sense, he's suggesting the saving of a step.

[Rick_Stare@adobeforums.com]

Ann,
I also like the Stamp Visible technique, and especially since someone recommended the easy two-step shortcut: Cmd+Opt+Shift+N to make the new layer, then Cmd+Opt+Shift+E to do the Stamp Visible. Then duplicate the layer to a new document via the Layers fly-out menu.

But, I think Barry's idea might be just as fast if the goal is to get the merged data into another file quickly. Just Select All, then Copy Merged (Cmd+Shift+C), Cmd+N to create the new document, Cmd+V to paste the merged data. Using this method, your RGB original is left intact without having to delete the merged layer you created with Stamp Visible.

Probably six of one and a half dozen of the other, but both are valid.
* Rick

[zoozx27@adobeforums.com]

I understand whats been posted and actually have been doing the above for years.
I still don't understand why I can adjust a contrast adjustment layer to the point of posterizing the image a setting of +60 and not have it make much of a difference when flattened than before I applied the layer at all. I could understand 10 maybe, but 60?
This seems extreme, doesn't it?

[Doug_Katz@adobeforums.com]

Rick, that's actually a THIRD way... and I don't think it's the way barry had in mind.

In my experience, the application of almost every known manipulation (sharpening, color correction, filtering, fill and adjustment layering, transforming, masking, and on and on) can only be judged reliably at 100% magnification. On the other hand, I have certainly had the experience of carefully examining a multi-layered image at 100%, and being quite taken aback by the sometimes radical loss and/or distortion of image qualities upon flattening. I don't know if this is "especially" true in grayscale, but it's especially noticeable perhaps because the tonal values are stripped of all "camouflaging" color.

In any case, I work around the problem most every time either by merging to a new layer, individually merging "paired" layers, or duplicating the entire image with "Duplicate merged layers only" checked.

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

Both are indeed valid but I am working on a project at the moment where I often have to produce a slew of ads. which incorporate slightly different arrangements of a variety of different components.

The last layered file that I did for these people was used to generate 14 different ads. so the ability to make a merged layer for each of them saves a tremendous amount of time.

These particular ads. are for web use, and will have clickable links to third-party sites, so each merged layer can then be the only layer left visible and can be "placed" directly in Illustrator (where it collects its text and is JPEGged for final production via GoLive.

Sounds convoluted, but it is actually rather a quick and easy way to do the job.
And the Master RGB layered file is left as a complete archive which contains all the component images as well as the complete set of finished ads. -- each on its own layer.

Another reason for using the "Stamped" layers is that you can do any sharpening on just that layer while leaving the component images safely in their unsharpened state.

[Doug_Katz@adobeforums.com]

Doesn't sound convoluted at all.

[zoozx27@adobeforums.com]

Ive come to the conclusion that the large amount of noise in the images I'm working on along with the large size of the images are the major contributors to seeing unrealistic and the drastic changes most would not be accustom to.
After fooling with normal images of size and noise , i can see why people would be thinking this is not a big deal.
The problem magnifies 100 fold with my chemistry pot.
Where do I get that big monitor?
Next version of ps, make it mandatory that beta testers work on 2-4 gig images only, thats only!!!. :)
That will get them motivated to address large size issues in a hurry.
Not that this one is fixable, but it might start the thinking cap.

Thanks Ann and others

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

There could be several reasons for the "noise".

A few that spring to mind:
The speed of the original imaging film -- or the quality of the digicam;
the way that the images were scanned;
rezzing-up of images that were too small to start with;
too violent manipulations of curves and other adjustment layers (particularly if you work in 8-bits;
and sharpening artifacts.

[Mike_Ornellas@adobeforums.com]

bad code in RIP engines.

[zoozx27@adobeforums.com]

LOL, No this unconventional photography " Art " I'm working with.
The noise while a pain is part of the art, not from any of the above you guys list. These images are made from photographic chemicals and films from 1800's to current. No camera involved but reactions to chemistry, light, temperatures and electricity.
Original files start at 450mb :)
Radical stuff.

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

So with all this talk about stamping or merging up being a more reliable way to achieve a flattened image without altering color, I have never heard a reproducible example of the problem that this method is meant to avoid, and I wonder why that is.

[Todie@adobeforums.com]

zoo, It sounds to me that you don't have midtones in your image, due to the unusual grainy nature of your pictures therefore the curve layer cannot do much of a change.
Try adding 60% in the highlight (0->60) and you'll see a... sea change : )

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

Donald Maxwell, a fellow-student at art school with me, was doing a lot of the kind of work that i think you are talking about: sloshing fixer on top of developer-laden prints; messing around with swabs of pot.ferri. and sulphide toners; etc..

The results were interesting but fugitive -- they began to fade rather quickly.

If your images are like this, the best that you can do is to try to reproduce them as closely as you can to the original. Increasing saturation selectively might help but try working in Lab mode instead of in RGB -- particularly for increasing contrast using the L curve.

For help with Lab mode, you might find "Professional Photoshop" by Dan Margulis to be extremely informative.

[zoozx27@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Ann but that is nothing like what I'm doing. I have worked in Lab mode & I do have plenty of mid-tones, the noise is just a characteristic of on of the processes that transfers into the digital process. I have a system to get around it, it is just tedious and time consuming.
Being able to work on something that you will actually eventually see in the final work would be nice, but unfortunately not possible I guess with current technology.

[Bruce_Fraser@adobeforums.com]

The problem isn't the file size—I can assure you that plenty of beta testers on CS were working with files in the 2-4GB range—it's the noise.

There's just no way you can downsample a noisy image to zoomed-out view and have it be accurate at all view %s.