Unexpected layer behavior on inversion
I am trying to create positives from color film negatives in C1 12. I understand that if, in the base layer, I invert the levels tool (swapping the 255 and 0 values at the top), I am now working with a basic inverse of the original. It makes perfect sense that the other exposure tools now work somewhat backwards, due to this inversion.
What is unexpected, however, is that when I create a new filled layer, the exposure tools applied to that layer are now also working in reverse. Why is this? I would expect this behavior on the base layer where I performed the inversion and there isn't really a 'stacking order' within the tools. But shouldn't a new layer apply it's changes to what is passed through from the layers below? Shouldn't these edits apply to an already inverted (now positive) image? In my case, shouldn't an increase in exposure on an additional layer make the image brighter, rather than darker? It still works as if the exposure is being applied BEFORE the inversion, even though the inversion is on a lower layer.
my goal is to use the base layer to invert the negative and remove color casts, to set a baseline, and then to use additional layers above to edit the image creatively just like I would with a raw positive. What am I missing here?
I hope I am describing this correctly! Thanks in advance for any advice or help.
What is unexpected, however, is that when I create a new filled layer, the exposure tools applied to that layer are now also working in reverse. Why is this? I would expect this behavior on the base layer where I performed the inversion and there isn't really a 'stacking order' within the tools. But shouldn't a new layer apply it's changes to what is passed through from the layers below? Shouldn't these edits apply to an already inverted (now positive) image? In my case, shouldn't an increase in exposure on an additional layer make the image brighter, rather than darker? It still works as if the exposure is being applied BEFORE the inversion, even though the inversion is on a lower layer.
my goal is to use the base layer to invert the negative and remove color casts, to set a baseline, and then to use additional layers above to edit the image creatively just like I would with a raw positive. What am I missing here?
I hope I am describing this correctly! Thanks in advance for any advice or help.
0
-
How about creating a 16bit TIF after converting and working on that instead? 0 -
[quote="vincentlepes" wrote:
I am trying to create positives from color film negatives in C1 12. I understand that if, in the base layer, I invert the levels tool (swapping the 255 and 0 values at the top), I am now working with a basic inverse of the original. It makes perfect sense that the other exposure tools now work somewhat backwards, due to this inversion.
What is unexpected, however, is that when I create a new filled layer, the exposure tools applied to that layer are now also working in reverse. Why is this? I would expect this behavior on the base layer where I performed the inversion and there isn't really a 'stacking order' within the tools. But shouldn't a new layer apply it's changes to what is passed through from the layers below? Shouldn't these edits apply to an already inverted (now positive) image? In my case, shouldn't an increase in exposure on an additional layer make the image brighter, rather than darker? It still works as if the exposure is being applied BEFORE the inversion, even though the inversion is on a lower layer.
my goal is to use the base layer to invert the negative and remove color casts, to set a baseline, and then to use additional layers above to edit the image creatively just like I would with a raw positive. What am I missing here?
I hope I am describing this correctly! Thanks in advance for any advice or help.
As I understand C1 always calculates cumulative adjustments from the base up as far as exposure and similar settings are concerned.
Once you have inverted the layers (for example) the whole process needs to use relevant tools in an inverted approach.0 -
[quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
How about creating a 16bit TIF after converting and working on that instead?
I'll explore this and see how it goes, thanks for the tip. I'd assume a 16bit TIF will retain all of the data from an original 14bit RAF file, but trial and error will tell. Unfortunately it's an extra step for every image but it would get the job done at least!0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
As I understand C1 always calculates cumulative adjustments from the base up as far as exposure and similar settings are concerned.
Once you have inverted the layers (for example) the whole process needs to use relevant tools in an inverted approach.
From what I am experiencing, you seem to be correct. It just isn't very intuitive IMHO for those who are used to the "layers" concept in other software. Maybe this and blending modes will one day be introduced, but for now I guess that side of things will live beyond the "edit with" button... 😉0 -
[quote="vincentlepes" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
As I understand C1 always calculates cumulative adjustments from the base up as far as exposure and similar settings are concerned.
Once you have inverted the layers (for example) the whole process needs to use relevant tools in an inverted approach.
From what I am experiencing, you seem to be correct. It just isn't very intuitive IMHO for those who are used to the "layers" concept in other software. Maybe this and blending modes will one day be introduced, but for now I guess that side of things will live beyond the "edit with" button... 😉
I used to use, over a decade ago, an application that was in many ways similar to the way the C1 works but offered multiple tools stacking, blend modes and a lot of other features. I loved it. Far batter back then, in my opinion, than Lightroom but with no DAM facility.
Then I tried Capture One way back around Version 5, and got better results with a fraction of the effort and in a lot less time.
Sure there were things I had become used to using that C1 did not have back then and in some cases still does not have. But now I feel no need of them at all.
I can understand if others have a different view and different requirements and I suspect those requirements will best fit, most of the time, with the 'pixel pushing' products.
I happened to take a look at that older software yesterday for the first in a very long time. Just a quick few minutes when I was trying things out testing the links to working in the other side of the "Edit with" divide. I was not tempted to go back to it though one day I may have a nostalgia trip.
These days it is free software.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Sure there were things I had become used to using that C1 did not have back then and in some cases still does not have. But now I feel no need of them at all.
I can understand if others have a different view and different requirements and I suspect those requirements will best fit, most of the time, with the 'pixel pushing' products.
Yeah...My hope was to keep this part of the workflow contained in C1 so I could make the initial pass into a style, but there seems to always be something causing me a round trip. Certainly no knock on C1, I still don't miss Lightroom! But I would welcome the next round of improvements to the layers functionality...that might keep me out of the "pixel pushers" for anything shy of a retouching or compositing job!0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
I was not tempted to go back to it though one day I may have a nostalgia trip.
These days it is free software.
Out of curiosity, what software? If nostalgia were my primary driver, I'd be editing in Deluxe Paint! 😂0 -
[quote="vincentlepes" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
I was not tempted to go back to it though one day I may have a nostalgia trip.
These days it is free software.
Out of curiosity, what software? If nostalgia were my primary driver, I'd be editing in Deluxe Paint! 😂
LightZone.
Hmm. Deluxe Paint.
Those were the days .... ! 😉0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
8件のコメント