Rod Wynne-Powell Case Study: Using Smart Objects in Photoshop
PhotoshopRod Wynne-Powell — Ex-photographer, now a retoucher and pre-release tester for Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom; also co-author of the just-released ‘Mac OS X for Photographers‘ (Focal Press):
I had a long spell working with some photographers in southwest London on what turned out to be three jewellery (jewelry for US readers!) catalogues for Goldsmiths. I was mainly concerned with the watches, for which Smart Objects was absolutely the way to tackle the job. A page might consist of from three to eight different watches from the same stable. Each watch would have been photographed several times with differing lighting and/or exposure, but without moving the watch. Invariably the winder would have been pulled out to ensure the hands remained in the same place (all the hands would be set to give the best angle – eight past ten). They were supported on perspex cylinders, and shot against white, with reflections. The various images would then be layered into a composite file.Each watch composite would have a series of masks to cater for the overall outline, the main face, the bezel, (often smooth and rounded, possibly inset with jewels, which were lit with sparkle), the strap the winder, the hands sometimes, and the watch ‘created’ and retouched. This would then be grouped as cutouts ‘watch and reflection’. A new canvas for the final group would be created at the final size and resolution, and each watch would be brought in with its reflection, and immediately made into a Smart Object. Each SO would be named (or rather reference-numbered) and placed in position according to the layout, the final position was approved by the photographer, and the reflections would be 100% desaturated, and foreshortened with a grad mask. If a watch had to be moved to look as if it overlapped then additional copies of elements were added, so that a watch might seem to be behind the face of another, yet in front of its strap. Any balancing of colour or alterations of contrast, all these could be carried out losslessly using the Smart Objects. A JPEG was submitted to the client for comments and alterations, and any changes were carried out with ease, before final flattening. In this way every page of watches had each item at its best without sacrifice. It was a great way to work. The only snag was when an SO had a mask in the final comp, I had to move it using Free Transform and then carry out the ‘Transform again’ on the mask. So thank you very much for Smart Objects!
via comments at John Nack on Adobe: Simplicity vs. Power in Photoshop
Tags: photoshop, smartobjects, retouching, case study
April 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
FYI, if you put a Smart Object inside a layer set, you can add a mask to the set; this will save you from the double-transform. I have no idea why Adobe won’t let us link a mask to a Smart Object.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Andrew,
I think you are missing the point, You can add a layer mask to a layer group, as easily as add a layer mask to a Smart Object, and the sad point I raised was that it is not linked to its image, so when you scale or rotate the image, if there is a mask, it remains unaltered, so you have to carry out a Transform Again to the mask to have this follow suit. That is more tedious and is less safe than simply nesting the Smart Object.
Adobe are aware of the issue, but it is not as straightforward to achieve as we mere mortals would like to believe!
I do use my position to keep this shortcoming from being lost.
Rod
April 5th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Rod,
I understand what you’re saying, but try this:
1. Stuff a Smart Object into a layer set/group/folder.
2. Add a layer mask to that set. Paint in it a bit.
3. Free transform the set.
The enclosed SO and the mask on the set will transform all in one go.
Thanks for keeping this issue in the minds of the developers at Adobe; workarounds are inelegant.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:18 am
My apologies to you. You are correct. In my desire to check my answer to you, I created a mask within my SO, then copied it to the set, rather than moved it, so what I was seeing seemed to confirm what happens with a masked SO. When you rightly argued the point I went back and spotted my mistake – you are correct, and it is rather less convoluted, than my earlier workaround.
As you re-iterate both are workarounds, and should be avoided. Thank you for making the point.
As with much of Photoshop, there is/are often an/other way/s to doing things!