thisisnasrin
New Member
- Messages
- 3
- Likes
- 0
1. background eraser 2. pen tool 3. magic wand |
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1. background eraser 2. pen tool 3. magic wand |
Sorry for that, I didn't explain myself. The Eraser Tool, Background Eraser Tool, and Magic Eraser Tool delete pixels and are destructive. Period. I'm not suggesting that their use is in any way destructive to the overall edit, only on the layers in which these tools are used.TonyCooper said:I'm a bit confused by IamSam's comments.
Absolutely correct! However, any tool or technique that deletes pixels is considered to be destructive. If used on copies/layers, it's still destructive to that layer. There are other ways to add back deleted pixels..........but not to that layer.TonyCooper said:The tool used does not determine if the edit is destructive or non-destructive.
Your right again. However, any tool or technique that deletes pixels is considered to be destructive to that layer no matter how many layers you use above it.TonyCooper said:Any tool can be used non-destructively if layers are added.
Not necessarily true. I will demonstrate below.TonyCooper said:Any tool, or combination of tools, can be used to remove the background from the top
layer.
Absolutely correct.TonyCooper said:Anything done to the top layer is non-destructive to bottom Background layer regardless of
the tool used to remove background.
Sorry for that, I didn't explain myself. The Eraser Tool, Background Eraser Tool, and Magic Eraser Tool delete pixels and are destructive. Period. I'm not suggesting that their use is in any way destructive to the overall edit, only on the layers in which these tools are used.
Absolutely correct! However, any tool or technique that deletes pixels is considered to be destructive. If used on copies/layers, it's still destructive to that layer. There are other ways to add back deleted pixels..........but not to that layer.
Your right again. However, any tool or technique that deletes pixels is considered to be destructive to that layer no matter how many layers you use above it.
Not necessarily true. I will demonstrate below.
Absolutely correct.
Let's look at this photo.
I want to remove it's sky.
I make a copy of the original layer and use any of the Eraser Tools to remove the sky.
Note that I also added a white visibility layer to aid while I deleted the pixels from the layer.
Oh, I've made a mistake. I accidentally deleted the part of the tower structure and a light pole.
Can I retrieve the pixel information from that layer? No because the tool I used deleted the pixel information from that layer.
Have I destroyed the underlying layers and ruined the edit? No.
Can I add back the tower from this point of the edit even with the pixels deleted from that layer? Yes.
The question becomes how many more steps do I need to add to my workflow to add back the tower?
Had I just used non-destructive tools and better techniques then I would not need to add any extra steps or layers to correct the problem.
Had I used a layer mask and the Brush Tool, I could add back the tower in a matter of seconds.
There's no doubt that you are 100% right in your statements. But I too am also 100% correct. It's all in how you look at it.
Hope that explains it better.
You are again 100% correct. This is only another unnecessary step that could have been avoided by not using a destructive technique or tool in the first place and is only applicable at the time of the actual edit, as you stated, once the document has been saved and then reopened, then there are no saved history states for the History Brush to use.Even using the eraser tool on that layer, the erased pixels can be restored with the History Brush tool provided the file
has not been saved and closed.
I understand, but it could be a bit unnecessary. If your using a layer mask and the Brush Tool anyway, wouldn't it make better sense to just quickly enlarge the brush and blitz the background from the layer mask? I understand we all have our methods.My own workflow is using a Layer Mask, but I will sometime use the Eraser tool to delete large areas of background
and then creating a Layer Mask for a more precise edit.
Again your 100% correct. There's almost no advantage to using destructive techniques or tools for removing backgrounds. Which is why I originally suggested to the OP that I would not use the Eraser Tools.........since there's no read (I assume you mean "real") advantage to ever using the
Eraser tool for background removal.
I understand, but it could be a bit unnecessary. If your using a layer mask and the Brush Tool anyway, wouldn't it make better sense to just quickly enlarge the brush and blitz the background from the layer mask? I understand we all have our methods.
Great idea!It's a change of subject, but this exchange leads to the question of when the Eraser tool is
the best tool to use.
I do the exact same thing.In my case, I make all cloning edits on a blank layer above the layer that I want to change.
Sometimes, if extensive cloning is done on an image, and some areas of cloning are not
acceptable, I will use the Eraser to remove the cloning in those areas. If the overall layer
is unacceptable, I'll delete the layer and start over. Sometimes, though, there are just
parts that are unacceptable.