🚀 go-pugleaf

"JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message 
news:1150647715.608064.192660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to make a blended montage of this selection of photos from
> my son's soccer team -
> http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/cobol370/SoccerTeam.jpg
>
> Everything I've seen shows using a layer mask w/ Gradiant tool (linear)
> - but that only goes in one direction (R-L, L-R, Up- down, etc)
>
> I would like to have the photos blend in multiple directions.
>
> I tried using the radial setting on the Gradiant tool, but I don't see
> any way to adjust the radius of the center (only a tiny center portion
> of the photo (the team photo in the center for ex) is solid and it
> quickly fades as it reaches out from there)
>
> How can I get these photos to blend in multiple directions?
>
> Thanks.

Jay,

Why are you messing about with gradients on your son's football (UK) photo, 
try using the brush tool to blend your images together.
See http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1j9eqM1KzINQ0zDNjloVIsBf2HVk1

MH 

"JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message 
news:1150647715.608064.192660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to make a blended montage of this selection of photos from
> my son's soccer team -
> http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/cobol370/SoccerTeam.jpg
>
> Everything I've seen shows using a layer mask w/ Gradiant tool (linear)
> - but that only goes in one direction (R-L, L-R, Up- down, etc)
>
> I would like to have the photos blend in multiple directions.
>
> I tried using the radial setting on the Gradiant tool, but I don't see
> any way to adjust the radius of the center (only a tiny center portion
> of the photo (the team photo in the center for ex) is solid and it
> quickly fades as it reaches out from there)
>
> How can I get these photos to blend in multiple directions?
>


If I understand what you're trying to do, you could achieve it in a couple 
of ways. For masking with a gradient, apply a reveal all mask and then 
create a black to white gradient tool. Starting from the edge of the photo, 
apply the gradient tool, but only go across a short distance (like 50 or 100 
pixels on a 1000 px pic) and release the tool. Repeat for the other 3 edges.

You can also use a marquee tool in whatever shape you want. Make a selection 
that excludes the border of the photo. Invert the selection and apply a 
feather (play with it until you get what you want). Then keep deleting until 
you get the results you want.

Flo 

In article <1150647715.608064.192660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 "JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote:

> How can I get these photos to blend in multiple directions?

Don't use the gradient tool.

Instead, make a selection around the area you wish to preserve, feather 
the selection, and then save the selection as a layer mask.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

"Dave Scott" <dscott91@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:449860A1.7090506@columbus.rr.com...
> Thanks to Mike's suggestion of feathered selection with mask added, I
> was able to move from the previous rectangular selections Jay and I had
> to the attached. Much smaller size, nice edging, transparent background.
>  Still not sure about using the brush tool. This was done with the
> lasso for selection set to 10 px feathering and masking out the rest of
> the image. Then I copied each image into its own layer in the montage
> file and moved them around until it looked pretty good. Then flattened
> everything and exported this jpeg.
>
> HTH,
> Dave

"Still not sure about using the brush tool"

to adjust the masks use the brush on the mask only, not the image
make sure you are painting on the mask by clicking the little rectangle next 
to your image in the layer palette
put the colors on default (B&W)
use a soft brush in varying opacity to fix those gaps you have between the 
pictures
using 24-60% opacity soft brush will keep the soft edges
white will restore the area, black will mask out more area

>
> Dave Scott wrote:
>> Mike Hyndman wrote:
>>
>>> "JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to make a blended montage of this selection of photos from
>>>> my son's soccer team -
>>>> http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/cobol370/SoccerTeam.jpg
>>
>>
>>> Why are you messing about with gradients on your son's football (UK)
>>> photo, try using the brush tool to blend your images together.
>>> See
>>> http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1j9eqM1KzINQ0zDNjloVIsBf2HVk1
>>
>>
>> I have the same problem (see attached PDF made from Word 2000) as Jay:
>> how to blend rectangular selections into a nice composite. This was the
>> best I could come up with until I spotted Mike's response. Those
>> individual head selections look really nice. However, using the brush
>> tool to blend images doesn't give me enough information. Can we have a
>> little more detail on the procedure?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
> 

"KatWoman" <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:aggmg.94917$QU3.1303@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Dave Scott" <dscott91@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:449860A1.7090506@columbus.rr.com...
>> Thanks to Mike's suggestion of feathered selection with mask added, I
>> was able to move from the previous rectangular selections Jay and I had
>> to the attached. Much smaller size, nice edging, transparent background.
>>  Still not sure about using the brush tool. This was done with the
>> lasso for selection set to 10 px feathering and masking out the rest of
>> the image. Then I copied each image into its own layer in the montage
>> file and moved them around until it looked pretty good. Then flattened
>> everything and exported this jpeg.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Dave
>
> "Still not sure about using the brush tool"
>
> to adjust the masks use the brush on the mask only, not the image
> make sure you are painting on the mask by clicking the little rectangle 
> next to your image in the layer palette
> put the colors on default (B&W)
> use a soft brush in varying opacity to fix those gaps you have between the 
> pictures
> using 24-60% opacity soft brush will keep the soft edges
> white will restore the area, black will mask out more area
>
>>
>> Dave Scott wrote:
>>> Mike Hyndman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "JayD" <scatman@jazzy.org> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to make a blended montage of this selection of photos from
>>>>> my son's soccer team -
>>>>> http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/cobol370/SoccerTeam.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why are you messing about with gradients on your son's football (UK)
>>>> photo, try using the brush tool to blend your images together.
>>>> See
>>>> http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1j9eqM1KzINQ0zDNjloVIsBf2HVk1
>>>
>>>
>>> I have the same problem (see attached PDF made from Word 2000) as Jay:
>>> how to blend rectangular selections into a nice composite. This was the
>>> best I could come up with until I spotted Mike's response. Those
>>> individual head selections look really nice. However, using the brush
>>> tool to blend images doesn't give me enough information. Can we have a
>>> little more detail on the procedure?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
Dave

I just altered the size and hardness of a default brush (depending on how 
folically challenged the "owner" was) and painted around the image mask. The 
linked image consists of 27 layers and took about six hours (over a few 
days) to get to a stage I was happy with. Like all things, it is a question 
of practice ^3.

Regards

Mike H 

In article <449860A1.7090506@columbus.rr.com>,
 Dave Scott <dscott91@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Mike's suggestion of feathered selection with mask added, I 
> was able to move from the previous rectangular selections Jay and I had 
> to the attached. Much smaller size, nice edging, transparent background. 
>   Still not sure about using the brush tool. This was done with the 
> lasso for selection set to 10 px feathering and masking out the rest of 
> the image. Then I copied each image into its own layer in the montage 
> file and moved them around until it looked pretty good. Then flattened 
> everything and exported this jpeg.

For future reference, here are some things that will make your life 
easier:

You say you copied each image into its own layer. Do you mean you used 
the Copy and Paste commands? If so, you should get out of that habit. To 
move images from one Photoshop document to another, just click and drag 
with the Move tool into the window for the document where you want to 
move it to. Copy/Paste wastes memory and takes longer.

Instead of making a feathered selection, then copy/pasting or moving 
into the new document, first move the picture into the new document. 
Then make your selection. Then use the Select->Save Selection command 
and choose 'Layer Mask.' When you do this, you can go mack and change 
your mind later. You can also change the mask by painting in it with the 
paintbrush tool.

You do not need to flatten everything before you export to JPEG. Just 
use File->Save As. It will automatically flatten.

Do not use JPEG unless you have a very good, clear, and convincing 
reason why it HAS to be JPEG and no other format will do. JPEG will 
degrade the quality of your picture. It was invented for situations 
where image size on disk is critical and image quality is not important. 
If you do not know what format you should use, but you do not have a 
good reason why it has to be JPEG, use PSD or TIFF.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

>
> Do not use JPEG unless you have a very good, clear, and convincing
> reason why it HAS to be JPEG and no other format will do. JPEG will
> degrade the quality of your picture. It was invented for situations
> where image size on disk is critical and image quality is not important.
> If you do not know what format you should use, but you do not have a
> good reason why it has to be JPEG, use PSD or TIFF.

There is not a lot wrong with saving as a JPEG for final output, I defy 
anyone, without a microscope to see any difference in a 20" *  16" print 
made from a PSD and the resulting JPEG. Also the majority of on line photo 
labs will use nothing else. (Try uploading several 500 meg PSD's  versus 20 
Meg JPEG, no contest) What can cause problems is constantly opening, editing 
and resaving a JPEG, thereby reapplying the compression algorithm over and 
over again. (JPEG, compression algorithm or file format; discuss)
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm

MH