<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Photoshop Tricks (Part 2)</title>
	<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/</link>
	<description>Zip and Li\\\'l Bit</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Trade</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-439</link>
		<dc:creator>Trade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-439</guid>
		<description>Hey Lee-Ann. Thanks for the note. That's way cool that you were able to understand that stuff easily. It is hard in a tutorial to keep things simple and trust people to figure out what you're saying. 

You're totally right that there are a lot of tutorials that get lengthy and complicated and, I think, practically useless. Unfortunately, there are also lot of books on Photoshop (and Illustrator) like that as well. If you're looking for books or anything, there is an author named Deke McClelland who writes about all the Adobe stuff, who I'd recommend before any others. It's pretty in-depth so it can overwhelm, but he keeps things fairly straightforward and simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Lee-Ann. Thanks for the note. That&#8217;s way cool that you were able to understand that stuff easily. It is hard in a tutorial to keep things simple and trust people to figure out what you&#8217;re saying. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re totally right that there are a lot of tutorials that get lengthy and complicated and, I think, practically useless. Unfortunately, there are also lot of books on Photoshop (and Illustrator) like that as well. If you&#8217;re looking for books or anything, there is an author named Deke McClelland who writes about all the Adobe stuff, who I&#8217;d recommend before any others. It&#8217;s pretty in-depth so it can overwhelm, but he keeps things fairly straightforward and simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee-Ann</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-435</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee-Ann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-435</guid>
		<description>Thanks soooo much !! You are very good at making this easy to follow ... you have a talent. I have been on
so many websites to try and find easy and quick ways to color in and they are so lengthy and complicated.
(they were difficult to follow) with your way of explaining along with the diagrams it was fantastic and a breath a fresh of air and I did not need to make an action to remember, this sunk in cause you made it easy and interesting and so my brain absorbed the info. THANKS !!!!!!! I have such tight deadlines but have not illustrated in photoshop before, used to do everything by hand so I have to learn real quick. Lee-Ann</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks soooo much !! You are very good at making this easy to follow &#8230; you have a talent. I have been on<br />
so many websites to try and find easy and quick ways to color in and they are so lengthy and complicated.<br />
(they were difficult to follow) with your way of explaining along with the diagrams it was fantastic and a breath a fresh of air and I did not need to make an action to remember, this sunk in cause you made it easy and interesting and so my brain absorbed the info. THANKS !!!!!!! I have such tight deadlines but have not illustrated in photoshop before, used to do everything by hand so I have to learn real quick. Lee-Ann</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trade</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>Trade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-356</guid>
		<description>Hey Boyboy. That's the cool thing about Photoshop is there are a million different methods for accomplishing the same effects, and I'm sure everyone has their preferences. The way you're describing sounds like it would work fine. (And glad to hear that the "All Layers" checkbox helped out).

For me, I prefer to stick with the black and white Outlines set to Multiply. Using the Multiply mode on color layers isn't something I feel like I have a lot of control over. What that Multiply mode is going to do is actually multiply your color value with what's underneath it. I'm not sure what the number system is that they use, but essentially white multiplies no value (zero) to the layer underneath, so that's why it appears to drop out when placed over another color. Black multiplies the maximum value so no matter what you put under it, it'll always remain black. Every other color though, is going to darken whenever another layer is underneath it, so if you work with a lot of layers (which I do), it'll cause a lot of problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Boyboy. That&#8217;s the cool thing about Photoshop is there are a million different methods for accomplishing the same effects, and I&#8217;m sure everyone has their preferences. The way you&#8217;re describing sounds like it would work fine. (And glad to hear that the &#8220;All Layers&#8221; checkbox helped out).</p>
<p>For me, I prefer to stick with the black and white Outlines set to Multiply. Using the Multiply mode on color layers isn&#8217;t something I feel like I have a lot of control over. What that Multiply mode is going to do is actually multiply your color value with what&#8217;s underneath it. I&#8217;m not sure what the number system is that they use, but essentially white multiplies no value (zero) to the layer underneath, so that&#8217;s why it appears to drop out when placed over another color. Black multiplies the maximum value so no matter what you put under it, it&#8217;ll always remain black. Every other color though, is going to darken whenever another layer is underneath it, so if you work with a lot of layers (which I do), it&#8217;ll cause a lot of problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boyboy</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-352</link>
		<dc:creator>Boyboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-352</guid>
		<description>Oh, I forgot to mention that I keep the black and white Outlines layer on "Normal" mode, and multiply the color instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I forgot to mention that I keep the black and white Outlines layer on &#8220;Normal&#8221; mode, and multiply the color instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boyboy</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-351</link>
		<dc:creator>Boyboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-351</guid>
		<description>I don't understand why you would bother to use the Minimum filter? What I do is choose the Paint Bucket tool, choose the Paint Bucket MODE to multiply (not the layer-multiply, the Bucket-multiply) and just fill the area. It doesn't look jagged at all, it looks industry smooth. Am I wrong? Is your method even smoother? If you want to be extra safe, just use a higher tolerance.

PS: the "All Layers" checkbox thingy is exactly what I was desperately trying to figure out. I had no idea how to paste the color into a different layer. Thanks a lot for that!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand why you would bother to use the Minimum filter? What I do is choose the Paint Bucket tool, choose the Paint Bucket MODE to multiply (not the layer-multiply, the Bucket-multiply) and just fill the area. It doesn&#8217;t look jagged at all, it looks industry smooth. Am I wrong? Is your method even smoother? If you want to be extra safe, just use a higher tolerance.</p>
<p>PS: the &#8220;All Layers&#8221; checkbox thingy is exactly what I was desperately trying to figure out. I had no idea how to paste the color into a different layer. Thanks a lot for that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trade</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-348</link>
		<dc:creator>Trade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-348</guid>
		<description>Gosh, thanks for all the comments, everyone. Glad you're digging this tutorial. I know I was pretty excited when I figured this one out. Let me see if I can get to all the comments.

Mark,I know what you mean about leaving gaps in your artwork. I've got them everywhere and I'm kind of stubborn about letting the tools (Photoshop) dictate how I draw so I'm resigned to going in a cleaning my work up before using the Paint Bucket. It's pretty quick, though. Maybe I'll talk about that next time.

Paul, Greg, I share your pain. I used to do this using the Magic Wand Tool and expanding it. It took forever.:(

Kmykris, that's a great suggestion. I tried upping the tolerance and it works nicely, and will actually expand your color area pretty well by clicking a couple extra times. I'll usually fill in the gaps in my artwork with whatever color I'm filling that area, though, in so using the tolerance for me may cause problems.

Danny, that's an interesting tutorial. I read through it real quick, but will have to go back and read through it again more carefully. It could be really sweet though.

Mark,switching anti-alias off with the Paint Bucket tool actually makes things worse because it's the color layer that'll have the jagged edges. On the other hand, if you scan in your linework as straight black and white (no grays), you shouldn't have this problem at all. The downside is that non-anti-aliased (is that a double negative?) lines will look jagged and not so hot.

Thanks again, everyone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gosh, thanks for all the comments, everyone. Glad you&#8217;re digging this tutorial. I know I was pretty excited when I figured this one out. Let me see if I can get to all the comments.</p>
<p>Mark,I know what you mean about leaving gaps in your artwork. I&#8217;ve got them everywhere and I&#8217;m kind of stubborn about letting the tools (Photoshop) dictate how I draw so I&#8217;m resigned to going in a cleaning my work up before using the Paint Bucket. It&#8217;s pretty quick, though. Maybe I&#8217;ll talk about that next time.</p>
<p>Paul, Greg, I share your pain. I used to do this using the Magic Wand Tool and expanding it. It took forever.:(</p>
<p>Kmykris, that&#8217;s a great suggestion. I tried upping the tolerance and it works nicely, and will actually expand your color area pretty well by clicking a couple extra times. I&#8217;ll usually fill in the gaps in my artwork with whatever color I&#8217;m filling that area, though, in so using the tolerance for me may cause problems.</p>
<p>Danny, that&#8217;s an interesting tutorial. I read through it real quick, but will have to go back and read through it again more carefully. It could be really sweet though.</p>
<p>Mark,switching anti-alias off with the Paint Bucket tool actually makes things worse because it&#8217;s the color layer that&#8217;ll have the jagged edges. On the other hand, if you scan in your linework as straight black and white (no grays), you shouldn&#8217;t have this problem at all. The downside is that non-anti-aliased (is that a double negative?) lines will look jagged and not so hot.</p>
<p>Thanks again, everyone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark heath</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-347</link>
		<dc:creator>mark heath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-347</guid>
		<description>I notice you had the anti-alias on. If you switched it off before coloring, would the line art remain free of gray pixels, with a crisp edge?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I notice you had the anti-alias on. If you switched it off before coloring, would the line art remain free of gray pixels, with a crisp edge?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Burleson</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-346</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Burleson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-346</guid>
		<description>Oh! I forgot to clarify that the line work fill-ins are only temporary to get the color blocks, you just leave your original lines intact on the top layer. So if you want to leave gaps on purpose, it doesn't take any more time than it does to duplicate your line work layer (which takes maybe, what, 2 seconds? 5 seconds at the most?), which you have to do to make the fills in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh! I forgot to clarify that the line work fill-ins are only temporary to get the color blocks, you just leave your original lines intact on the top layer. So if you want to leave gaps on purpose, it doesn&#8217;t take any more time than it does to duplicate your line work layer (which takes maybe, what, 2 seconds? 5 seconds at the most?), which you have to do to make the fills in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Burleson</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Burleson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-345</guid>
		<description>Hey that's a pretty cool way of doing that, I never knew that minimum could be used that way. That's certainly faster that my old method of alt-selecting with the magic wand for every color block. Another way I found out about is to have temporary fills made for you automatically, read more here: http://www.questionablecontent.net/tutorial.php

You just need two plugins from BPelt, 'multifill' and 'flatten' (they're free, just Google "BPelt plugins".) You have to enclose any open line work like in your method, but you can also use that step to pre-lay shadow and highlight areas to save even more time. You only have use the paint bucket to choose your final colors and shadow/highlight shades/tones.

The best part is, you can keep everything on a single "COLOR" layer to save time and computer memory usage. I haven't used this in practice as I've been forcing myself to use The GIMP the last several months (long story), but the tests I've done seem to prove that this saves a LOT of time and I've been considering switching back to Photoshop for this method alone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey that&#8217;s a pretty cool way of doing that, I never knew that minimum could be used that way. That&#8217;s certainly faster that my old method of alt-selecting with the magic wand for every color block. Another way I found out about is to have temporary fills made for you automatically, read more here: <a href="http://www.questionablecontent.net/tutorial.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.questionablecontent.net/tutorial.php</a></p>
<p>You just need two plugins from BPelt, &#8216;multifill&#8217; and &#8216;flatten&#8217; (they&#8217;re free, just Google &#8220;BPelt plugins&#8221;.) You have to enclose any open line work like in your method, but you can also use that step to pre-lay shadow and highlight areas to save even more time. You only have use the paint bucket to choose your final colors and shadow/highlight shades/tones.</p>
<p>The best part is, you can keep everything on a single &#8220;COLOR&#8221; layer to save time and computer memory usage. I haven&#8217;t used this in practice as I&#8217;ve been forcing myself to use The GIMP the last several months (long story), but the tests I&#8217;ve done seem to prove that this saves a LOT of time and I&#8217;ve been considering switching back to Photoshop for this method alone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-344</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://zipandbit.com/skykayak/2008/02/14/page-39/#comment-344</guid>
		<description>Wow, I never knew about the "Minimum" method. I always just used the selection tool, and then expanded the selection by a couple of pixels (Select &#62; Modify &#62; Expand) and then fill the selection (Ctrl + Del). But this seems somewhat easier and quicker, because you cause use the filter on an entire layer. Great tutorial, thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, I never knew about the &#8220;Minimum&#8221; method. I always just used the selection tool, and then expanded the selection by a couple of pixels (Select &gt; Modify &gt; Expand) and then fill the selection (Ctrl + Del). But this seems somewhat easier and quicker, because you cause use the filter on an entire layer. Great tutorial, thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
