# Photoshop detail question



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

I'm having a little trouble with photoshop and im not sure if its a file size issue or a memory issue or what but I'm currently making a comp it's 7760x4840 and there are a bunch of background plates that i need to get into the image. One being a S___ ton of gummy bears:





Now since this a created plate out of many different plates I thought maybe it had something to do with that but if you look closely there are some bears at the top of the frame that are very jagged where as below there are some that look like they should. I took at plate shot and used it many times to get the result I need but for whatever reason on some of the individual layer elements (before and after i rasterize and compress them into the same layer) there are some that look fuzzy. Why do you think that is?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 28, 2015)

It looks like they were imported into the layered file at a mismatched ppi.


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

Interesting thought, lemme look into it. That would be weird though because I'm working straight from the raw cr2 files which i have set to open at 300ppi for anything i open.


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

doesn't seem to be the case. I rotated some of the layers though and it seems to be all of those layers (shot in the dark, i really dont know whats causing this :-\ )
comp is set to 300ppi, anything copied from another cr2 was at 300ppi.


----------



## chauncey (Sep 28, 2015)

Were it a memory issue, speed would suffer...not image quality.
The lower right corner looks fine while the rest has jagged edges.

Did you take numerous images at the same settings or use one base image and go from there.
Either way, ya gotta make selections and cut & paste into a final composited image.
The jagged edges that we see are the result of very poorly made selections.


----------



## zim (Sep 28, 2015)

Almost looks like a 'painterly' effect has been applied. Wonder if a file can get corrupted in that way whilst you were doing transforms by having a spurious filter applied ?


----------



## tpatana (Sep 28, 2015)

Did you shoot with Nikon?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2015)

I see jaggies on almost every piece. Try posting a unedited original.


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Did you shoot with Nikon?


Didn't shoot with Nikon.




zim said:


> Almost looks like a 'painterly' effect has been applied. Wonder if a file can get corrupted in that way whilst you were doing transforms by having a spurious filter applied ?


interesting thought idk how we can tell if its corrupt tho



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I see jaggies on almost every piece. Try posting a unedited original.



see below


chauncey said:


> Were it a memory issue, speed would suffer...not image quality.
> The lower right corner looks fine while the rest has jagged edges.
> 
> Did you take numerous images at the same settings or use one base image and go from there.
> ...


So here's a comp with the rotated unviewable and the rotated viewable (scroll to the right to see what I mean by rotated). The thing is that the bears that are visible in when the rotated bear plates aren't visible are what the rotated plates were made from and i just used the selection paintbrush to trim the edges so nothing in the middle should be affected because it was trimmed in this comp. (also the solution isn't not using these layers, i do need those layers for the sake of not having a repeating pattern)

http://imgur.com/a/f3VdA


----------



## tpatana (Sep 28, 2015)

gregborkman said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Did you shoot with Nikon?
> ...



Have to check all the points where you might go wrong 

I suck on photoshop, so I have no clue what's that blending mode. Did you try different ones?


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

tpatana said:


> gregborkman said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...


Ha! Nope Canon 5dmkiii

Set to normal blending mode. Not going to change it, it needs to be set to normal.


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 28, 2015)

Might have found the solution! I'll confirm when the project is completed.

When I rotated the layers, before confirming the rotation angle, I must of gone up to the interpolation setting and changed it from Bicubic Automatic to Nearest Neighbor...it looks like thats what the issue might of been. Keep ya posted.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 28, 2015)

gregborkman said:


> Ha! Nope Canon 5dmkiii



Just kidding, I envy the Sony sensors. Hoping Canon catches up, and/or borrows Sony sensors until they can catch up with their own R&D.

Good to hear you probably found the reason. I've had my share of strange items that I cannot explain.


----------



## gregborkman (Sep 29, 2015)

It's confirmed that was the problem.

I have a follow up regarding the same project. You see how there are many different colors of bears everywhere. The whole frame isnt covered in them, there is a white background that was artifically added (the bears have no shadow) maybe im using it incorrectly but if i add a drop shadow to the layer and want it to be a glowing colored shadow for the nears color of the bear thats on the edge, can i do this without a plugin? or is there a plugin that would let me do this?


----------

