Re: Why backgrounds?
- From: noone@xxxxxxxx (Hunt)
- Date: 4 Sep 2005 15:54:07 GMT
In article <1FfSe.5972$_84.5294@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
octisback@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>
>It's probably a dumb question, but what's the point in the 'background'
>layer? I can't really find a difference between it and a normal layer except
>that it's way less versatile. I always end up converting my backgrounds to
>layers and most of the people I work with do to. So, does adobe keep this
>annoying quirk in place just to add a step to our already too busy lives, or
>is there some magnificent secret about background layers that I'm missing?
>
>
I choose to believe that it is an extra measure of safety to basically lock
the image Layer, so one will not inadvertantly alter it, unless they REALLY
want to. It would be nice to have a Preference to allow this Layer to come in
un-locked, but then many might check THAT and accidently mess up images they
do not intend to manipulate - all of us have done something to the WRONG
Layer, and had to go back using some form of History, Snapshot, etc, all the
while cursing about, "how could I have been so dumb, as to not check which
Layer I had active... "
Hunt
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why backgrounds?
- From: OcTavO
- Re: Why backgrounds?
- References:
- Why backgrounds?
- From: OcTavO
- Why backgrounds?
- Prev by Date: Re: blending and fading edges
- Next by Date: Re: save jpg as tif before editing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why backgrounds?
- Next by thread: Re: Why backgrounds?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|