Layers in Photoshop

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Matty F, Apr 29, 2011.

  1. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    I\ve never really got to understand how layers work in Photoshop, and
    especially how to look at the different layers.

    However, I have a pdf document which allegedly has a number of layers
    in it. I can see only the one background one with Photoshop, but there
    must be more, because the final pdf looks nothing like the background
    image.

    Here is what Photoshop shows me, and what the final pdf looks like:
    http://i51.tinypic.com/9h6knm.jpg

    The background image shows many alterations which are to be applied,
    including signatures added.

    I have not seen an explanation of why the changes were made.
    Perhaps there is a good reason for it, and it doesn't matter anyway,
    unless it's forgery, in which case it matters a lot.
     
    Matty F, Apr 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matty F

    pystol Guest

    To see layers - Menu Bar Windows/Layers - opens the Layers-Channels-
    Paths window.

    In the layers window you see all the layers and on the left hand side
    you should see "eye" icons - click the boxes that hold these icons to
    hide or display them.

    Seems odd that all the relevant layers aren't 'displayed' in photoshop
    to match what the pdf shows.
     
    pystol, Apr 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Apr 29, 2:18 pm, pystol <> wrote:
    > To see layers - Menu Bar Windows/Layers - opens the Layers-Channels-
    > Paths window.
    >
    > In the layers window you see all the layers and on the left hand side
    > you should see "eye" icons - click the boxes that hold these icons to
    > hide or display them.
    >
    > Seems odd that all the relevant layers aren't 'displayed' in photoshop
    > to match what the pdf shows.


    The only picture that displays is called birth-certificate-long-
    form0001
    while the file name is
    birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    I only have Photoshop 6.0, but apparently the document was made with
    Photoshop 5.0

    If anyone ia able to look at it, the document is at
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    If that has been changed in the last few hours, I'm sure there are a
    million other copies!

    I'm not interested in ANY discussion other than about the layers.
     
    Matty F, Apr 29, 2011
    #3
  4. Matty F

    pystol Guest

    It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    incomplete image you gave us in your original post.
     
    pystol, Apr 29, 2011
    #4
  5. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol <> wrote:
    > It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    > get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    > incomplete image you gave us in your original post.


    Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    signature has been added to the document.

    I assume that this is a joke by the White House.
     
    Matty F, Apr 29, 2011
    #5
  6. Matty F

    Me Guest

    On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    >> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    >> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    >> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >
    > Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    > However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    > signature has been added to the document.
    >

    LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    >
    > I assume that this is a joke by the White House.
    >

    "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".
     
    Me, Apr 29, 2011
    #6
  7. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    > >> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    > >> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    > >> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >
    > > Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    > > However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    > > signature has been added to the document.

    >
    > LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    > >> I assume that this is a joke by the White House.

    >
    > >

    > "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".


    Have you looked at the document with Photoshop, yes or no?
    You should Import the PDF document.
    How do you explain the doctor's signature there without most of the
    other data?
    If the White House said that the whitehouse.gov site had been hacked,
    that might explain it. But they have not said that yet.
     
    Matty F, Apr 29, 2011
    #7
  8. Matty F

    Me Guest

    On 29/04/2011 7:28 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Me<> wrote:
    >> On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    >>>> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    >>>> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    >>>> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >>
    >>> Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    >>> However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    >>> signature has been added to the document.

    >>
    >> LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    >> >> I assume that this is a joke by the White House.

    >>
    >> >

    >> "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".

    >
    > Have you looked at the document with Photoshop, yes or no?
    > You should Import the PDF document.
    > How do you explain the doctor's signature there without most of the
    > other data?
    > If the White House said that the whitehouse.gov site had been hacked,
    > that might explain it. But they have not said that yet.

    Without "most" of the other data? LOL. So as well as adding the
    signature in a separate layer, they also added some lines, altered a few
    characters in text here and there.
    Yes - I opened in in PS, imported it in PS, also imported it in Gimp.
    AFAICT this is nothing more than usual adobe weirdness, probably the
    result of using scanner software to save as pdf. Open it in adobes PDF
    reader, zoom in, and it looks like the "missing" text when importing to
    PS is because some of the text has been saved in the pdf as vector
    graphics, rather than bitmap. (only the "R" in BARAK seems to be
    bitmap) The white area around the text/writing is simply from unsharp
    mask type sharpening, applied by default by many programs when up or
    down-scaling images.
     
    Me, Apr 29, 2011
    #8
  9. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Apr 30, 8:45 am, Me <> wrote:
    > On 29/04/2011 7:28 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Me<> wrote:
    > >> On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    > >>>> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    > >>>> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    > >>>> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >
    > >>> Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    > >>> However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    > >>> signature has been added to the document.

    >
    > >> LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    > >> >> I assume that this is a joke by the White House.

    >
    > >> "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".

    >
    > > Have you looked at the document with Photoshop, yes or no?
    > > You should Import the PDF document.
    > > How do you explain the doctor's signature there without most of the
    > > other data?
    > > If the White House said that the whitehouse.gov site had been hacked,
    > > that might explain it. But they have not said that yet.

    >
    > Without "most" of the other data? LOL. So as well as adding the
    > signature in a separate layer, they also added some lines, altered a few
    > characters in text here and there.
    > Yes - I opened in in PS, imported it in PS, also imported it in Gimp.
    > AFAICT this is nothing more than usual adobe weirdness, probably the
    > result of using scanner software to save as pdf. Open it in adobes PDF
    > reader, zoom in, and it looks like the "missing" text when importing to
    > PS is because some of the text has been saved in the pdf as vector
    > graphics, rather than bitmap. (only the "R" in BARAK seems to be
    > bitmap) The white area around the text/writing is simply from unsharp
    > mask type sharpening, applied by default by many programs when up or
    > down-scaling images.


    After more research, I have noticed that all of the text that was
    touching a line (e.g. some capital letters) has been saved in the same
    layer as the lines, together with anything that was very faint,
    including the green background.
    The text and graphics that were NOT touching a line has been saved in
    different layers.
    Therefore I am satisfied that the Adobe software was solely
    responsible for splitting the document up in that seemingly suspicious
    way.

    I can prove this if anyone cares. But you don't do you!

    Where are all the document experts that should have explained this?
    i.e. why text touching a line is saved in a different layer. Obvious
    when I think about it but nobody has said so before now.
     
    Matty F, Apr 30, 2011
    #9
  10. Matty F

    Me Guest

    On 30/04/2011 3:19 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    > On Apr 30, 8:45 am, Me<> wrote:
    >> On 29/04/2011 7:28 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Me<> wrote:
    >>>> On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    >>>>>> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    >>>>>> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    >>>>>> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >>
    >>>>> Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    >>>>> However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    >>>>> signature has been added to the document.

    >>
    >>>> LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    >>>> >> I assume that this is a joke by the White House.

    >>
    >>>> "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".

    >>
    >>> Have you looked at the document with Photoshop, yes or no?
    >>> You should Import the PDF document.
    >>> How do you explain the doctor's signature there without most of the
    >>> other data?
    >>> If the White House said that the whitehouse.gov site had been hacked,
    >>> that might explain it. But they have not said that yet.

    >>
    >> Without "most" of the other data? LOL. So as well as adding the
    >> signature in a separate layer, they also added some lines, altered a few
    >> characters in text here and there.
    >> Yes - I opened in in PS, imported it in PS, also imported it in Gimp.
    >> AFAICT this is nothing more than usual adobe weirdness, probably the
    >> result of using scanner software to save as pdf. Open it in adobes PDF
    >> reader, zoom in, and it looks like the "missing" text when importing to
    >> PS is because some of the text has been saved in the pdf as vector
    >> graphics, rather than bitmap. (only the "R" in BARAK seems to be
    >> bitmap) The white area around the text/writing is simply from unsharp
    >> mask type sharpening, applied by default by many programs when up or
    >> down-scaling images.

    >
    > After more research, I have noticed that all of the text that was
    > touching a line (e.g. some capital letters) has been saved in the same
    > layer as the lines, together with anything that was very faint,
    > including the green background.
    > The text and graphics that were NOT touching a line has been saved in
    > different layers.
    > Therefore I am satisfied that the Adobe software was solely
    > responsible for splitting the document up in that seemingly suspicious
    > way.
    >
    > I can prove this if anyone cares. But you don't do you!
    >

    I think it's very funny - shows how dumb conspiracy theorists can be.
    >
    > Where are all the document experts that should have explained this?
    > i.e. why text touching a line is saved in a different layer. Obvious
    > when I think about it but nobody has said so before now.
    >

    I suppose that the document "experts" who might have explained it were
    vastly outnumbered by desperate and heavily embarrassed "birthers" who
    don't want to accept reality.
     
    Me, Apr 30, 2011
    #10
  11. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 30/04/2011 3:19 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 30, 8:45 am, Me<> wrote:
    > >> On 29/04/2011 7:28 p.m., Matty F wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Apr 29, 6:12 pm, Me<> wrote:
    > >>>> On 29/04/2011 5:30 p.m., Matty F wrote:> On Apr 29, 5:01 pm, pystol<> wrote:
    > >>>>>> It probably doesn't help you but when I "open" the pdf in photoshop I
    > >>>>>> get a single layer image and when I "import" the pdf I get the
    > >>>>>> incomplete image you gave us in your original post.

    >
    > >>>>> Apparently Adobe Illustrator will show all of the layers.
    > >>>>> However the single Photoshop layer is enough to show that the doctor's
    > >>>>> signature has been added to the document.

    >
    > >>>> LOL - no it won't, and no it doesn't. There is only one "layer". EOS.
    > >>>> >> I assume that this is a joke by the White House.

    >
    > >>>> "Birthers" = "afterbirthers".

    >
    > >>> Have you looked at the document with Photoshop, yes or no?
    > >>> You should Import the PDF document.
    > >>> How do you explain the doctor's signature there without most of the
    > >>> other data?
    > >>> If the White House said that the whitehouse.gov site had been hacked,
    > >>> that might explain it. But they have not said that yet.

    >
    > >> Without "most" of the other data? LOL. So as well as adding the
    > >> signature in a separate layer, they also added some lines, altered a few
    > >> characters in text here and there.
    > >> Yes - I opened in in PS, imported it in PS, also imported it in Gimp.
    > >> AFAICT this is nothing more than usual adobe weirdness, probably the
    > >> result of using scanner software to save as pdf. Open it in adobes PDF
    > >> reader, zoom in, and it looks like the "missing" text when importing to
    > >> PS is because some of the text has been saved in the pdf as vector
    > >> graphics, rather than bitmap. (only the "R" in BARAK seems to be
    > >> bitmap) The white area around the text/writing is simply from unsharp
    > >> mask type sharpening, applied by default by many programs when up or
    > >> down-scaling images.

    >
    > > After more research, I have noticed that all of the text that was
    > > touching a line (e.g. some capital letters) has been saved in the same
    > > layer as the lines, together with anything that was very faint,
    > > including the green background.
    > > The text and graphics that were NOT touching a line has been saved in
    > > different layers.
    > > Therefore I am satisfied that the Adobe software was solely
    > > responsible for splitting the document up in that seemingly suspicious
    > > way.

    >
    > > I can prove this if anyone cares. But you don't do you!

    >
    > >

    > I think it's very funny - shows how dumb conspiracy theorists can be.
    >
    > > Where are all the document experts that should have explained this?
    > > i.e. why text touching a line is saved in a different layer. Obvious
    > > when I think about it but nobody has said so before now.

    >
    > I suppose that the document "experts" who might have explained it were
    > vastly outnumbered by desperate and heavily embarrassed "birthers" who
    > don't want to accept reality.


    "Experts" were giving their opinion one way or the other, but without
    sufficient or any supporting evidence.
    Others were giving their opinion solely based on whether they were
    left or right-wing supporters.
    I simply wanted to look at the document, which nobody had looked at
    closely enough.

    http://i52.tinypic.com/1549ag0.gif
     
    Matty F, Apr 30, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andrea

    Photoshop Layers and Motion Pictures?

    Andrea, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
    Andrea
    Jul 6, 2004
  2. Add two layers pixel-wise in Photoshop

    , Jan 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    612
    Bill Hilton
    Jan 1, 2006
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Blur, Layers and Blending Modes, a Magic Mix in Photoshop, Part 1

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    293
    Paul Furman
    Feb 10, 2007
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Blur, Layers and Blending Modes, a Magic Mix in Photoshop, Part 3

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    318
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Feb 13, 2007
  5. J
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    733
Loading...

Share This Page