Davepit wrote:
The main benefit I find with smart objects is the ability to run a filter on a mask, such as sharpening and blurring. A close second, however, is that I can have a smart object in a different colour mode to my main file. E.g. the smart object could have a LAB curves layer to increase saturation, or fiddling with the magenta channel in CMYK.

I clearly need to look into smart objects then! Some good benefits to be had.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
If I understand what's going on, I could convert all of the skin layers into a single smart object which would cause them to be still editable in a separate document if needed.

I'm not sure I see how this could be an advantage. What's on these skin layers?

Peano wrote:
I'm not sure I see how this could be an advantage. What's on these skin layers?

Just stuff I don't want to get rid of.. but probably won't need to edit again.

I'm fine with my workflow, just wondering if there are memory advantages with the technique of using smart objects.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

Just stuff I don't want to get rid of.. but probably won't need to edit again.

I'm fine with my workflow, just wondering if there are memory advantages with the technique of using smart objects.

In my workflow, skin layers typically are just blank layers where I do cloning and healing. Might also be one duplicate image layer for Portraiture. If that's the sort of "stuff" on your skin layers, I don't think you gain anything in terms of file size with smart objects. I usually combine them in a group just to tidy up the layers palette.

Peano wrote:
In my workflow, skin layers typically are just blank layers where I do cloning and healing. Might also be one duplicate image layer for Portraiture. If that's the sort of "stuff" on your skin layers, I don't think you gain anything in terms of file size with smart objects. I usually combine them in a group just to tidy up the layers palette.

It's not an advantage in terms of file size - it's an advantage in terms of memory usage.. ie. RAM that is being used by Photoshop all the time, as opposed to disk space.

My understanding is that it will keep a rasterised version of that layer in memory without all of the layers which go to make it up. So, instead of 5 layers of 22MP 16 bit imagery, it will just keep ONE.

In essence it would be equivalent to keeping them all in their own group, except the group wouldn't be in memory all the time - just the net result of the group

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
My understanding is that it will keep a rasterised version of that layer in memory without all of the layers which go to make it up. So, instead of 5 layers of 22MP 16 bit imagery, it will just keep ONE.

I still don't know what kind of "stuff" you have on those five layers. Blank layers with healing and cloning on them don't take up a significant amount of memory. If you have more than one image layer (such as for Portraiture), then I'm wondering why. I often see people duplicating the image unnecessarily, which really wastes RAM.

Peano wrote:
I still don't know what kind of "stuff" you have on those five layers. Blank layers with healing and cloning on them don't take up a significant amount of memory. If you have more than one image layer (such as for Portraiture), then I'm wondering why.

Well if you have upwards of 10+ colour mask layers, curves adjustment layers for low pixel corrections then layers sub-divided into clipping masks it will start to eat into the RAM. Its not the actual 3 or 4 "re-touch" layers themselves its the whole lot including the finish colour layers.

Have I explained this right?

Peano wrote:
I still don't know what kind of "stuff" you have on those five layers. Blank layers with healing and cloning on them don't take up a significant amount of memory. If you have more than one image layer (such as for Portraiture), then I'm wondering why. I often see people duplicating the image unnecessarily, which really wastes RAM.

lol well you can assume I don't have them for no reason

The question was more of a technical question about smart objects rather than why I need the extra layers...

doctorontop wrote:
Phil your understanding is correct the only thing to watch out for in cs4 with smart objects is the new ability to lock a mask to the the smart object itself this works great as long as you are not re-scaling as the mask can become degraded as it will not have the content protection of being inside the object.

Thanks   I shouldn't be resizing, so I think I'll be OK.

Peano wrote:
It would be easy to find out exactly what you're saving by this technique. I keep System Eye running in the tray to monitor the percentage of RAM I'm using at any given moment. It's a free utility. Install it and you can monitor what happens with the smart objects.

I'll check it out. Thanks!

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
lol well you can assume I don't have them for no reason

I do assume that, but often when people duplicate image layers, they do it unnecessarily. For instance, I don't know how many times I've seen people duplicate the background layer, change blend mode to screen or multiply, put a black mask on the layer, and then paint with white to selectively reveal that screen or multiply effect.

This is a huge and unnecessary addition to files size and memory use. You don't have to duplicate the image layer at all for this effect. I'm not saying you do this. Just giving an example of how people needlessly tax RAM and multiply file size. Since your aim is to minimize use of memory, considerations such as this are relevant.

Peano wrote:

This is a huge and unnecessary addition to files size and memory use. You don't have to duplicate the image layer at all for this effect. I'm not saying you do this. Just giving an example of how people needlessly tax RAM and multiply file size. Since your aim is to minimize use of memory, considerations such as this are relevant.

Nope. I don't do that..