Problem with bottom layers

[ide-e]

Hello everyone, I was hoping to get some help from the help center but it's impossible to get anyone there.

I have problem with layers. My bottom layer shows up at the upper layer or does not show at all. I am sorry if I am bad at explaining, for example, I paint a shape, create another layer under that layer and try to paint but it is invisible, if I set to multiply then I can see the bottom layer but it paints everywhere. So if I want to pain skin or hair and some other details where I have to use bottom and upper layer, I cannot.

I uploaded 3 screen shots, in case I was not clear. Number 1 shows both layers in normal mode, number 2 shows upper layer multiply, number 3 bottom layer multiply.

All combinations do not work. Am I doing something wrong, something really silly I missed? Because this is very simple thing and I never had problems with it, did photoshop change something?

If someone can help me please do so

Thank you,

P.S.: In case you need to know, I am using Mac (High Sierra 10.13.5)

Idee

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Am I doing something wrong, something really silly I missed?

Apparently you filled »layer1« with white (or created it by duplicating a white Background Layer etc.) before painting on it, so naturally it covers the layers below.

[ide-e]

Hi, thank you for your reply. I did not fill the layer, this white background is just original document created. This has never happened to me before, usually if I create layer under the one I painted on, all my paintings on the bottom layer will be under the painting on the upper one (regardless of the beackground). Also, you can see that if I choose multiply option the one from the upper layer appears to be transparent, the color opacity is 100%. I do not understand why.

I always did this thing in the same way and it was never like this.

[davescm · Accepted solution]

Hi

From your screenshots all appears to be working correctly.

See these examples :

1. With top layer at 100% opacity and blending mode normal bottom layer is hidden behind the top layer

2. With blending mode set to multiply then the values are multiplied (with white being 1 and black 0) so the top layer colours are multiplied by the darker colour underneath to show a darkened cross

That leaves three ways to get the grey square in front of the cross

Method 1 Select the grey area and add a layer mask

Method 2 Right click the top layer and in blending options set blend if as shown

Method three select and delete the white area in the top layer

Dave

[ide-e]

Hi Dave, thank you so much for your nice reply. I will follow your advice. Seems like somehting must have been changed and I should adopt this way. Thank you for explaining

[davescm]

Hi

You're welcome.

I've been using Photoshop since version 7.0 and nothing has changed in the layer interactions I posted above

Dave

[ide-e]

Yes, I've been using Photoshop maybe more then 10 years, but seems like something messed up in mind and the way I remember doing this upper/bottom layer thing. Thank you very much for your time to respond

[c.pfaffenbichler]

When you create a new Document what is »Background Contents« set to?

[ide-e]

Hi, 'background contents' is set to 'white'.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

So if you wanted it to be transparent for newly created documents you could change the setting in that dialog.

[ide-e]

I see, thank you very much for the advice.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

It does not matter what you think you did previously, this Layer is apparently not transparent but was filled solid white at some point.

When you create a new Document what is »Background Contents« set to?

Also, you can see that if I choose multiply option the one from the upper layer appears to be transparent, the color opacity is 100%. I do not understand why.

The effect of the Blend Mode Multiply is not the same as a Layer being transparent having transparent pixels (edited).

On a white background it may appear that way but that is irrelevant and you should notice that once any other colors are in play.

[ide-e]

Thank you very much for the reply. I think I understand now.