Thank you all for your helpful responses to my inquiry.  I am gradually getting the hang of “sizing”, although it may take some time to get my head around the idea of an image of “…one single pixel [having] a resolution of 2500 ppi”. I think what would really be helpful to me at the moment is to tell me how to export a high & a low resolution image, specifically addressing certain fields in the LR Classic Export Dialog Box. To Export: High Resolution JPEG, sRGB image, already cropped to 8x10 ratio: Quality: ?? Limit File Size: ?? Resize to Fit: ?? W:__ x H:__                Necessary??  - since image is already cropped. Resolution: 300ppi      Only necessary if image is to be used for printing.  Yes? A JPEG, sRGB image, already cropped to 8x10 ratio, intended for Web Use (assuming that the person needs an 8x10 ratio for their web page): Quality:  ?? Limit File Size:  ?? Resize to Fit:  ?? W:__ x H:__                Necessary??  - since image is already cropped. Resolution:                  Not necessary??  - since image is not for printing. A JPEG, sRGB image, already cropped to a square ratio, intended for LinkedIn: Quality:  ?? Limit File Size:  ?? Resize to Fit:  ?? W:__ x  H:__ ??              Necessary??  - since image is already cropped. Resolution:  ??                Not necessary??  - since image is not for printing. As you’ve explained, values for “W:__ x H:__” affect the actual size that the image will be reproduced on the web or on social media, whatever those dimensions might be. However, if the values for W & H are in pixels, then what is the specific (mathematical) relationship between pixels stipulated in the Export Dialog Box and the actual size of the image when it is posted on a website, FBk, LinkedIn, or any social media page? Non-photographers and non-LR/PS people do not seem to have a problem with sizing and posting. Why am I having difficulty grasping this?  I would be grateful, if you would read between the lines of my questions.  There may be something fundamental, a basic concept, that I am overlooking or that I need to understand first, which the younger generation (having grown up in the digital age) finds intuitive.  First & foremost, however, if you specifically address the fields in the Export Dialog Box for each of the examples above, it will probably contribute the most to my understanding, at least for right now. Thanks for sticking with me with all these questions. ... View more

Given that ppi is irrelevant when sizing an image for the Web and for Social Media, is there a standard pixel dimension (on long side) to designate an image (on export) for general Web or general Social Media use? ... View more

Yes, ppi; not dpi.  ...and am using LR Classic.  My oversight. Dpi is a measure of resolution then.  With regard to my first question, when a photographer speaks of delivering a "high resolution" image, what value of ppi is he/she thinking?  What value of ppi for a low resolution image? What is the importance of designating the "Quality" and "Limiting the file size" when exporting an image? ... View more

Based on all your suggestions, learning to work with smart objects will probably go a long way towards allaying some of my concerns about going back & re-tweaking a layer. A short while ago, however, I tried converting a merged group to a smart object and then tried to employ the liquefy tool.  (Didn’t really know what I was doing, but proceeded blindly with the notion that the SO layer would be indestructible, and that I could return to re-tweak it much later if I wanted.)   Somehow, however, I was getting ghosting of that part of the original image that was present before applying forward warp to it. That frustrating experience had discouraged me from learning even the basics of smart objects, - at least for the time being. With regard to preserving the option of re-tweaking a layer after merging into a group, I will apply your suggestions this coming week. As I understand it then, if I choose to merge layers into a group, I make those visible layers active, and use the command:  Shift + Alt + Cntrl + E.  (What do I do with my thumb?) This will create a merged group that will be represented by a newly created top layer (the “stamped layer”?).  If I ever want to go back & tweak any of the merged layers, I simply delete or turn off the visibility of that newly created top layer, which will now give me access to all the layers that comprised the previously merged group, - with the option of re-tweaking any of those layers.  I’ll give it a try this coming week. One incidental question: If I happen to save the image, together with the merged group, can I still return later and gain access to the individual layers in the group, by deleting or turning off the visibility of the representative top layer of the group, as described above? ... View more

Thank you all for your comments, - all providing helpful advice.  Thank you, too, for explaining why a person may want to merge layers. Some of the tutorials I’ve seen have said to merge layers, but I never knew the reason why. Michelle, If I could just ask a simple follow up question to your reply:  If I merge layers, will I be able to later unmerge the layers & tweak any one particular layer that was in the original merged group? I think you, as well as Dave & Nancy, have implied that the answer is, “Yes”, but I just want to be sure. Bruce ... View more

Dave, On the issue of “seeing the original alongside the [edited] copy” after returning to LR: Double checked this morning, and I just don’t see the original alongside the edited copy in LR.  However, let me clarify by saying I do see one unedited copy of the original after returning to LR, but only because I made a copy of the original before sending the image to PS, and this copy is not positioned alongside its edited image. I also checked and found that “auto-stacking” is off;  also, there is no “multiple stacking” icon within the frame of the “thumbnail” of the edited image, like you have circled in red.  So, unstacking was not an option.      Let me run another (test) image through the process later today (i.e., LR >> PS >> Edit >> Return to LR), eliminate      unnecessary variables (like creating a virtual copy before >> PS), and see if I can find the illusive original when I      return to LR.  I say, “test image”, because one of the biggest fears I have as a PS newbie is going down a rabbit hole      and not being able to find my way out. With regard to your suggestion about placing the original (or a virtual copy of the uncropped original) over the edited image in PS, which was previously cropped in LR:  I’ll give that a try, as well. Have three questions with regard to that procedure: - Will the prior edits done in PS, be applied to the newly introduced, uncropped “original” from LR? - Once the uncropped “original” is introduced as a new layer in PS, what do I do with the old, cropped image (i.e., background or b.g. duplicate layer) that was subsequently edited? - Would I replace the old, cropped image at the bottom of the layer stack (in PS) with the newly introduced, uncropped “original” from LR?  (i.e., delete & replace?) Now you can see why I want to try this with a test image, - which would render the possibility of Murphy’s Law meaningless and inconsequential.  Bruce ... View more

Hi Dave, Thank you for your comments and insight. You wrote: “Once finished in Photoshop you can open the original or the modified version and apply further LR adjustments to either. You can also reopen in PS should you wish, to modify the layers.” Somehow, when I go back to LR, I see the (PS) modified version of the original image, but I don’t see the unedited original image. You also wrote: “You could always go back to the original and uncrop that - then open in Photoshop and drag that layer over to the Photoshop document you created earlier.” When back in LR, if I can actually find the cropped, but unedited, original image, - uncrop that image and then open it in PS – could you explain specifically how I would “drag that layer over to the Photoshop document created earlier”? Do I understand correctly that, if I drag that layer over to the PS document created earlier, I would be able to apply all the prior modifications to an uncropped version of the original image?  I am assuming, then, that I could subsequently go back to LR and find the PS modified image, but in an uncropped form; - after which I could crop to my heart’s content in LR. If that is indeed the case, that would be great, since I would now have, in effect, maximum flexibility in cropping an image with all the PS edits.   Only issue for me as a newbie is:             Where can I find the previously LR cropped original in LR? I don’t see one.                                                                         and After uncropping the original and sending it to PS, how do I execute the procedure of dragging it over the PS document created earlier – and apply all the modifications to the “new” uncropped original? Bruce ... View more

Can't explain it, but when I opened PS today, the glitch I described above disappeared.  All's well that ends well. A special thanks, Akash & Johan, for your suggestions to resolve the problem. ... View more

After closing PS, I reopened it the following day, and to my surprise, the "sampling cross" had become visible again. Since I did not go into preferences in the interim, I suspect that, as you suggested, I had inadvertently put the caps lock on; - and then back off, before opening PS again the following day. Thank you for your help again. ... View more

Thank you, Daniel. Turning off the visibility of the stamped layer resolved the problem!! In an effort to really understand what is going on in PS beneath the layers, may I ask one more question: While removing the visibility of stamped layer above allowed me to retouch (& see the retouch) of the layer underneath, - why, when I restored the visibility of the stamped layer, did it not obscure the new, recent retouching? ... View more

Thank you both for your suggestions.  Being a newbie to PS, I figured I would try the simplest of solutions; - redo the rosacea corrections using the patch tool.  Worked like a charm!  Retained more of the texture and avoided the polished look of the healing brush. Many thanks. ... View more

Crating a stamp visible layer was the solution!! Thank you for taking the time to explain things so clearly!  Much appreciated! ... View more

I apologize for all these trivial questions: What is the proper way to delete a layer mask without deleting the layer that it masks?Chuck Uebele​ ... View more

Added a layer mask to the original retouched layer, as you suggested.  When I activated the layer mask, the mask rendered at the same 70% opacity as the layer that it masks (i.e., we're on the original layer). Retouching looks fine.  (If I change the opacity of the mask, it changes the opacity of the retouching on the layer.  OK, so I know not to touch the opacity of the mask.) However, when I duplicate the original layer, I have the same problem, - in that changing the opacity of the new duplicate layer effectively influences the opacity of the retouching on the original layer underneath. Perhaps, it's helpful to know that when I created the duplicate layer, it rendered at the same opacity (70%) as the original layer's opacity setting.  If I don't touch the 70% opacity setting on the new duplicate layer, the retouching looks fine.  As soon as I readjust the opacity setting on the duplicate layer away from 70%, it changes the appearance of the retouching done on the original layer.  Of course, the objective is to create a new duplicate layer, whose opacity setting has no bearing on layers underneath. Somehow, the layer mask is not protecting the opacity setting on the original layer & the retouching done on that layer.Chuck Uebele​ ... View more

Do I understand correctly, then, that if I do blemish retouching on a blank layer (over an original layer) and adjust the opacity of that blank layer afterwards, - I can duplicate the original layer and no matter how I adjust the opacity of the new duplicate layer, it won’t have an effect on the original layer underneath? So many fundamental issues to understand & remain aware of… ... View more

You identified the source of the problem!  I unwittingly employed the “patch tool” on the original layer (i.e., duplicate of background layer), adjusted the layer’s opacity, and then duplicated the original layer; - instead of doing the patch work on a blank layer; - which I understand would be the preferred method of working. Having spent considerable time retouching the original layer and being happy with the results, how would I preserve the retouching, as well as the adjusted opacity of that layer, before moving on to the next stage of retouching, which would first involve producing a duplicate layer? You suggested using a layer mask.  I would be grateful, if you could provide some guidance on how that layer mask should be applied and to which layer; - the original layer or the duplicate layer? Many thanks.  @@@ ... View more

Blend mode of new duplicate layer was set to "normal". ... View more

Thank you for responding to my inquiry. Out of frustration, I deleted the liquefy layer(s), which exhibited the ghosting problem, after I submitted my question on the forum. In response to your reply, however, I began the liquefy procedure all over again, capturing screen shots at every step along the way.  This time, though, no ghosting occurred to the image, after exiting the liquefy module. I guess that is good news, but would have preferred that the problem occur again, so that I would know what originally went wrong. I will try to be more mindful of the steps I take in any future liquefying procedure, so that I can accurately report the steps taken, if I should run into any ghosting problems again. Thank you for your interest and offer to help. ... View more

Thank you all for responding to my inquiry. As you all have suggested, I lost the layers because I flattened the layers before saving.  Not really sure of the reason why flattening the layers was called for  at that point in the retouching sequence, - other than I was blindly following a step-by-step, PS tutorial on You Tube, and flattening was one of the steps. I am submitting another related question in the forum, if you care to respond. Learning Photoshop is such an overwhelming task.  I am truly grateful for your help with these elementary questions.  ... View more