Merge Visible or Flatten Image

[Alfred]

Merge Visible or Flatten Image?

So which one do you use? Is one better then the other to get one layer at the end?

[labguy]

If you have only one layer other than your background there is no difference which way you choose. merge visible is if you have multiple layers and want to selectively merge layers.

[jeffkohn]

Another difference is that the result of "Flatten Image" will always ben a "background layer"; with Merge Visible if you didn't have a background layer before the merge you still won't after. Background layers will save slightly smaller than a full layer, also some scripts/actions might not work without a background layer.

[Daniel Bates]

Uh... "Save As TIFF" or "Save As JPEG"?

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

Uh... "Save As TIFF" or "Save As JPEG"?

Yes.

[justin-branam]

saving as a jpeg will reduce image quality much more than saving as a tiff file, but there will be a big file size difference (tiff being much larger). Personally i save as tiff files if i plan on having large prints made from them. if im onl printing 8x12's i save them as high quality jpegs.

[Daniel Bates]

Yep... I know the difference, that's just my way (okay, technically two ways) to flatten an image.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

Yep... I know the difference, that's just my way (okay, technically two ways) to flatten an image.

The problem with this is if you're batching an action to process a whole bunch of images. When that batch processor hits an image that has layers it will pop up the Save As dialog prompting you to save as a copy, which interrupts the batch process. I found that explicitly flattening the image (and converting it to 8-bit color) is necessary for batch actions to work smoothly.

[Daniel Bates]

Very true. I don't work with batches though, so that's not been a big concern of mine.