“Photoshop CS4 One-on-One: Mastery” Is Complete (At Least, in Terms of Filming)

After roughly 54 movies, "Photoshop CS4 One-on-One" draws to an end.

And by "Photoshop CS4 One-on-One," I mean my three-part, 5-hour-plus (no joke!) video series for the bleeding-edge, on-demand training library lynda.com.

Of those, only 18 or so movies are up right now. Which leaves another 36 movies to go. In other words, 1/3 are up, 2/3 remain.

The series includes three parts: Fundamentals (up now), Advanced (coming in the next week or so), and Mastery (due out by end of April).

In the name of getting you psyched, I offer this visual pastiche from the final installment, "Photoshop CS4 One-on-One: Mastery."

Starting with:

Masking glass. See thru the transparency to the image beyond. Plus, we mask reticulated dinosaur bones and intensely detailed hair. Two dozen fabulous movies (I hope), exceedingly detailed, and fun to watch (again, I hope).

Destined to be the first LDC coverage of vector-based shapes in Photoshop CS4. And my most comprehensive. Links to dekePod Episode 13: Mating Habits of the Pen Tool.

Suddenly, a grimy subway becomes electric. Not only do the walls light up, but we assign perspective masks to the declining reflections on the floor. The final effect is intense and unlike anything I’ve seen explained. (Vanishing Point to edit masks? And yet, it works remarkably well.)

I offer a total of 36 movies on the topics of smart objects and smart filters. Two chapter is all, so plenty of material. And yet, these are only the beginning. I’ll have an entire series on this topic in the late Summer, early Fall. In the meantime, these movies will take you into the nondestructive dragon’s mouth and back out again. (Sweet, gentle dragon.)

Now we get into Photoshop CS4’s new and improved technology. Here’s one on auto-aligning multiple layers and masking them against any old background. Thanks to Chris Orwig for the images.

Okay, so I won a bunch of awards with lynda.com, so big whoop. Even so, these few movies on auto blending a bunch of sparkly objects will make you wonder what will not be possible in the future. So utterly, sweetly, scarily amazing.

Oh goodness. You think content-aware scale is a one-trick pony? But actually, it has four tricks up its sleeve. An amazing feature with some outstanding limitations. Check these movies out and learn what more you can do.

And finally, actions. Not a new feature, but much in need of new and improved documentation—featuring recent pics of my children, no less! I’ve long included a guide on how to create the "best chrome effect ever." My newest 16-part walkthru is not only two times better (as witnessed by my introductory graphic). It’ll inspire you to create your own adventures in automation.

Which is my way of saying, join me. There’s much, much, much more awaiting you at lynda.com/deke.

Next entry:“Illustrator CS4 One-on-One: Mastery” Is Complete (and “Advanced” Is Out)

Previous entry:Martini Hour 023, In Which Colleen Dreams of Martini-Mixing Website-Designing Software

  • Did you use gradient overlay…

    ... in the effects library to control your chrome? Or was it the old-style black-to-white pixel grad layer? I’m just being nosey.

    I was playing with some chrome effects way back when, and decided that grad overlay makes a slightly smaller file as there is no need for pixel-based layer to control the chrome effect.



    Happy, happy, joy, joy!

  • It’s still a fundamentally similar effect

    To what I did for CS3. That is, heap on layer effects, convert to layers (which renders FX to pixels), and then top the whole thing off with a Gradient Map layer.

    The main advantage, of course, is that it looks great. And it works with just about any combination of base layers, which is important since it’s first and foremost about building a fail-safe action.

  • And we all know

    actions speak loader then words!  Well, as long as they are fundamentally sound that is… lol

    I love pixels, no, I take that back, I love pixle.

  • Missing images in \“Setting Up Shop\” by Alexandra Alexis

    Hey Deke and everyone else. I have a question about some of the files shown on “Lynda.com - Photoshop CS4 One-on-One Fundamentals” videos that are missing. I know you did not put them on purpose, its just for the section of “Setting Up Shop” but I really liked them and would love to see/find them all and possible buy some. You mention that they are from “iStockPhoto.com” and believe the photographer is “Alexandra Alexis” but I’ve been looking and can’t find it. Here is a screenshot I took to show which ones I’m talking about:


    It’s the “burned like” female. This is an awesome photo, I just love it. Is this a Photoshop effect or make up or what is it…

    Also, is it possible to pull of such an effect with PS CS4 with a regular skin face?

    Thanks Deke and everyone who reads this post!


  • Insofar as the image is concerned

    You can download it at istockphoto.com/aldra. For the specific image, check out the metadata (File > Fie Info.)

    For some reason, iStockphoto doesn’t let you search by full photographer name. It’s thrown me on innumerable occasions.

    Meanwhile, this is one of my favorite iStock photos. To learn why, check out this controversial post from days gone by.

  • How on Earth did I miss that controversy?!

    Those are incredible photographs. I’d love to be such a great artist! Anyway, I’ll chime in on that thread later in the day, when I have more time. Real life has been getting in the way again, so I’m just catching up.

    Another great podcast, Deke - it’s good to have them back. And I’ll catch up with the new Martini Hour this afternoon, too. Loving the special guest aspect. Russell Brown, John Nack… crazy cool!

    Oh bugger, I have a strong desire to be a smartarse, but not enough time this morning! Isn’t that always the way? :-p


  • Thanks Deke

    First I wanted to thank you for your response about the image.

    I went to the photographer’s page, but she has hundreds of photos, which are better then better! WOW She is just amazing, what a talent!

    I found lots of amazing photos but I’m not sure which is the one you used. I don’t have the image to (File > File info) and check the actual “File Number”. Is it this one, called “Painted Dream”  with File Number: 4895847 ?


    As for the “Controversial post” this is just unF***ing believable!? PORN?!? Excuse me for my language and way of thinking but I’m European and people there are not so uptight…. Some Americans need to chill the !@#$ out. How sad that they are so ignorant and limited. This is ART, not PORN, too bad they don’t see the difference. I assume they’d rather have you use something like this for your next videos and that will be totally acceptable and will please them fully… why?  Because that is all they see every day…


    Good use for the “Liquiify filter”... but I doubt even you can fix those 4 “beauties”...

    Anyway, it just made me very irritated… what a shame!


  • That’s her all right

    The first link (not the second). Which explains why I used the tight crop. No hint of nakedness that close.

    I actually don’t believe we’re a repressed people. (If you lived where I do—in Boulder, CO—you’d think the U/S of Golden A was the most enlightened country on the planet.) We’ve merely allowed the wrong side to dominate the conversation for too long. We’re not the first country to do it, just the biggest. (See Link #2.) Even now, every nation has a xenophobic, fear-mongering, extremist element. The mistake we’ve made is to let it dominate our collective conversation.

    For additional amusement, my solution to the pornographic video:


  • doggy style

    Thanks Deke. I was born and grew up in Eastern Europe and moved to California when turned 16. I don’t know how Boulder, CO is but here in San Jose (where Adobe headquarter is) people seem to be too uptight for me. I’m sure that is not the case everywhere, but this is what I’ve experienced and know. I’m sorry if my words were harsh, did not mean to offend anyone. You are a great artist and teacher and I’m your biggest fan. I just wish more people were like you and had your vision…

    As for the doggies you replaced the video with, YES they are adorable :) Wouldn’t you get in trouble for calling it “Doggy Style” :)


  • Oh, Can’t Hardly Wait

    for these tutorials to come! I was debating if i should start the Photoshop CS3 tutorials. Maybe i’ll wait for another week for these ones to come.

  • Come on Lynda, finish already!

    Hi Deke,

    Any update on release dates? For the Advanced, you posted on April 3rd “coming in the next week or so.”

    I guess the key words are “or so”!

    Don’t get me wrong. I love your stuff. Just getting a little impatient is all. I freely admit to not being virtuous in that regard :)


  • Looks like I choked the system

    with a little bit too much content. :-)

    Advanced is looking like first week of May. Mastery will be more like June.

    Will keep you posted as I learn more.

  • Thank you Deke.

    I appreciate the update. I feel much better now. I’m a soon to be unemployed teacher, so at least I’ll have something to do this summer!

    Hmm, let’s see…watch Deke or look for a job. I know which I’d rather do, but it doesn’t pay the mortgage ;-)

    Thanks again.

  • Lynda has released the \“Advanced\” title for PSCS4 1-on-1!!!

    Can you tell I’m excited?!

  • Whoot!


  • Righteous!!

    I’d been checking the new videos at Lynda every day for a month for this.

    With the new 21 hours of advanced content, this month will be dedicated to burning new brain cells!

  • Beware the math, I tell you!

    [scary voice] Beware the maaaaattthh…[/scary voice]

    The math made me write this last night, as if I were some kind of crazy bard. It was truly terrifying.

    Oh power to the gamma

    Gamma half squared and bent in two
    Pythagoras surely loved you
    And prolly Einstein too
    But to me you are transcendant jiggery pokery
    Mysterious and arcane
    You may as well be Swedish

    As you creep into my brain.

    The end.





  • Color Adjustment series question…

    I am learning a lot from your CS4 1-on-1 Advanced movies on Lynda.com.

    In the last video of Ch. 13, you ask if those of us in the peanut gallery would like you to do a series on color correction for later this year. I am definitely for that and I hope the general consensus will agree.

    I mean, C’mon, how can we have “too much Deke”?

    I would like to know more about how to use the numerical values of RGB and CMYK to our advantage for color correction accuracy as viewed on an LCD monitor.

  • Deke - ur my hero.[said annoyingly in a Steve Urkel nasal twang]

    **disclaimer, if you are sensitive, and easily offended DO NOT READ - This is GROWN UP TALK - Show your I.D. at the door please**

    I just read said post from Circa 2008. Which at times could seem to have been read from an excerpt from something circa 1950 something in some replys.

    I want don’t want to stray from what needs to be a ‘technical tip’. I don’t want to lose the message that I am trying to give being too verbose (well, too late for that dream..) I will try to not beat a dead horse even ‘deader’ (yes, that is a ‘Bush-ism’. . ( Oh no, can I say beat or will that offend someone’s delicate sensibilities and render their high moral fiber useless or taint it in some way?) . (can I say ‘dead horse’, or will that offend my fellow animal lovers and set off a few PETA folks??) See my point, see how one person wouldn’t think twice about me saying dead horse where others will sh*t bomb the front door of your house?

    Now, my point (I kinda have one in a convoluted sort of way)

    The infamous covered ‘nipple slip’ -  Janet Jackson-ish it aint… and deke shouldn’t have been treated as the Justin Timberlake of video instruction. PUHLEEZE. This picture is completely tasteful and raunch factor is non-existant. I am glad I saw it in my C/D that I got with my CS4 book. Because quite frankly, I am over looking at peoples kids, a kite flying on the beach, the similarities of color and form when comparing cherries to apples (oh no, I made a reference to cherries, am I implying something here, did I offend any of the potentially sexually repressed ? OR did I just send a pervert into a pervert-laced downward spiral? Which is going to be fueled with pills and Old Milwaukee??

    I understand that some people could have ended up having some ‘splaining’ to do to their employers, however.  Uh, it’s OBVIOUS that it was a training video. If ever brought into a sexual harassment complaint type situation, one can show proof that it was a training video meant for training, Lynda.com would most definatly back that truth up. As Lynda is there to teach people, to make our lives more enriched, and to make money.  She would not have risked losing anyone of us intentionally because of a questionable set of photos. Not only that, but there is alwas going to be someone out there who feels they are getting a raw deal or feel something is inappropriate in some way.

    I guess somehow, this pornucopia made its way past the sensors in thru the backdoor (no pun intended). OR… This photo was onviously not a concern to even someone who has to be as discerning as the folks who must review said videos for content.  This/these person/(s) found that it was either non-remarkable or it was value added and innocuous.

    Side note: 

    Masturbation is always optional (perhaps deke, you should hire me to review all of your videos prior to posting to edit for possible questionable content. I am a girl and I will let you know if the shadow of the shadow of where a nipple is under a garment is offensive or not)  Looks like it is kittens and rollerskates for everyone. BOOOORING,.

    Personally, I find a woman in a tight sweater and daisy dukes even without the butt cheeks hangin out can have the potential of being more offensive than Exxon-Valdez girl. BUT THAT TOO DEPENDS ON THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS VIEWED.

    Someone being concerned with losing a job over a photo of that is LESS offensive than someon you would see in a Hydroxycut commercial on t.v. in the middle of the afternoon! Employers could have a 47 title manual on sexual harrasment including all of the down and dirty tricks and you would be able to defend yourself and prove your case and never lose your job and if you DID, you would be a rich, rich, person. Heard of mediation, it would never find its way into court. Even though granny-hopper , the next cube over, well, you don’t owe her an explanation, let the boss person deal with them. She was just looking for an excuse to bitch. She’ll be back to makin you cookies in a week.

    Now, if you were looking at Exxon Valdez girl on a laptop in the dark in the 2nd conference room on the left on a Friday after a 2 drink minimum extended lunch.

    Folks, I have more ‘right’ to be offended than most. Because of a span of about 4 years, from the ages 9 thru 13, were traumatic for me. Let’s just say this, think of the most horrifying thing that could ever happen to a girl.

    Even though something mortifying happened to me - I still have the where-with-all to see smut from what the photos were intended to convey.

    Now, not that my opinion counts for ANYTHING, but, these photos were being used not for shock value but for teaching. They were used to HELP not HARM. Some folks were talking about “the point being missed”, well, I think the most ORGANIC point of ALL was missed. CONTEXT my friends, context..

    We all know what that point is/was/will always be.

    All sarcasm aside - (no really, it is)

    Now, I must say this about my fellow deke-inians and the king of all things deke. I am impressed with the level of restraint that folks have had. I am so glad to not have to smell the sh*t slinging thru my monitor. I have never been to a site before that is so diplomatic and polite and actually almost ‘kind’ when having a disagreement of opinion. I love the fact that an open dialogue is encouraged and embraced. That being said, I am, however, disappointed with the tone in one of the posts. This particular post had the makings of being out of line. It was a retort to all things deke and it had a flavor of getting ones nose rubbed into a fresh pile of sh*t that was just placed on new carpet. However, deke didn’t take it that way at all. It was diffused by his humor and was very humble. If it were Adobe Forums, forget about it…

    Tempers could have flaired and it could have gotten ugly it would have been so uncomfortable I would have to had taken a shower just to feel better again.

    I appreciate the level of adult-ness (oooh, another Bush-ism) that was maintained throughout.

    If it weren’t for deke and his lighthearted, funny, insightful, extremely intelligent, and humble ‘ways’, we wouldn’t have him at our disposal and it would SUCK to learn! We are fortunate to have this place to call home. We have a place to be educated and it serves the dual purpose to allow us to continue to have opinions.

    We would be ‘stuck’ with Adobe perhaps?  I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO THAT PLACE AGAIN. I AM STILL TRAUMATIZED.

    In conclusion, when angry or concerned, or if you disagree, or dislike, please remember that we are all adults here (most of the time) and we all have valuable opinions and all have a right to be heard, and a right to hear without nastyness being introduced into the formula.

    This place really works for me, I finally have a place where I can learn, where I am encouraged to participat. And, I am having fun doing so. Between Lynda, deke, Planetphotoshop, NAPP, Kelby, and the 15 books I have purchased from Peachpit, O’reilly and Amazon, I am going to one day (probably when CS49 comes out) be versed in CS4 and I will be able to edit my way out of a paperbag in a rainstorm. 

    I love it here, and love hearing everyones take on things whether I agree with it, or not. I appreciate and value the honesty and steadfastness and resolve that my fellow users have. This is how I grow and learn as a person.

    Anywho, im off the box now.

    Back to not doing it right - ever -.


    Thanks again everyone - I hope I didn’t offend ( I really do hope I didn’t)


    p.s. (please don’t flame me, I am just a chick with an opinion)

  • PSCS4 1on1 Mastery DVD on eBay. Pirated?

    Hi Deke,

    I did a double-take when I saw this one. Lynda.com hasn’t even released this on DVD yet!


    Wow. Only $4.99 starting bid!

    More likely someone d/l the movie & exercise files from rapidshare or a torrent and then had a “not-so-bright” idea. Dude is selling the “Advanced” title, as well.

    Moral of the story: If it walks like a duck…


    Danno from Loveland.

  • Best Chrome Ever II

    I was working through the recording of “Best Chrome Ever II” in photoshop CS4 one-on-one Mastery at Lynda.com and came to the part where we take style effects from the original Best Chrome Ever so we didn’t have to do the boring part of loading them up like “watching paint dry”.

    I can deal with not having the layered image file in your example, but I don’t know what to do to get the chrome effect action completely recorded if I don’t have the first Best Chrome Ever action file to scavenge.

    I would like to know if the file is available in the DVDs in your books or somewhere outside of purchasing the premium subscription to Lynda.

  • Fill opacity 8

    Hey Deke,

    I’m just watching your One-on-One course with great fascination!

    However you said, that you don’t have a clue about the math behind the fill opacity eight and as I recently did some tests about that, I thought, maybe I could help :-).

    Truth of the matter is: they don’t change the maths of the blending modes at all.

    However, the results are different and there’s just one possible reason for this: reducing the opacity actually clips data.

    For example:

    Take two layers, filled with a luminance information of 180, use “Linear Dodge (Add)” to combine them.
    Results will be 255.
    Reduce the opacity to 60% and you’ll get 225.

    Reduce the fill opacity to 60% and you’ll get 255 still.

    Now here comes why:

    As Linear Dodge combines these two, we get a value of 180 + 180 = 360.
    Reducing the opacity clips that value to 255 and calculates with this: 255*0,6+(180*0,4) = 225

    Reducing the fill opacity on the other hand doesn’t clip the values, but first calculates the values and reduces the opacity afterwards: 360*0,6+(180*0,4) = 288 (which then clips to 255 again of course).

    Hope that helps and keep up your great videos!



Be the first to drop some wisdom...