Technique?
tony cooper
precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
help?
Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
do I make the background line up precisely?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Dave
How about using Bridge's 'Photomerge' facility, Tony?
Bridge/Tool/Photomerge.
Dave
tony cooper
My error. I should have specified that I have Photoshop V 7.0. I
don't have Bridge.
John J
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>help?
I presume the two images were not made using a tripod - that they are not
perfectly aligned, otherwise just shift-drag from one canvas to the other.
The cheap and easy way is to put one image in a layer above the other and
increase transparency and then nudge it until it aligns properly. Then
return the layer to 100%. Of course, it helps if they have the same
perspective and aspect ratio.
Don't know which version you have so I can't go much further.
Johan W. Elzenga
> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> help?
Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
tony cooper
Elzenga) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> help?
>
>Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
There you go. I knew it was something other than just dragging and
aligning. Holding down the shift allows precise alignment.
And, yes, I was shooting with a tripod. Just different settings
between two shots to bring out a feature in each.
Thanks.
Colin.D
then flatten the composite image. Or, stitch the two images, which
should result in perfect alignment.
Colin D.
tony cooper
> I believe he wants auto-align (not the subject but the whole photo edge to
>edge), but it may not work out the way he wants (even Photoshop has the
>option).
>
> And back to the very same technique I have been trying to pass to him and
>other, but it doesn't seem that many got it. And again, Layer, Masking etc.
>is a very good technique and it can be used on just about anything.
>
> Same with trying to blend 2 or more photos together which sounds simple
>but almost 98-99% isn't exactly what most people really want. Or the chance
>for the opposite of both photos are complete destroyed is very very and very
>rare. So lets say
>
>- One photo has 99% right but 1% wrong, or just the eye, eyeglass, mouth,
> position, shadow whatever of a single person in a large group.
>
> FINE! we don't need to swap the whole 1/2 of the photo, and my trick
>should work with all of the issues above and whatever more.
>
>- Lets say the eye of one person is closed and they look fine on other
>photo, then just replace the EYE(s) instead of trying to replace the whole
>1/2 of the whole photo. And again, it's still better or easier to use Layer
>& Masking than most other commands which I believe they would do, but won't
>be easier or more reflexible than Masking.
>
>- Lets say just able everything is fine except a small SHADOW issue.
>Samething, we don't want to swap the whole 1/2 of the image but using the
>exact same Layer & Masking technique.
>
> And keep mastering the same technique on many different issues, we will
>have more practicing and the more we practice the sooner we can master the
>technique.
My project was a table-top shot using a tripod, so the two images were
exactly the same except for a change in how an external light was
placed. The move with shift held works perfectly for this. I used a
mask to reveal the different lighting on the object in one side of the
image.
Your suggestions work for shots of people, but no two shots of a
person will be identical if they are taken more than seconds apart.
There is always some movement which makes the shift/move impractical.
Dave
> No Bridge as bridge won't help you to cross the river of trouble. Just
>learn to take advantage of the technique I am trying to share to you and
>other. It's same with how to remove/adjust shadow etc. I answered other
>messages before.
>
>1. Have two photos on 2 separated layers.
>
>2. Using Quick Mask command to blend them together and that's it.
>
Joel, Joel..uncle Joel, obviously you never heard of a panorama.
Have you ever noticed PS consists of many more facilities than 'Mask'?
You always brag about how good you are with masks but do you know what
the other buttons are for? You should try them and surprise yourself.
Dave (without a mask)
Dave
Elzenga) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>> help?
>
>Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
of Tony's question. His question was:
>There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>help?
>Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>do I make the background line up precisely?
This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
Dave
tony cooper
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:01:40 +0100, nom...@please.invalid (Johan W.
>Elzenga) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>>> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>>> help?
>>
>>Drag the second image onto the first one while holding the SHIFT key.
>
>
>Uh Uh Johan, impossible. That is only the answer on the first portion
>of Tony's question. His question was:
It does work, Dave. It aligns two images if the images are the same
size.
>>There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
>>precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
>>help?
>
>>Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
>>taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
>>something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
>>shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
>>do I make the background line up precisely?
>
>This made sense to be built as a panorama, and this is why I directed
>him to 'Photomerge' in Bridge, not knowing his working on v7.
>
No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
positions.
John J
> No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
> lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
> best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
> object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
> positions.
Using 20/20 vision, then of course the shift-drag is the answer and I
think it was the first thing mentioned in a couple replies, however
given the relatively unsophisticated photography involved in most
queries here, we (or I) tend to believe it's the norm.
Indeed, using a tripod is the first step to achieving what you wish to
do, and I am happy to see someone following first principles of
photography to find his ends.
I hope it works well for you.
BTW - In version 7 there are options to "add" and "subtract" and "apply"
images (if my memory is correct). I never used them, but since you are a
version 7 person, you might want to explore them. For all my personal
work, Verson 7 was fine! And I'll bet it runs like lighting on our later
computers.
Best of luck,
John
Dave
>It does work, Dave. It aligns two images if the images are the same
>size.
>
>>
>lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
>best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
>object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
>positions.
Thanks for clearing up, Tony, and sorry Johan, you were right, thus.
To explain, this was a complete misunderstanding, Tony, when you spoke
of something on the left in one and on the right in the other one. And
it had to align. Maybe my understanding of the English language is not
always as good as I thought:-)
tony cooper
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> No panorama involved. Just a table-top shot of some objects with the
>> lighting redirected in some shots. Masking used later to reveal the
>> best-lit objects on both sides. Perfect alignment needed because one
>> object would be mask-revealed with the lighting coming from both
>> positions.
>
>Using 20/20 vision, then of course the shift-drag is the answer and I
>think it was the first thing mentioned in a couple replies, however
>given the relatively unsophisticated photography involved in most
>queries here, we (or I) tend to believe it's the norm.
>
>Indeed, using a tripod is the first step to achieving what you wish to
>do, and I am happy to see someone following first principles of
>photography to find his ends.
>
I consider a tripod essential in table-top photography. In most
table-top photography, the scene is composed by the photographer on
the fly. The objects are arranged and lit, an exposure is taken, the
results are looked at, and the objects are rearranged and relit to
improve the result. The camera stays stationary since the field of
view never changes. I usually use the self-timer to ensure that
there's no camera jiggle.
>I hope it works well for you.
>
>BTW - In version 7 there are options to "add" and "subtract" and "apply"
>images (if my memory is correct). I never used them, but since you are a
>version 7 person, you might want to explore them. For all my personal
>work, Verson 7 was fine! And I'll bet it runs like lighting on our later
>computers.
V 7.0 does have "apply image", but - to be honest - I've never
understood what that does. In color correcting in channels, after
changing to Lab mode, I "apply image" because that's a step that Kelby
recommends.
Your comment prompted me to look this feature up. There's info at
http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=727922 on this, and
I'll study up on it.
I don't know what the "add" and "subtract" features are other than the
use of this in Selections, and I routinely use that. That's not a
drop-down, though.
What's this "unsophisticated" bit? I'm hurt. I'm very sophisticated
in my approach to photography. It's only my results that look
unsophisticated.
John J
> I consider a tripod essential in table-top photography. In most
> table-top photography, the scene is composed by the photographer on
> the fly. The objects are arranged and lit, an exposure is taken, the
> results are looked at, and the objects are rearranged and relit to
> improve the result. The camera stays stationary since the field of
> view never changes. I usually use the self-timer to ensure that
> there's no camera jiggle.
I included all of what you wrote so that perhaps others can appreciate
it. So many picture-makers try to do everything in photoshop rather than
doing it right in-camera to begin with - and it shows!
> What's this "unsophisticated" bit? I'm hurt.
Not you, Sir! I was referring to the masses who became involved in
photography when photoshop was considered the larger part of the
discipline and the camera, making the picture, was just the unfortunate
grunt-work.
Hell, I shoot 8x10" film!
Dave
>
> Hahahaha unless you realize that I may enjoyed the panorama before you
>were born. So Paranoma may be new to you so you impress with paranoma, but
>it won't impress me.
Faintly,very faintly, but somehow like in a flash, I recall a photo
which was taken of me while I was knee-height. One of those single
paragraphs sometimes popping up. The camera was on a tripod and the
photographer had his head under a black cloth.
Johan W. Elzenga
Nope. If you read the question carefully, this is what the OP asks: He
has two images. The images are essentially the same, but in one image
there is something on the right side he doesn't want and on the other
there is something unwanted on the left side. Perhaps a car, or a person
moving though the scene. So he wants to stack the two images, so he can
mask out the unwanted car/person. Mind you, he doesn't ask HOW to mask
out the unwanted element, only how to ALIGN the images perfectly.
So the answer to the entire question is: hold the shift key while you
drag one image on top of the other. That's all (and if you read the OP's
reaction, he agrees that's the answer).
Dave
Elzenga) wrote:
Thanks for this explanation, Johan. I truly read it wrong.
Reading it again (only now!) I realize I missed the words 'masking the
left and right sides'. Maybe I read 'masking' as 'making' or something
to this effect but not even this make sense or is a good enough
excuse:-) Sometimes I make the mistake of running my eyes over
a few sentences and then (miss)fit the words to form something
completely else. Thanks for pointing out I should read slower:-)
kz
news:8l1mh49oohc21p71m...@4ax.com:
I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and
realized that I was overthinking your situation.
You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just
in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely-
similar images:
(1) Paste one layer over the other.
(2) Change top layer's blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out.
(4) Restore top layer's mode to NORMAL.
For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps
me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
Just my two cents ~ kz
Dave
>> >
>> > Hahahaha unless you realize that I may enjoyed the panorama before you
>> >were born. So Paranoma may be new to you so you impress with paranoma, but
>> >it won't impress me.
>>
>>
>> Faintly,very faintly, but somehow like in a flash, I recall a photo
>> which was taken of me while I was knee-height. One of those single
>> paragraphs sometimes popping up. The camera was on a tripod and the
>> photographer had his head under a black cloth.
>
>learn about how to learn as well.
>
> Just to let you know that even the newer Phothsop not only have built-in
>some panorama feature that older Photoshop doesn't have, and even with the
>feature it still an ok for newbie to enjoy the new trick, but not the good
>way to master the photo.
>
> So even I know panorama, I know the newer feature, I know the auto-align
>the layer etc. it's still not the best way to do. And you know what I am
>talking about when you grow up and learn to think.
>
> Wanna impress me? well I believe you can, and you don't need to impress
>me with fancy style, but using a very simple command on a very complex
>problem will impress me more. So sticking you head under the black cloth or
>under the black dress won't impress me either, knowing what you are talking
>about or being yourself may impress me even more.
I told you something in the message about the photographer with the
black cloth over his head. Don't read it the way I read Tony's message
and made a fool of myself. Go read it again and impress me by learning
what I am telling you in that same message. Hint; this was not pointed
at you, not degrading you, but seriously telling you about the
incident. Maybe, to many people it would not be obvious, but to a
professional photographer, reading your two sentences on which I
answered, it should be understandable. Good night:-)
tony cooper
An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them
both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click
the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be
exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are
roughly the same but not the same size.
John J
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9c3ph45t74hot3ht1...@4ax.com...
> An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them
> both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click
> the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be
> exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are
> roughly the same but not the same size.
Wow! That's a heavy hit! Thanks!
PS (CS) has so many just-right little things.
Always learning,
John J
Johan W. Elzenga
> >> Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> >> taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> >> something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> >> shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> >> do I make the background line up precisely?
> >>
> >
> >I was about to answer right away, until I read through the responses and
> >realized that I was overthinking your situation.
> >
> >You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but, just
> >in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with not-entirely-
> >similar images:
> >
> >(1) Paste one layer over the other.
> >(2) Change top layer's blending mode to DIFFERENCE.
> >(3) Shift top layer around until most everything blacks out.
> >(4) Restore top layer's mode to NORMAL.
> >
> >For images that are very similar but not exactly the same, this usually helps
> >me line them up without resorting to the layer on-off back-and-forth thing.
> >
> >Just my two cents ~ kz
>
> An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them
> both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click
> the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be
> exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are
> roughly the same but not the same size.
What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don't you guys
understand?... ;-)
tony cooper
If you'll note, I'm the one with the two 3008 x 200 images, *and* the
one that commented on the technique to get two images to the same
size.
That's called "thread drift" where there's a comment or question, the
comment or question is dealt with, and the thread continues with a
discussion of related point or tips.
We don't always have the same circumstances to deal with, so expanding
the discussion benefits more than the OP.
That's a good thing, Johan. It's a sharing of tips and techniques.
John J
> I told you something in the message about the photographer with the
> black cloth over his head.
That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?
--
John J
Dave
Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago
Johan W. Elzenga
> > > An easy way to get two images to be the same size is to open them
> > > both, open the Image Size drop-down, and then click Window and click
> > > the name of the second image. That sets the size of the image to be
> > > exactly the same as the other image. This works when the images are
> > > roughly the same but not the same size.
> >
> > What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don't you guys
> > understand?... ;-)
>
> The part that without using the correct or specific command, the 3008x2000
> can be just about anywhere it want to be. The part some understands that
> some newer Photoshop versions have the command to drop to the *exact*
> location.
>
> Same with other command like scaling, some allows you to scale to any size
> you wish, and some will maintain the exact RATIO.
>
> IOW, Photoshop has so many different commands that some can understand
> some but not all.
True, but the first point is not to understand Photoshop, but to
understand the question that is asked by the OP. ;-)
Johan W. Elzenga
> >What part of "Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000" don't you guys
> >understand?... ;-)
>
> If you'll note, I'm the one with the two 3008 x 200 images, *and* the
> one that commented on the technique to get two images to the same
> size.
>
> That's called "thread drift" where there's a comment or question, the
> comment or question is dealt with, and the thread continues with a
> discussion of related point or tips.
>
> We don't always have the same circumstances to deal with, so expanding
> the discussion benefits more than the OP.
>
> That's a good thing, Johan. It's a sharing of tips and techniques.
OK, point taken. It's just that in this thread it seemed that nobody was
really reading (or understanding) what it was you asked.
John J
That would be some trick. But remind me - what pictures?
Dave
Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic
tricks he performed 'before I was born'. This was my way of telling
him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty
years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking
photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the
impression that was half a century ago's photographers.
And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not
as clear as I would love to believe.
I love calling him 'uncle' because the first thing he said when
introducing him to this group, was about him being 'old'.
John J
"Dave" <da...@durbs.sa> wrote in message
news:0k8rh454tuhhv0joa...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:10:56 -0600, John J <no...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0600, John J <no...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (attributes lost! sorry)
>>>>
>>>>> I told you something in the message about the photographer with the
>>>>> black cloth over his head.
>>>> That would be me. Is there something wrong with that?
>>>
>>> Of course not, except that you took your photos mote than 50 years ago
>>
>>That would be some trick. But remind me - what pictures?
>>
>
> Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic
> tricks he performed 'before I was born'. This was my way of telling
> him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty
> years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking
> photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the
> impression that was half a century ago's photographers.
Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8x10" view
cameras. Black cloth and all.
> And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not
> as clear as I would love to believe.
> I love calling him 'uncle' because the first thing he said when
> introducing him to this group, was about him being 'old'.
I am probably older than he.
Dave
>> Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic
>> tricks he performed 'before I was born'. This was my way of telling
>> him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty
>> years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking
>> photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the
>> impression that was half a century ago's photographers.
>
>Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8x10" view
>cameras. Black cloth and all.
>
your photographic equipment from South Africa. We are shooting
digital here! Really, no bullshit. Automatic cameras, you do not even
insert a film!
>> And my native language is not English, so I assume I am sometimes not
>> as clear as I would love to believe.
>> I love calling him 'uncle' because the first thing he said when
>> introducing him to this group, was about him being 'old'.
>
>I am probably older than he.
>
You surprise me:-) He made sure we know he's not our friend but rather
our papa's friend. You certainly are young; remember... age is between
the ears:-)))
John J
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:26:56 -0600, "John J" <nh...@droffats.ten>
>>>
>>> Let me be clear. Joel is fond of telling me of the photographic
>>> tricks he performed 'before I was born'. This was my way of telling
>>> him the first photo I can recall taken of myself, was more than fifty
>>> years ago. Unless of course, Joel and his colleagues are still taking
>>> photos while hiding their heads under black material. I am under the
>>> impression that was half a century ago's photographers.
>>
>>Oh. I thought you were addressing me. But I do, in fact, shoot 8x10" view
>>cameras. Black cloth and all.
>>
> Genuine? Hiding under a black cloth? Jeeez you guys should import
> your photographic equipment from South Africa. We are shooting
> digital here! Really, no bullshit. Automatic cameras, you do not even
> insert a film!
With respect, Dave, there are things that can be done with a view camera
that today's digital cannot do at all. A digital-view camera exists, but the
format is still quite small and the price and overhead on them is huge.
Dave
wrote:
.....The front and rear standards can move in various ways relative to
each other, unlike most other types of camera, giving control over
focus, depth of field and perspective.....
See, I know so little of it, I had to learn more via Wikipedia:-)
This (film against digital) is to be heard sometimes on Internet but
is it not like MAC versus PC or Obama versus McCain?:-)))
Only joking, I believe you, John, although I have no experience with
film cameras.
kz
Excellent tip! ~kz
kz
news:pi4ph45fnfq7deqc7...@4ax.com:
> The problem that there are plenty of option to be able to align 2
> or more
> photos, but the real issue would be how to COMBINE 2 or more photo into
> single photo without showing the tracing of merging.
>
> To me, the best way is still making the dupe of a single photo
> instead of
> trying to merge 2 or more photo together. Or to me, if the photos are
> that too bad to begin with then it may not worth the trouble, or most
> average photo should be able to adjust using few Photoshop command's,
> and as I understand that these are very new photos *not* the ones taken
> decades ago.
>
> IOW, if you work on portrait then sooner or later you may have to
> deal
> with single photo with some issue (like eyes, mouth, nose, clothe etc.)
> and all you have to do is using replacing the bad part with the good
> part of the very same photo. And with little trick to make the duped
> looks a little different than the original.
>
> Example if you need to replace the EYE then you may not want a
> person with
> 2 Left/Right eyes (especially where the eye pupil may be). Or you don't
> want the eyes look like
>
> <o > < o>
> < o> <o >
>
> But you make sure they look more like
>
> < o > < o >
> <o > <o >
> < o> < o>
>
Gosh, guys... I KNOW-w-w-w a decent bunch of Photoshop and photo-editing
basics... Look, I was just throwing in another technique for aligning
images--that is all. As I said:
>> You have perfect alignment, so the other technique is just right; but,
>> just in case you ever find need of it, I occasionally do this with
>> not-entirely- similar images:
I'm not saying "do it like this," I'm just saying "try this if you ever
need to for other reasons." I thought it might be useful to whoever comes
across this thread.
Anyway, you are correct, there are many many options to do the same
things. And I have indeed come across many instances where I had to
replace body parts in one photo with parts from another. And sometimes
more troubling than the edge work is making sure everything else can be
matched up, like color balance, lighting, etc. Not a lot of fun! ~kz
John J
> .....The front and rear standards can move in various ways relative to
> each other, unlike most other types of camera, giving control over
> focus, depth of field and perspective.....
Hey, maybe I should send you one. It might change your life! :)
> See, I know so little of it, I had to learn more via Wikipedia:-)
> This (film against digital) is to be heard sometimes on Internet but
> is it not like MAC versus PC or Obama versus McCain?:-)))
I run Windows, Linux and OS-X on the same system at the same time. Can
copy/paste between the operating systems, and run them simultaneously in
separate windows. Then use work spaces to have a BUNCHA windows and apps
running at once to really confuse my boss. Good thing I have two 30"
monitors. And great that I didn't have to pay for them!
Now if I could only get them to swing, shift, tilt...
naaaaaa
KatWoman
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8l1mh49oohc21p71m...@4ax.com...
> There's a way to place a second image on top of an image that
> precisely aligns the second image, and I've forgotten it. Anyone
> help?
>
> Assuming that both images are 3008 x 2000, and two photographs are
> taken of the same scene, but with something on the left in one, and
> something on the right in the other, and I want to combine the two
> shots by masking the left and right side on the respective images, how
> do I make the background line up precisely?
>
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HOLD SHIFT while you drag
OR
place two layers select move tool
align vert and horiz