Have you ever seen “This layer must be rasterized before proceeding. Rasterize the layer?” pop up in Photoshop and wondered precisely what causes it? I mean, of course, it means you have to rasterize the layer, but why? What is rasterizing?
Rasterizing a layer is something you’ll do a lot in Photoshop, even if you’re a photo editor. Today, we’ll cover everything you need to know about how to rasterize in Photoshop. This includes Smart Objects, shapes, and text layers.
What Does Rasterize Mean in Photoshop?
The act of “rasterization” is changing a vector-based layer to a pixel-based layer. You cannot convert a pixel layer to a vector layer, however.
Vector Layers —Vectors are graphics based on mathematical formulas. The graphics consist of points, curves, lines, and colors. Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based program. You can resize a vector shape endlessly, and the edges will remain sharp and crisp. However, you cannot use pixel-based editing tools on vector images.
Pixel Layers — Pixel layers are used for any pixel-based editing tools. Meaning the tool physically changes the look of a pixel. Photoshop is primarily a pixel-based editor. This is also known as “raster-based.”
Keep in mind that, in Photoshop, vector layers are still technically pixel-based because Photoshop is raster-based, unlike Illustrator, which is a true vector program.
Sometimes, the vector shapes in Photoshop are referred to as “vexel,” as they are a combination of vector and pixel. However, in Photoshop, vector layers function similarly to traditional vector shapes and text.
The outsider is Smart Objects, which are layers with other layers inside of them. But in Photoshop, they function the same as Shape and Text layers, where you can’t edit them with pixel-based tools until they are rasterized.
When Should You Rasterize Your Layers?
You should only rasterize a layer when you need to use a pixel-based editing tool directly on that vector layer. This includes all brush-based tools and filters.
Again, the outsider here is Smart Objects. All filters applied to a Smart Object will be turned into a Smart Filter. However, you can not use brush-based tools directly on Smart Objects.
Text Layers, Smart Objects, and Shape Layers
Text layers, Smart Objects, and Shape layers are the three vector layers you’ll use most in Photoshop. Though there are others, like Fill layers.
Anytime you’re working with text, shapes, or Smart Objects, there comes the point where you’ll need to rasterize a layer. Let’s look at the pros and cons of rasterizing layers.
The Pros and Cons of Rasterizing Layers
Pros: The biggest pro is the ability to now use pixel-based tools on a layer. As Photoshop is raster-based, almost all its tools prefer to be editing a raster or pixel layer. Pixel layers are much more flexible than vector layers.
Cons: Once a vector layer is rasterized, shapes and text can no longer be scaled without at least some loss of quality. Text can no longer be changed. And Smart Objects become flattened, so you can no longer edit its Smart Filters or inner layers.
Why Is Photoshop Telling Me I Need to Rasterize a Layer?
If you are getting the “This layer must be rasterized before proceeding. Rasterize the layer?” prompt, that means you are attempting to use a pixel-based tool on a vector layer
The layer will need to be rasterized and converted to a pixel layer before you can apply the effect or use the tool.
How to Rasterize in Photoshop
Let’s look at how to rasterize a layer in Photoshop. There are two similar but different ways to rasterize a layer.
Option 1: In the Layers Panel Right-Click > Rasterize Layer
First, select the layer you’d like to rasterize in your layer panel and Right-click > Raster Layer.
Option 2: Use Layer > Rasterize > Layer
Alternatively, you can go to Layer > Rasterize > Layer.
Option 3: How to Rasterize an Image in Photoshop with a Pixel Brush
Another option is to try and edit the vector layer using a pixel-based brush like the Paint tool. When Photoshop prompts you to rasterize, select “OK.”
How to Avoid Rasterizing in Photoshop
The only way to avoid rasterizing a layer is not to edit those layers using raster-based tools and filters.
However, there are plenty of ways to work “non-destructive” in Photoshop, so the vector layer stays protected and intact.
What Does “Non-Destructive Editing” Mean?
Non-destructive editing means editing in a way that does not permanently edit, change, add, or destroy pixels.
Here are some examples of non-destructive editing tools in Photoshop:
There are a few alternatives to rastering an image; if you can avoid it, you should.
Edit the Vector Itself
Don’t use the Fill tool on vector layers. You can always edit a vector layer’s color without rasterizing that layer.
Simply double-click its layer icon, and the Color Pick will open.
Use Clipped Layers
Avoid painting directly on a vector shape or text. Instead, create a new layer and Clip it into the shape/text.
You can clip a layer into another layer by holding down Alt or Option on Mac OS, positioning the pointer over the line separating the two layers in the Layers panel, and clicking.
Everything painted on the clipped layer will be constrained to the vector shape that it’s clipped into.
Convert to Smart Objects
If you want to use a filter on a vector layer but don’t want to risk rasterizing the layer, you can convert the vector to a Smart Object.
When you apply a filter to a Smart Object, the Filter becomes a Smart Filter. You can change Smart Filter settings at any time. You can also turn them on and off, similar to layers.
You can convert a layer into a Smart Object by selecting the layer in the layers panel and Rick-clicking > Convert to Smart Object.
Create a Duplicate
Finally, you can create a backup of your shape or text by selecting the layer and duplicating it with Control/Command-J.
Then you can hide the original vector layer, so it stays out of the way, and it’s there if you ever want the vector shape again.
Changes (Reduction) in Quality with Rasterization
After rasterizing a layer, that layer will not be prone to become blurry if resized, stretched, or over-edited.
If you increase the size of a rasterized shape, the edges will become more blurry the bigger it goes. If you shrink a rasterized shape and then enlarge it again, you’ll notice even more blurriness.
This is because, when you resize a raster or pixel-based layer, you are changing the layer permanently.
Can You Undo a Rasterization in Photoshop?
You can only undo a rasterization if you’ve only just recently made the rasterization. The rasterization will have to be in your undo history. Otherwise, it’s permanent.
Press Ctrl + Z if you have just rasterized an image to perform an immediate Undo.
Altertnvley, you can go to the History panel and click on the state before you rasterized. This will undo all the steps after the rasterization as well.
Conclusion
That’s how to rasterize in Photoshop! It’s always best to keep your vector layers intact. Which is why I always recommend non-destructive editing techniques.
If you edit in a non-destructive way, you’ll never have to worry about regretting rasterizing an image. However, if you need to rasterize, just go for it. Sometimes layers simply don’t need to be a vector layer anymore.
Rasterizing is not a bad thing, after all.
Related Posts
About Abbey
Abbey Esparza is a mixed media artist whose composites are all based on photographs that undergo an intense treatment to transform them into the surreal, unusual, and macabre. She typically creates surreal themes, but is experienced in all different kinds of styles and genres, including child-friendly fantasy! She works with The Glorious Company, a content-marketing agency
Reader Interactions
Droppin' design bombs every week! 5,751 subscriber so far!
That again was no use: he but got another smile and a friendly look of the sort he no longer wanted. I said I thought I could gallop if Harry could, and in a few minutes we were up with the ambulance. It had stopped. There were several men about it, including Sergeant Jim and Kendall, which two had come from Quinn, and having just been in the ambulance, at Ferry's side, were now remounting, both of them openly in tears. "Hello, Kendall." We have this great advantage in dealing with Plato—that his philosophical writings have come down to us entire, while the thinkers who preceded him are known only through fragments and second-hand reports. Nor is the difference merely accidental. Plato was the creator of speculative literature, properly so called: he was the first and also the greatest artist that ever clothed abstract thought in language of appropriate majesty and splendour; and it is probably to their beauty of form that we owe the preservation of his writings. Rather unfortunately, however, along with the genuine works of the master, a certain number of pieces have been handed down to us under his name, of which some are almost universally admitted to be spurious, while the authenticity of others is a question on which the best scholars are still divided. In the absence of any very cogent external evidence, an immense amount of industry and learning has been expended on this subject, and the arguments employed on both sides sometimes make us doubt whether the reasoning powers of philologists are better developed than, according to Plato, were those of mathematicians in his time. The176 two extreme positions are occupied by Grote, who accepts the whole Alexandrian canon, and Krohn, who admits nothing but the Republic;115 while much more serious critics, such as Schaarschmidt, reject along with a mass of worthless compositions several Dialogues almost equal in interest and importance to those whose authenticity has never been doubted. The great historian of Greece seems to have been rather undiscriminating both in his scepticism and in his belief; and the exclusive importance which he attributed to contemporary testimony, or to what passed for such with him, may have unduly biassed his judgment in both directions. As it happens, the authority of the canon is much weaker than Grote imagined; but even granting his extreme contention, our view of Plato’s philosophy would not be seriously affected by it, for the pieces which are rejected by all other critics have no speculative importance whatever. The case would be far different were we to agree with those who impugn the genuineness of the Parmenides, the Sophist, the Statesman, the Philêbus, and the Laws; for these compositions mark a new departure in Platonism amounting to a complete transformation of its fundamental principles, which indeed is one of the reasons why their authenticity has been denied. Apart, however, from the numerous evidences of Platonic authorship furnished by the Dialogues themselves, as well as by the indirect references to them in Aristotle’s writings, it seems utterly incredible that a thinker scarcely, if at all, inferior to the master himself—as the supposed imitator must assuredly have been—should have consented to let his reasonings pass current under a false name, and that, too, the name of one whose teaching he in some respects controverted; while there is a further difficulty in assuming that his existence could pass unnoticed at a period marked by intense literary and philosophical activity. Readers who177 wish for fuller information on the subject will find in Zeller’s pages a careful and lucid digest of the whole controversy leading to a moderately conservative conclusion. Others will doubtless be content to accept Prof. Jowett’s verdict, that ‘on the whole not a sixteenth part of the writings which pass under the name of Plato, if we exclude the works rejected by the ancients themselves, can be fairly doubted by those who are willing to allow that a considerable change and growth may have taken place in his philosophy.’116 To which we may add that the Platonic dialogues, whether the work of one or more hands, and however widely differing among themselves, together represent a single phase of thought, and are appropriately studied as a connected series. Before entering on our task, one more difficulty remains to be noticed. Plato, although the greatest master of prose composition that ever lived, and for his time a remarkably voluminous author, cherished a strong dislike for books, and even affected to regret that the art of writing had ever been invented. A man, he said, might amuse himself by putting down his ideas on paper, and might even find written178 memoranda useful for private reference, but the only instruction worth speaking of was conveyed by oral communication, which made it possible for objections unforeseen by the teacher to be freely urged and answered.117 Such had been the method of Socrates, and such was doubtless the practice of Plato himself whenever it was possible for him to set forth his philosophy by word of mouth. It has been supposed, for this reason, that the great writer did not take his own books in earnest, and wished them to be regarded as no more than the elegant recreations of a leisure hour, while his deeper and more serious thoughts were reserved for lectures and conversations, of which, beyond a few allusions in Aristotle, every record has perished. That such, however, was not the case, may be easily shown. In the first place it is evident, from the extreme pains taken by Plato to throw his philosophical expositions into conversational form, that he did not despair of providing a literary substitute for spoken dialogue. Secondly, it is a strong confirmation of this theory that Aristotle, a personal friend and pupil of Plato during many years, should so frequently refer to the Dialogues as authoritative evidences of his master’s opinions on the most important topics. And, lastly, if it can be shown that the documents in question do actually embody a comprehensive and connected view of life and of the world, we shall feel satisfied that the oral teaching of Plato, had it been preserved, would not modify in any material degree the impression conveyed by his written compositions. breakfast in the kitchen by candle-light, and then drove the five The bargaining was interminable, something in this manner:— Then follows a long discussion in Hindi with the bystanders, who always escort a foreigner in a mob, ending in the question— There was a bright I. D. blanket spread on the ground a little way back from the fire, and she threw herself down upon it. All that was picturesque in his memories of history flashed back to Cairness, as he took his place beside Landor on the log and looked at her. Boadicea might have sat so in the depths of the Icenean forests, in the light of the torches of the Druids. So the Babylonian queen might have rested in the midst of her victorious armies, or she of Palmyra, after the lion hunt in the deserts of Syria. Her eyes, red lighted beneath the shadowing lashes, met his. Then she glanced away into the blackness of the pine forest, and calling her dog to lie down beside her, stroked its silky red head. The retreat was made, and the men found themselves again in the morning on the bleak, black heath of Drummossie, hungry and worn out, yet in expectation of a battle. There was yet time to do the only wise thing—retreat into the mountains, and depend upon a guerilla warfare, in which they would have the decided advantage. Lord George Murray now earnestly proposed this, but in vain. Sir Thomas Sheridan and other officers from France grew outrageous at that proposal, contending that they could easily beat the English, as they had done at Prestonpans and Falkirk—forgetting that the Highlanders then were full of vigour and spirit. Unfortunately, Charles listened to this foolish reasoning, and the fatal die was cast. "They said they were going for our breakfast," said Harry. "And I hope it's true, for I'm hungrier'n a rip-saw. But I could put off breakfast for awhile, if they'd only bring us our guns. I hope they'll be nice Springfield rifles that'll kill a man at a mile." "Dod durn it," blubbered Pete, "I ain't cryin' bekase Pm skeered. I'm cryin' bekase I'm afeared you'll lose me. I know durned well you'll lose me yit, with all this foolin' around." He came nearly every night. If she was not at the gate he would whistle a few bars of "Rio Bay," and she would steal out as soon as she could do so without rousing suspicion. Boarzell became theirs, their accomplice in some subtle, beautiful way. There was a little hollow on the western slope where they would crouch together and sniff the apricot scent of the gorse, which was ever afterwards to be the remembrancer of their love, and watch the farmhouse lights at Castweasel gleam and gutter beside Ramstile woods. "Yes, De Boteler," continued the lady, "I will write to him, and try to soothe his humour. You think it a humiliation—I would humble myself to the meanest serf that tills your land, could I learn the fate of my child. The abbot may have power to draw from this monk what he would conceal from us; I will at least make the experiment." The lady then, though much against De Boteler's wish, penned an epistle to the abbot, in which concession and apologies were made, and a strong invitation conveyed, that he would honour Sudley castle by his presence. The parchment was then folded, and dispatched to the abbot. "A very pretty method, truly! You know not the miners and forgers of Dean Forest!—why I would stake a noble to a silver-penny, that if you had discovered he was hidden there, and legally demanded him, he would be popped down in a bucket, to the bottom of some mine, where, even the art of Master Calverley could not have dragged him to the light of day until the Forest was clear of the pack:—but, however, to speak to the point," perceiving that the steward's patience was well nigh exhausted—"I saw Stephen Holgrave yesterday, in the Forest." HoME欧美一级 片a高清
ENTER NUMBET 0016www.gncfcn.com.cn jmwjdq.org.cn www.ksfyjcz.com.cn www.hnzz666.com.cn hyllyh.com.cn jkpa.com.cn tianyu0.com.cn nfchain.com.cn taipot.com.cn www.nmgqzgwy.com.cn
Leave a Reply