How did I do this?

This is probably a shot in the dark but, does anyone have any thoughts on what I might've been doing to end up with this effect to the original picture?

I was following along with a Photoshop video tutorial at the time on how to achieve something but I can't remember what I was wanting to achieve with the original photo and I used the Inverse function at the wrong point of the process.

So I guess the Inverse function created the effect but had I done things correctly, there would've been a few more steps to follow before the final result and the final result wouldn't have looked like this.
My best guess is I was attempting to do something with the sky.
I don't think I was trying to replace it, just maybe doing some adjustments using fill or adjustment layers.

I had done this months ago and at the time I liked the effect even though it wasn't what I was after.
Saw the picture again recently and wondered how I did it.

I thought I had bookmarked the video but I didn't as it turns out I can't find it anywhere in my bookmarks.

I know similar effects can be achieved using levels and curves but I'm pretty sure I wasn't using any of those functions.

I realize me not remembering what I was wanting to achieve and hoping someone else might is a bizarre request but, thought maybe there is a common process with making changes to a sky that involved using the Inverse function.

Before posting this, I tried the Inverse function alone on the original photo and nothing happened.

Channel swapping would be my guess.
It looks a lot like when people are trying to make "fake" infra red images.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19204507
Channel swapping would be my guess.
It looks a lot like when people are trying to make "fake" infra red images.

It wasn't channel swapping as I just had to look that up to find out what that is.

You're right about the infra red look but that wasn't what I was after.
I know I don't remember exactly what I was after but I do know it wasn't that.
The infra red look was an accident.

I don't use Photoshop a lot but there are times when I want to know how to do something using it and then I search for videos on how to do it.
I just wish I could remember what I was wanting to do with the image at the time.
I remember the video did have a lot of good information.

It was probably some sort of tips and tricks Photoshop video.

To me, it looks like a color film negative.
Using the invert on one of my images seems to get me close to what you your image. I posted the "after" and "before" here.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19204531
To me, it looks like a color film negative.
Using the invert on one of my images seems to get me close to what you your image. I posted the "after" and "before" here.

Hosted photo: posted by Capn Jack in
./showthread.php?p=192​04531&i=i10423404
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by Capn Jack in
./showthread.php?p=192​04531&i=i105840239
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

You are right Capn Jack, that's exactly how I got that look.
I was trying to figure it out last night and was trying different things when I noticed the Invert option in the create a new fill or adjustment layer section.
Gave it a try and got the result.

I thought using the Inverse option under Select had something to do with it but now know that isn't the case.
Now I know the basic function of both Invert and Inverse.

I say basic function because there's probably different uses for each of those options that I don't know about.

For me, Photoshop is both amazing and frustrating at the same time because I don't use it enough to be really familiar with it.
Maybe I'll have to start using Photoshop a bit more and less of Lightroom for a while to change that.

canongear wrote in post #19204764
You are right Capn Jack, that's exactly how I got that look.
I was trying to figure it out last night and was trying different things when I noticed the Invert option in the create a new fill or adjustment layer section.
Gave it a try and got the result.

I thought using the Inverse option under Select had something to do with it but now know that isn't the case.
Now I know the basic function of both Invert and Inverse.

I say basic function because there's probably different uses for each of those options that I don't know about.

For me, Photoshop is both amazing and frustrating at the same time because I don't use it enough to be really familiar with it.
Maybe I'll have to start using Photoshop a bit more and less of Lightroom for a while to change that.

The invert function is commonly used to convert a scanned film negative into a positive but clever and artistic people can use it in many other ways too. Photoshop is a very powerful program. Compared with the features in the software, I barely know how to use even the most basic functions.

It is the most commonly used program used with scientific imaging, mainly because it is easy to layer different images and some of the basic math functions. It is commonly used in microscopy to overlay images containing different information. For example, a bright-field image (the kind we are most familiar with) shows the shape of a cell, a researcher can overlay the fluorescent image of the same cell showing where a dye has bound to actin to explain why the cell has that shape. I've used it myself for a recent paper to enhance a spot on a thin layer chromatography plate, and included the unretouched images with the supplementary results. Photoshop is also used to find possible data manipulation and poorly represented data: https://pubs.acs.org …0.1021/acscents​ci.0c01049

Capn Jack wrote in post #19204777
The invert function is commonly used to convert a scanned film negative into a positive but clever and artistic people can use it in many other ways too. Photoshop is a very powerful program. Compared with the features in the software, I barely know how to use even the most basic functions.

It is the most commonly used program used with scientific imaging, mainly because it is easy to layer different images and some of the basic math functions. It is commonly used in microscopy to overlay images containing different information. For example, a bright-field image (the kind we are most familiar with) shows the shape of a cell, a researcher can overlay the fluorescent image of the same cell showing where a dye has bound to actin to explain why the cell has that shape. I've used it myself for a recent paper to enhance a spot on a thin layer chromatography plate, and included the unretouched images with the supplementary results. Photoshop is also used to find possible data manipulation and poorly represented data: https://pubs.acs.org …0.1021/acscents​ci.0c01049

Wow, as if the fields of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology wouldn't be hard enough, then Photoshop gets thrown into the mix!
I didn't realize Photoshop was used for things that you described and what was shown in the video.
Thanks

Now your just showing off...LOL

I personally like it! I have just switched back to shooting film & I was thinking of how to mount or print a "negative". So, from what Cpn Jack has said, if I don't invert after scanning I can make a print like this????

canongear wrote in post #19204847
Wow, as if the fields of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology wouldn't be hard enough, then Photoshop gets thrown into the mix!
I didn't realize Photoshop was used for things that you described and what was shown in the video.
Thanks

My experience has only been the basic functions, but some of the math functions may be a little unusual to most photographers

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19204852
I personally like it! I have just switched back to shooting film & I was thinking of how to mount or print a "negative". So, from what Cpn Jack has said, if I don't invert after scanning I can make a print like this????

You may, although you might want to adjust the levels (as you might from an image off your digital camera) to make it look more pleasing to your eye. The trees in my inverted image on the foreground hills in the thread look a little blown out to me.

I think I would need to make some adjustments, but too much adjusting may stop it from looking like a neg..

One might recall that Photoshop was a full blown application some time before digital cameras really were out in the wild. It was made to work with scanned photos from film prints, negatives, slides etc.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19204901
One might recall that Photoshop was a full blown application some time before digital cameras really were out in the wild. It was made to work with scanned photos from film prints, negatives, slides etc.

Interesting. It was just there when I started using it and I gave little thought to its origins. I’ve only used it with digital cameras. Thanks for the insight.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19204913
Interesting. It was just there when I started using it and I gave little thought to its origins. I’ve only used it with digital cameras. Thanks for the insight.

If I recall correctly, the first released versions were bundled with scanners free. It's come a long way! But there are still so many tools we use daily with names and origins straight out of a chemical darkroom (dodge, burn, unsharp mask, etc..) that we forget that's where the roots are.

canongear wrote in post #19204764
I thought using the Inverse option under Select had something to do with it but now know that isn't the case.
Now I know the basic function of both Invert and Inverse.

Well, the words "invert" and "inverse" are cognates (verb and noun), but they mean different things in different contexts. You can invert a selection, invert a layer mask, or invert the colors in an image -- which is what you did. The keyboard shortcut for your inversion is Ctrl-i.