Haitch

I regularly want to copy the background image into the mask, and edit it there .. in Photoshop it's copy and paste, as the OP says .. then you can look at the mask and edit it with any normal editing tool .. curves, levels, paintbrush ..
I actually can't follow your explanation above in response to the OP.. At all. Can you describe in simple, straighforward steps, how to do what I am trying to do? Yes, I have watched the tutorials, and if you can direct me to one that shows how to do this, I will happily put the time in on studying it.

Welcome to Affinity .. there's a bunch of us have been asking for some time for Affinity to give us the option to work with masks as we would in Photoshop, where the mask is a raster layer that you can just go in and edit like any other image. At the moment, most stuff you would do with masks in Photoshop can be achieved in Affinity, but the additional steps / hassle mitigate against efficient workflow. Affinity does a lot of things brilliantly, but a lot of things incredibly clumsily. I'm sticking with it, sort of, for some stuff ..
Please, Affinity, give us an option: 'Default to using raster masks like Photoshop does' in our basic settings. We don't mind the alpha masks being there for those who like them. This surely can't be difficult to implement.

I would like to be able to edit / revise a mask after creating it, using curves or levels .. ideally as an adjustment layer specifically for the mask, but I'd settle for simple adustment of the mask, as in Photoshop. I routinely use the image itself as a mask, for example to protect highlights, and it's essential to be able to adjust the tonality of the mask while editing.

Welcome to Affinity .. there's a bunch of us have been asking for some time for Affinity to give us the option to work with masks as we would in Photoshop, where the mask is a raster layer that you can just go in and edit like any other image. At the moment, most stuff you would do with masks in Photoshop can be achieved in Affinity, but the additional steps / hassle mitigate against efficient workflow. Affinity does a lot of things brilliantly, but a lot of things incredibly clumsily. I'm sticking with it, sort of, for some stuff ..
Please, Affinity, give us an option: 'Default to using raster masks like Photoshop does' in our basic settings. We don't mind the alpha masks being there for those who like them. This surely can't be difficult to implement.

Welcome to Affinity .. there's a bunch of us have been asking for some time for Affinity to give us the option to work with masks as we would in Photoshop, where the mask is a raster layer that you can just go in and edit like any other image. At the moment, most stuff you would do with masks in Photoshop can be achieved in Affinity, but the additional steps / hassle mitigate against efficient workflow. Affinity does a lot of things brilliantly, but a lot of things incredibly clumsily. I'm sticking with it, sort of, for some stuff ..
Please, Affinity, give us an option: 'Default to using raster masks like Photoshop does' in our basic settings. We don't mind the alpha masks being there for those who like them. This surely can't be difficult to implement.

I would like to be able to edit / revise a mask after creating it, using curves or levels .. ideally as an adjustment layer specifically for the mask, but I'd settle for simple adustment of the mask, as in Photoshop. I routinely use the image itself as a mask, for example to protect highlights, and it's essential to be able to adjust the tonality of the mask while editing.

Chris26...
in response to your question about Adjustment Presets, I also have long felt that Adjustments panel should not be the only place where Presets can be found. Personally, I almost never use the Adjustments panel; I invoke adjustment layers from the icon(s) at the bottom of the Layers panel. I posted a suggestion over a year ago, suggesting (as you apparently believe, also) that adjustment presets should be available from their respective adjustment dialogs. To date, though, this has not been implemented.
As far as your question about Macros is concerned, these are similar but not completely analogous to Photoshop actions. PS actions take the form of scripts, and have more programming type choices available. In Photoshop, it is indeed possible to write/create an action that pauses while it waits for User input. This is not (strictly speaking) available in Affinity Photo. What you can do in AP is write a macro that contains, for instance, an adjustment which you then make available to the end User in a dialog. However, that dialog will only present itself at the end of the macro; if you change any of the settings, the macro will completely replay with the new value.
There are some definite down sides to this. First, not all settings can be exposed to the end user. Second, the exposed settings will only be available after the macro has run (but before it is finalized). If the setting must be visualized in the midst of running the macro, this is not going to work.
In the image below, I have written a macro which adds a Brightness and Contrast adjustment with default values of 20% brightness and 10% contrast. After recording the macro, I can click the "asterisk" at the right of the macro step, and then click the "eye" icon. Here, I've clicked the "eye" next to the Brightness setting. I have given the setting a new name (specifically for the dialog box), which says "Adjustt brightness" – note the inadvertent misspelling. When I run the macro, I get a dialog box at the very end which allows me to change the Brightness. It does not allow me to change the contrast, since I chose not to expose that setting to the user.

I would like to be able to edit / revise a mask after creating it, using curves or levels .. ideally as an adjustment layer specifically for the mask, but I'd settle for simple adustment of the mask, as in Photoshop. I routinely use the image itself as a mask, for example to protect highlights, and it's essential to be able to adjust the tonality of the mask while editing.

+1 each to Andy & Lorox. Exactly.
I am still persevering .. occasionally .. but the workflow / usability / directness is the big hurdle. Affinity Photo will stand or fall by whether or not it can be an alternative to Photoshop. Enjoyment, Lorox's word, really is important. When you feel you're constantly fighting the app, you lose that.
As Lorox says, Photoshop has evolved. Often simple things, like adding a Vibrancy tool, which simply wasn't there in earlier versions, have made a huge practical difference. Sure, you could achieve the same results with HSL and maybe a tweak of Curves, but for some things it just made it quicker and easier. That philosophy needs to cascade through a swathe of Affinity tools .. even the Curves adjustment is clumsy compared to Photoshop, and there could hardly be a more basic tool.

Exactly! I often find myself quite impressed with what you can do in Affinity Photo (same in Designer and Publisher BTW) but at the same time I'm often sort of turned off midway in a job by  the clumsy and uncomfortable way to get these things actually done within the apps. The Affinity apps regrettably – in several aspects – still lack an "elegant" and intuitive ergonomic concept. Especially Photoshop, however, has developed and refined this approach quite convincingly over the (long) years it has been on the scene.
To really compete with the Adobe apps it's not sufficient for the Affinity apps to just let the user come up finally with (about) the same results he'd get using Photoshop & Co. but he must be able to get there by a workflow that's at least as easy and convincingly ergonomic as it is with the (still) market leader. Having to go to two places in the menus and one place in the control bar and/or context menu to get something done, what the rival makes possible with just a click (OK: maybe with some additional modifier key...) won't do the trick eventually.
I REALLY do want to make the transition and I'm absolutely thankful to Affinity/Serif for having taken up the challenge. I actually admire what they've achieved so far, but PLEASE keep on working on the ergonomics of the apps to make the users enjoy what they're doing in the most satisfying way!

I've been working for two days now on a job that i would have finished in an hour on Photoshop, but am forcing myself to stick with Affinity Photo to learn how to achieve the same goals. It's like some kind of cryptic puzzle game, like playing Myst, trying to figure out how to get something supposedly simple done, like opening a door but it doesn't have a handle or swing freely. I've now got a lovely mask that isolates some trees, applied to some layer effects.  I just want to get the pixel data out of that mask and paste it into a Live Filter mask. Half an hour later I'm still trying. I can't even figure out how to convert a mask to a pixel layer.  It would really help if masks weren't treated as being different to any other pixel layer - they should just be greyscale images that you can move between being masks and visible images based on their positioning in the hierarchy. Also, why the "inbuilt masks" for Live Filters and adjustment layers? Why have a different approach for these to pixel layers? I'd be tearing my hair out if I hadn't just shaved it off....
[UPDATE #1] I didn't figure out how to paste greyscale pixel data into the Live Filter mask, but I did manage to add a mask to it by pulling the Live Filter out of its nested position, dragging a copy of the mask to it (masking the effect), then dragging the Live Filter back to it's original position in the hierarchy.  Is there a better way? Am I missing something or do I get bonus points for solving this particular puzzle? The shirty thing is that I won't be using Photo again for a month or so and will have forgotten everything I've learned by the time I get back to it...
[UPDATE #2] I also found how to make a greyscale pixel layer from a mask thanks to MEB's post on thread https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/47033-converting-mask-to-pixel-layer/ which says: "Go to the Channels panel, right-click the respective mask channel and select Create Greyscale Layer.". Therefore, with this roundabout way, you can "paste data" into a mask by making a pixel layer copy of it, doing whatever you want with that then converting it to a mask and replacing the original mask.... (again, I might be missing some easier way..)
 

It's like that. With the problem described AndyQ seems to back our feelings/impressions perfectly: after some time anybody working in pixel graphics will have realized that pixel masks ARE in fact just grayscale images applied in certain way to select corresponding pixels (meaning those having the same 2D position on the canvas) and allow to do certain things to them (i.e. adjusting their opacity etc.).
This given it seems only natural that masks should be editable just like any other grayscale image (including copying, pasting, painting in it, filtering it etc.) once you have them as the contents of your active window.
In Photoshop this is very much the case once you know how to make the mask content visible as the actual content of your active window. It doesn't take more than just going to the channels panel and clicking on the mask's channel – there you go and it's easy and intuitive. And turning the mask's content to a selection which you then can use in any pixel layer, adjustment layer, channel or other mask of your file is just one more click away...
In Affinity Photo this whole "field" of channels masks, selections and pixel layers is generally organized in such a "fragmented" approach that it becomes ”cryptic" as no obvious logic becomes apparent: so it becomes hard to understand and cumbersome to use. In effect you experience exactly what AndyQ said: you spend a day on a job which you could have finished in an hour with Photoshop. And true: as the way of achieving comparatively simple thing is so unnecessary complicated you're prone to have forgotten at least half of it of it by the time you have to work on the next job needing this a month later.
Please, to all you developers at Serif: I guess there are quite a number of guys here among us who REALLY WANT to work with your apps, who REALLY WANT you to succeed long term on the market. The workflow must become smoother, more unified and necessary actions for closely related goals should not be scattered over different places in the UI. I'd think in the end it just has to be at least as efficient as it is with those applications you – rightly – chose to challenge. Let's be honest: there may actually be a limit to the time professional users can afford to spend with Affinity Photo or Designer on jobs they could have finished in a fraction of the time needed if they had just reverted– however much loathingly – to Photoshop and Illustrator.

+1 each to Andy & Lorox. Exactly.
I am still persevering .. occasionally .. but the workflow / usability / directness is the big hurdle. Affinity Photo will stand or fall by whether or not it can be an alternative to Photoshop. Enjoyment, Lorox's word, really is important. When you feel you're constantly fighting the app, you lose that.
As Lorox says, Photoshop has evolved. Often simple things, like adding a Vibrancy tool, which simply wasn't there in earlier versions, have made a huge practical difference. Sure, you could achieve the same results with HSL and maybe a tweak of Curves, but for some things it just made it quicker and easier. That philosophy needs to cascade through a swathe of Affinity tools .. even the Curves adjustment is clumsy compared to Photoshop, and there could hardly be a more basic tool.

Thanks, MEB .. but for those of us who work in a more painterly way with masks, you're making our point for us.
Our main point isn't that it's impossible to achieve the same result, just that it's a complex and indirect method compared to PS. Secondarily, I still don't see how your approach allows selective work on the mask. How, for instance, with your method, would you edit a mask using levels or curves, then use the history tool to paint those changes selectively into the mask .. something I do all the time in PS. Obviously I don't use colour-related tools on the mask, but I use just about everything else on mask layers, and almost always not applying the edits to the whole mask. I appreciate that there's always a balance between left-brain and right-brain processes .. the point is that Affinity imposes a very programmatic, left-brain approach, which feels heavy-handed for some of us, and which is also slower than the approach that PS allows. Why would I go with a program that makes the editing process slower and less intuitive?  Affinity is great for people who like to work the way that Affinity imposes, but for those of us whose basic approach to image editing does not comply, it's a struggle.
I can't believe that this is a technical issue. PS had this aspect of masking well worked out from very early days. I don't understand why Affinity wouldn't offer raster masks as an option when they're central to how many photographers work. When Affinity has a change of heart on this, I'll come back to it with rejoicing, until then, I'm out.

Thanks. The issue is not to understand what adjustment layers or their masks do. The issue is with adjustment of the mask. I've yet to see anything by way of tutorial, or to find by trial and error in the program, a way to apply levels and curves to the mask itself. Most of what's available, as with the videos you refer to here, simply involves painting into the mask. The only operation I've found applies to the mask overall is the Invert command, which one of these videos shows.
So, suppose I use the background image to create a mask .. that immediately and automatically gives me a mask that corresponds accurately with the image, including with the subtle transitions from highlight to shadow that you find in a face or figure (I mostly shoot people). I invert the mask, and now I have a mask that protects my highlights from the effects of the adjustment layer, and which transitions in its action as subtly or abruptly as does the background image as it moves from highlights to shadows. But now I want to control, for example, how my mask works in the midtones. I want to look at the mask, and then use levels or curves to adjust the midtones of the mask. I can't see how to do that in Affinity. Ideally I would like an adjustment layer that applies only to the mask. Failing a live adjustment layer for the mask, I would like at least to be able to apply curves and levels in a one-off operation to the mask, and with the option to use the history brush to paint in those adjustments to particular areas of the mask. And then perhaps later in my work on the image, I might go back and re-edit the tonality of the mask, again with a one-off application of curves or levels.
I appreciate that it would be possible to duplicate the background, use whatever adjustments I want, and then apply that as a mask, but then the mask remains fixed. That just doesn't work. I want to be able to create the mask, and then adjust it or refine it as I continue with my editing process .. perhaps altering the way the mask for one adjustment layer works as I look at how other adjustment layers affect the overall result, balancing the effect of one masked adjustment layer, say HSL, with a different masked adjustment layer, say a Curves layer set to Colour Blend.
This use of the original image as a mask for an adjustment layer has been a central part of my editing process for years. As far as I'm aware, it's part of many photographers' editing process. I just can't seem to find out how to do it in Affinity. I'm using the example of curves and levels above, but of course, I might just as easily want to apply filters to the mask. The point is to use the image to mask itself, and be able then to edit the mask freely.

Thank you. I'll have a go at that. But it seems a very roundabout way of achieving something that is so quick and simple in PS.

I regularly want to copy the background image into the mask, and edit it there .. in Photoshop it's copy and paste, as the OP says .. then you can look at the mask and edit it with any normal editing tool .. curves, levels, paintbrush ..
I actually can't follow your explanation above in response to the OP.. At all. Can you describe in simple, straighforward steps, how to do what I am trying to do? Yes, I have watched the tutorials, and if you can direct me to one that shows how to do this, I will happily put the time in on studying it.

Thanks, MEB .. but for those of us who work in a more painterly way with masks, you're making our point for us.
Our main point isn't that it's impossible to achieve the same result, just that it's a complex and indirect method compared to PS. Secondarily, I still don't see how your approach allows selective work on the mask. How, for instance, with your method, would you edit a mask using levels or curves, then use the history tool to paint those changes selectively into the mask .. something I do all the time in PS. Obviously I don't use colour-related tools on the mask, but I use just about everything else on mask layers, and almost always not applying the edits to the whole mask. I appreciate that there's always a balance between left-brain and right-brain processes .. the point is that Affinity imposes a very programmatic, left-brain approach, which feels heavy-handed for some of us, and which is also slower than the approach that PS allows. Why would I go with a program that makes the editing process slower and less intuitive?  Affinity is great for people who like to work the way that Affinity imposes, but for those of us whose basic approach to image editing does not comply, it's a struggle.
I can't believe that this is a technical issue. PS had this aspect of masking well worked out from very early days. I don't understand why Affinity wouldn't offer raster masks as an option when they're central to how many photographers work. When Affinity has a change of heart on this, I'll come back to it with rejoicing, until then, I'm out.

Thanks, MEB .. but for those of us who work in a more painterly way with masks, you're making our point for us.
Our main point isn't that it's impossible to achieve the same result, just that it's a complex and indirect method compared to PS. Secondarily, I still don't see how your approach allows selective work on the mask. How, for instance, with your method, would you edit a mask using levels or curves, then use the history tool to paint those changes selectively into the mask .. something I do all the time in PS. Obviously I don't use colour-related tools on the mask, but I use just about everything else on mask layers, and almost always not applying the edits to the whole mask. I appreciate that there's always a balance between left-brain and right-brain processes .. the point is that Affinity imposes a very programmatic, left-brain approach, which feels heavy-handed for some of us, and which is also slower than the approach that PS allows. Why would I go with a program that makes the editing process slower and less intuitive?  Affinity is great for people who like to work the way that Affinity imposes, but for those of us whose basic approach to image editing does not comply, it's a struggle.
I can't believe that this is a technical issue. PS had this aspect of masking well worked out from very early days. I don't understand why Affinity wouldn't offer raster masks as an option when they're central to how many photographers work. When Affinity has a change of heart on this, I'll come back to it with rejoicing, until then, I'm out.

Thanks. The issue is not to understand what adjustment layers or their masks do. The issue is with adjustment of the mask. I've yet to see anything by way of tutorial, or to find by trial and error in the program, a way to apply levels and curves to the mask itself. Most of what's available, as with the videos you refer to here, simply involves painting into the mask. The only operation I've found applies to the mask overall is the Invert command, which one of these videos shows.
So, suppose I use the background image to create a mask .. that immediately and automatically gives me a mask that corresponds accurately with the image, including with the subtle transitions from highlight to shadow that you find in a face or figure (I mostly shoot people). I invert the mask, and now I have a mask that protects my highlights from the effects of the adjustment layer, and which transitions in its action as subtly or abruptly as does the background image as it moves from highlights to shadows. But now I want to control, for example, how my mask works in the midtones. I want to look at the mask, and then use levels or curves to adjust the midtones of the mask. I can't see how to do that in Affinity. Ideally I would like an adjustment layer that applies only to the mask. Failing a live adjustment layer for the mask, I would like at least to be able to apply curves and levels in a one-off operation to the mask, and with the option to use the history brush to paint in those adjustments to particular areas of the mask. And then perhaps later in my work on the image, I might go back and re-edit the tonality of the mask, again with a one-off application of curves or levels.
I appreciate that it would be possible to duplicate the background, use whatever adjustments I want, and then apply that as a mask, but then the mask remains fixed. That just doesn't work. I want to be able to create the mask, and then adjust it or refine it as I continue with my editing process .. perhaps altering the way the mask for one adjustment layer works as I look at how other adjustment layers affect the overall result, balancing the effect of one masked adjustment layer, say HSL, with a different masked adjustment layer, say a Curves layer set to Colour Blend.
This use of the original image as a mask for an adjustment layer has been a central part of my editing process for years. As far as I'm aware, it's part of many photographers' editing process. I just can't seem to find out how to do it in Affinity. I'm using the example of curves and levels above, but of course, I might just as easily want to apply filters to the mask. The point is to use the image to mask itself, and be able then to edit the mask freely.

Yep, this is my problem with Affinity in a nutshell. Basic tools that are there, but just so clumsy to use. Curves, a foundational tool .. you can get there eventually, but what is immediate and direct in PS .. like sampling a value in the image with the dropper .. takes an extra step in AP .. and  you can't simply place a node and then use the mouse middle wheel to roll the values up and down precisely .. everything feels gratuitously indirect. Working with masks is even worse. I have spent months trying to learn how to use basic tools that have been familiar in PS for years, across different versions, and am on the point of giving up. Cropping, admittedly never Photoshop's greatest strength, I now do in XnView .. much finer control, much easier to use, and it's basically a freeware image viewer. Image rotations likewise, far simpler and more direct than AP. Even something as basic as checking the effect of an adjustment layer while adjusting it is clumsy. It does pano stitches and focus stacks and a few other things brilliantly, but the interface for the central editing controls is just awful.
Sorry this is a whine. I had such high hopes.

Affinity's market pitch aside ...

Thanks for the step through .. I'm able to do that. I have two basic problems .. first, how to create an action that can carry out that process of mask creation for me, given that it seems to depend on dragging the duplicate background layer into the mask ..

and second, how do you adjust the mask using normal editing tools, like curves and levels? your method seems to rely on editing the duplicate background layer before using it to create the mask .. I routinely want to be able to adjust the mask after creating it. I can invert it, paint into it .. but can't see how to adjust it.
If you can help with either of those, that would be appreciated

I work with church and other non-profit organisations where the bulk of the work is done by volunteers, often with only basic computer skills, and the only app they have access to for any kind of layout work is Microsoft Publisher. There is no 'deserve' here, it's just how it is.