Mr. Doodlezz
-
Posts
562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mr. Doodlezz
-
-
1 minute ago, ,,, said:
This thread is a wreck.
Haha, yeah. I'd hoped for an official staff member to react sooner or later. But at some point people took over and drove it against the wall. 🤷♂️
Still that's another issue I noticed. Having the foreground set to black, the new fill layer get's added with a white fill. Not sure if that's by design as well. -
Just now, ,,, said:
You've misunderstood me. Versions 1.x and 2.x are the same with regard to a built-in mask of Fill Layer, Adjustment and Live Filter being created from a pixel selection (or marquee in your words). There is a difference in presentation in the Layers panel, though.
Hm, for me in V1, every marquee is converted into a built-in mask instead of an regular layer mask in V2.
<Placeholder for a clip I'll add a clip for this in a couple of minutes.> -
Just now, walt.farrell said:
But all of that can be done with just 1 additional click. What I don't understand is why that's such a big deal for you.
It's not just one click, Walt. It just isn't! Try it! Please do a clip for me. It's not just one additional click!
It's also inconsistent and inefficient!
-
14 minutes ago, R C-R said:
I guess I must be misunderstanding what you mean but can't you edit the built-in mask of a fill layer using a paint brush in exactly the same way you can edit the built-in mask of an Adjustment layer using a paint brush?
Yeah, you're misunderstanding. We, or at leas I am, talking about moving the layer mask (to a different layer or group) or edit it by right-clicking on it and select »Refine Mask« afterwards. Both cases are impossible because there simply isn't a visible layer mask added. You'd have to add a second mask on top of the built-in mask and reset that one manually. Of course you can manipulate the built-in layer with brush and eraser. But that's very limited editing compared to a regular layer mask.
To be quite honest I can't really grasp why anyone would want to work with built-in masks in any case when you could have a more versatile option, I just don't see the benefit. Worst case, I wonder why a layer only works in certain areas, just noticing at some point there's been an accidental brushstroke on the built-in mask that's not really visible, compared to an obvious layer mask that sits next to the layer.
-
7 hours ago, ,,, said:
You're witnessing a bug but wrongly assuming it is correct behaviour, and then inventing an explanation for the observed behaviour.
The truth: the Colour panel is wrongly displaying the Fill Layer's fill in the primary colour well instead of the real primary colour of the brush tool.
Affinity 1.x did not have the bug.
It took me a second to understand what you were both talking about, but I guess you're talking about why the new fill layer appears white, correct? In that case you're right again, ,,,.
I checked several times while re-recording the clip to see if I had accidentally switched the foreground and background colours, but no. Foreground is always black for me because I often use the shortcut to reset it to default, especially when working on masks. For some reason though the new fill layer always appears to be filled white instead of black.
-
1 hour ago, ,,, said:
I have understand you from the beginning and felt your frustration with others failing to understand you. You have been saying that there is inconsistent reduced editabilty of the built-in mask of Fill Layer versus the built-in mask of Adjustment and Live Filter.
Ah, yes, thanks! Finally someone who gets me! 🙏
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you or overread your comment in the midst of all the others and on the verge of insanity! 🥲
But yes, exactly, the conversion/adaption of a marquee is behaving differently, and I just want to know why.I've never doubted that there are built-in masks for certain types of layers, and I know exactly how to work with masks, but others got the impression that I had absolutely no idea about masks, whereas the opposite is true.
Also, you're right about V1 – in this version, an active marquee is actually applied/converted to the integrated/internal/invisible mask (I'm still not sure what you'd call this type of mask, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about by now) for every type of layer (except for pixel layers, where you'll want to add the mask manually anyway)! So there's definitely been a change in V2 that I actually welcome in terms of the marquee being converted into an actual mask, although fill layers remain an exception it seems.
-
I wish this whole thread would reset and someone from Affinity to respond, because none of you seem to understand what I'm getting at, yet keep repeating what someone else said literally hours ago without moving forward but rather backwards or into a completely different direction. It's frustrating. 😭
-
-
12 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:
One last time.
Fill layers (like Pixel layers and Vector layers and Text layers) do not have an integrated mask.
You will have to adapt to a different workflow, a different way of working, to make a fill layer have a mask because, unlike the Live Filter layer and the Adjustment layers, it does not have an integrated mask.
Your topic title is "Invisible Fill Layer Mask?". I would suggest that you take a look at the alpha channel for the fill layer. It is a simple Right Click to make a mask from it.
Again, so why is it that every other (live adjustment/live filter) layer in my workflow actually adds a regular layer mask instead of adapting the marquee to the integrated mask, as seen in my clip? Only the fill layer converts the marquee as an integrated mask, while all other layers – even if they could use their integrated mask – convert the marquee into a normal layer mask that's added to itself. Again, not the integrated mask, but an additional one, the one I actually need. To me that's a break in consistency, I'd expect a fill layer to behave like any other layer in that regard.
Edit: Oh wait, you say Fill Layers do not have an integrated mask – that's wrong, they do, that's exactly my problem! Because apparently the integrated mask of a Fill Layer gets prioritised over a regular layer mask. See my clip at 00:26 - 00:47 – the marquee gets converted into a integrated mask, instead of being added as a regular mask.
-
One last time, look at this clip, maybe even try to recreate it and tell me 00:26 - 00:47 is by design, compared to what happens at 00:00 - 00:26 with the marquee.
-
2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:
You: I want a one (well, two) click solution that creates a normal layer mask that's accesible without a detour to alpha masks or reselection shenanigans
Me: Click the Mask button.
That satisfies what you asked for. And it's 1 click (2.1) or 2 clicks (2.0), just as you asked.
Absolutely not! It maybe a solution, but certainly not to my problem/request/comparisson with other layers and behaviour. You still don't understand … argh.
The two click solution I am looking for with an active marquee would be, as demonstrated in my last clip, 1. click = Layer, 2. click = New Fill Layer. The result would be a new fill layer with a regular layer mask, like with any other adjustment layer or live filter layer. Please, just watch my clip. I'm getting really tired of repeating myself over and over here.
-
1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:
Just click the Mask button at the bottom of the Layers panel. (That's in 2.1. In 2.0, click the Mask button and select (I think) Mask from the choices.)
Me: I'm not interested in detours!
Walt: Well, how about this detour?
Walt, you keep repeating the same answer without fully understanding my case, it seems. In this case, please stop.
It's perfectly obvious to me that you can add a mask using the dedicated mask button.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're trying to achieve by posting the same sentence over and over again.With all due respect, I really feel like I'm talking to a wall at this point, even though providing several examples and a step-by-step process of what I'm talking about. 🤷♂️
Sorry, I know you're all just trying to help – but it's not working like this. And maybe my how-question was really more of a hidden why-question, expecting an official answer on why it is working like this, and not how you'd learned and expect it to work.
And part of my question was also whether I could change the affinity behaviour, I was thinking in terms of the Assistant menu.Perhaps this post is in the wrong place in this subforum and is more of a suggestion/feature request or perhaps even a bug report.
-
17 hours ago, NotMyFault said:
what you describe as unexpected is in simply consistent behavior.
As you can see in my clip, it is – at least according to my definition – exactly the opposite of consistent behaviour. 🤔
The Fill Layer is the only exception to this workflow. And the workflow (again) is: 1. Have a marquee, 2. create a new layer (Adjustments, Live Filter, Fill Layer or really any other layer), 3. marquee gets converted into a visible, accessible, movable layer mask.
This workflow isn't something new that I've come up with, as you can see when working with marquees and other layers in Photo (last clip above), or when working in Photoshop (also seen in a clip above). It's the way it's actually designed to work, and it's very likely what people switching from Adobe to Affinity expect and are used to. Even the Photopea web application converts an active marquee into a real layer mask when a new fill layer is added. I haven't tried GIMP or other software, but I strongly suspect that they also convert it to a regular layer mask, rather than an embedded, invisible mask.
-
I still don't feel understood and that you claim there is no difference in behaviour. All the while it's pretty obvious, and my last video is proof, that it does in fact behave differently.
I'm not interested in the detours – I want to work efficient.
It's quite clear to me that I can somehow get a normal mask to fill layer by other means. As stated in my opening post. 😑
But again, I am not interested in detours. I want a one (well, two) click solution that creates a normal layer mask that's accesible without a detour to alpha masks or reselection shenanigans, just like any other layer mask. If someone were to follow the workflow as seen in my clast clip, they'd get what I'm after.Why am I forced to go through these detours or mind games about what to do first when it comes to working exclusively with marquees and fill layers in the first place, why (is Affinity forcing) a different behaviour exclusively for the fill layer than for all the other special layers?
@NathanC, since you have already replied: I'd be happy if you'd take another look at the last clip I posted, maybe you can follow my train of thought? 🤔
-
55 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:
I guess my problem is that I honestly don't understand why you want to use a Fill layer if you are wanting a Mask. Are you actually wanting a Mask? Are you needing the fill layer? I truly don't understand what it is you are trying to achieve here.
"How can I access this mask"
You could try using the Channels panel. One of the alphas may help you.
Yeah, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over. 🥴
One last time, as a clip with my timestamps as follows:
00:00 - 00:26 – Expected behaviour when clicking on Live Filter or (Live) Adjustment. With an active marquee selection, the selection instantly gets translated into a separate mask layer. That mask is accessible, movable and refinable through »Refine Mask« and also viewable with Alt/Option-click on the mask in the layers panel (Alt/Option-click not demonstrated).
00:26 - 00:47 – Unexpected behaviour when clicking on New Fill Layer. With an active marquee selection, the selection gets instantly translated into an invisible mask. That mask is inaccessible/immovable and cannot be refined through »Refine Mask« and is not viewable with Alt/Option-click on the mask (because obviously there is no mask) in the layers panel (Alt/Option-click not demonstrated).
00:47 - end – This is what I would expect, manually recreated through unnecessary extra clicks/steps and not always feasible pre-planning: A normal mask added to the fill layer that you can access, refine or move between layers, not just draw/erase on.
I hope this helps to clarify once and for all what this is all about.
-
10 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
Because it's more convenient to treat them similarly to Adjustment layers, as (like Adjustment layers) they have a built-in Mask.
Okay, so let's turn the question around: Why doesn't this (arguable) convenience apply to all Live Filters?
And how convenient is it really to start with an »invisible mask« that can only be edited by drawing and erasing, instead of a real mask from the very beginning?
-
Just now, Old Bruce said:
If I have a selection made (I assume we are talking about a marquee or marching ants selection, not a "selected Layer" selection) and then hit the New Fill layer I get a fill layer with the colour filling only the selection.
If I want a mask I use the mask button at the bottom of the layer's panel. and then use the Layer > Refine Mask command or a right click on the mask and choose Refine mask from that.
Now you have repeated Walt's first comment almost 1:1. 🙈
-
2 minutes ago, ebjo said:
Absolut das gleiche, mit jedem CMYK Profil
Ich denke, dann kann ich an dieser Stelle auch nicht wirklich weiterhelfen, sorry – ich drücke die Daumen, dass sich jemand anderes mit dem Drucker auskennt.
–––
I'm afraid I can't really help at this point either, sorry – fingers crossed that someone else knows about the printer.
-
6 minutes ago, ebjo said:
Danke
Im Anhang ein Publisher File, im Druck aufgerastert (Wieso?)
Ich habe noch nie von dem Profil CMYK OKI C650 1200dpi gehört. Wie gesagt, ich habe auch keine Erfahrung mit Laserdruckern.
Was passiert, wenn stattdessen ein anderes generisches CMYK-Profil gewählt wird?Es liegt jedenfalls nicht an der Größe, 14 pt sollte jeder Drucker gut hinbekommen.
Die eingestellten Farben sind auch korrekt, also 100 % K und 100 % M.
–––
I have never heard of the CMYK OKI C650 1200dpi profile. As I said, I have no experience with laser printers.
What happens if another generic CMYK profile is selected instead?In any case, it's not the size, 14 pt should be fine for any printer.
The set colours are also correct, i.e. 100 % K and 100 % M.
-
53 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
But you specifically asked why one would use Fill layers, not pixel layers, and gave gradients as an example. Gradients are not the same as Gradient Overlays.
Yes, it was more of a rhetorical question. I mean that's why I originally wanted to use a fill layer in the first place. But, again, not what this thread is initially about.
It's about the way it get's masked.29 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:By the way, if you do want a "real" mask for a Fill Layer, you can just click the Mask button at the bottom of the Layers panel and add it.
Please also read my original workflow. That's not particularly helpful in this matter, to be quite honest.
52 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:Hi @Mr. Doodlezz,
Have you considered using the Channels panel to save the Selection? Then you can apply that to adjustment layers or other layers as a mask.
Hey @Old Bruce, unfortunately hat would make things even more tedious.
–––
Let me rephrase the question/s, to make it perfectly clear:
A) Why doesn't Affinity handle marquee selection conversion for fill layers like it does with any other layer, what makes a fill layer the exception?
B) Why doesn't Affinity handle marquee selection conversion for fill layers like Photoshop handles them – creating a fill layer with a regular layer mask of the current marquee selection in one go? -
5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
It's faster to use the Context Toolbar to change its color, than it is to use the Flood Fill Tool.
Also, a gradient on a Fill Layer is editable, but a gradient on a pixel layer isn't. You have to start over to change it on a pixel layer.
(Appreciated, but that's not the original topic of this thread, Walt.
Layer effects such as Gradient Overlay also retain the editability of the gradient, even on a pixel layer.)
-
Hier fehlen noch verschiedene Informationen, um das Problem zu verstehen und eine Fernanalyse durchführen zu können.
Ohne mich mit Laserdruckern auszukennen: Das scheint mir eher ein Problem mit der Dokument- oder Schriftgröße zu sein, oder? Wie groß soll der gedruckte Text sein und in welcher Auflösung kann der Laserdrucker ausgeben?
Aber ab einer gewissen Größe sinkt die Qualität, das fällt bei sehr dunklen Farben wie K weniger auf als bei CMY, weil K an sich sehr deckend ist.–––
Various information is still missing here in order to understand the problem and be able to carry out a remote analysis.
Without knowing anything about laser printers: This seems to me to be more of a document or font size problem, doesn't it? How big should the text be printed and at what resolution can the laser printer print?
At a certain size, the quality starts to degrade, less so with very dark colours like K than with CMY, because K is very opaque in itself. -
Yes, you're both sort of right, and yes, I know you can edit the »mask« that way – still, that's not really the answer to my question (or maybe it wasn't that clear) why there isn't a regular mask like there is with all the other layers/filters. By the way, I'm not new to Affinity Suite at all, if that's what I came across. 😄
Also the way this mask works comes with several downsides:
- You can never see the actual mask without changing the colour to pure black and adding yet another pure white layer as a background. With any other mask, you can simply Alt/Option-click on the mask in the Layers panel to get a view of the actual mask, which you can then edit in black and white.
- You can't refine the »invisible mask« of fill layers like you can refine any other mask in the traditional sense. (I don't mean just draw/erase on it, but actually use the refine mask option, see the attached video at around 00:00:10).
- It behaves differently when applying a live adjustment/filter – here the marquee selection actually gets converted into a traditional mask instead of being applied invisibly to the adjustment/filter, like it does with fill layers. Interestingly, if you try to draw directly on a live filter, a common mask is added.If you try to draw directly onto a live filter it results into a general mask being added.
For me, the way a marquee selection works with a subsequent fill layer is just a logical break compared to how it works with other »special layers«.
If I want a layer that does not use a real mask and is pure colour, what is the advantage of a fill layer over a pixel layer in this situation? (Being able to change its colour or add a gradient isn't an advantage, because I could do that with a bucket tool or other filters just a quickly on a pixel layer.) -
25 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:
If you have a pixel selection active when you create a Fill Layer, the layer is restricted by the selection rather than filling the entire canvas. Is that what you're referring to?
I am a bit confused by your description, because (for me) the selection still exists, and the marching ants can be seen.
In any case, you might try this workflow instead:
- Click somewhere to dismiss the selection, or Select > Deselect.
- Create the Fill Layer.
- Select > Reselect.
Edit: Also, if you have created a Fill Layer that is restricted to the pixel selection, you can dismiss the pixel selection (Select > Deselect, for example) and then paint using a White brush to show more of the Fill Layer. Whenever you paint on a Fill Layer you are painting on its mask.
Oh, I never realised there's a Reselect option, interesting.
Anyway, according to this workaround, and with an active selection, that's 8 steps/clicks (Selection → Deselect; Layer → New Fill Layer; Selection → Reselect; Layer → New Mask Layer) instead of just 2 clicks via »Layer → New Fill Layer«, where (according to my previous habit, expected behaviour and the way it works in Photoshop), the new fill layer would get a regular mask instead of a hidden mask.
I'm not sure what else you'd call it than »hidden mask«, but here's an example file. It contains a single fill layer that was created with an active selection (marching ants). There's – to my knowledge – no way to remove or edit the »inivsible mask« for that fill layer.
Invisible/Non-Refinable/Immovable Fill Layer Mask
in Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
👏👏👏
That's what this whole thread was originally about. There's no way to move/refine a built-in mask by other means than drawing/erasing on it.