Content Overlay (Layer FX) - Less need to make Symbols!

[OdFori]

Hi,

I've made this request before, but I'll make it again briefly because I think it's important.

Why is there no 'Content Overlay' FX, like there is a Color Overlay and a Gradient Overlay.

With Content Overal FX you overlay the content over itself, with a different blend mode for example, and opacity, maybe some transform/offset controls.
This way you can mix blend modes without making Symbols all the time.

What do you think?
Thanks.

[Pšenda]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:11 AM, OdFori said:

'Content Overlay' FX

Is it possible to give an example of what this function should do? I somehow did not understand it from the description.

[Jowday]

On 12/12/2020 at 10:11 AM, OdFori said:

I've made this request before, but I'll make it again briefly because I think it's important. Why is there no 'Content Overlay' FX, like there is a Color Overlay and a Gradient Overlay.

With Content Overlay FX you overlay the content over itself, with a different blend mode for example, and opacity, maybe some transform/offset controls. This way you can mix blend modes without making Symbols all the time.

What do you think?

For several uses I think it is a good idea - fx for classic manipulations in Photo but probably many others.

[walt.farrell]

On 12/12/2020 at 4:11 AM, OdFori said:

With Content Overal FX you overlay the content over itself, with a different blend mode for example, and opacity, maybe some transform/offset controls.

Couldn't you just duplicate it, and change the blend mode or opacity of the duplicate?

[lepr]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:11 AM, OdFori said:

With Content Overal [sic] FX you overlay the content over itself, with a different blend mode for example, and opacity, maybe some transform/offset controls. This way you can mix blend modes without making Symbols all the time.

Workaround when you don't need transforms: simply nest a non-adjusting Levels (or some other) Adjustment with the required blend mode and opacity in the object. (Of course, actually using the Adjustment's controls and/or masking the Adjustment provides even more opportunities.) Please actually try this if you are tempted to assume it won't work.

When you do need a transform, ask, "Why on earth is there no live version of the Affine filter or the Equations filter?"  and then you could try messing around with the Live Perspective Filter for non-destructive transforms that can be given any blend mode and/or opacity. Careful, though, that live filter easily crashes the app.

[OdFori]

14 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Couldn't you just duplicate it, and change the blend mode or opacity of the duplicate?

Haha Walt, u oldskool right? Appreciate that.
I like to set up rough structures/compositions which I would like to improve incrementally with having to redo as little as possible while going into the details. 

14 hours ago, anon2 said:

Workaround when you don't need transforms: simply nest a non-adjusting Levels (or some other) Adjustment with the required blend mode and opacity in the object. (Of course, actually using the Adjustment's controls and/or masking the Adjustment provides even more opportunities.) Please actually try this if you are tempted to assume it won't work.

When you do need a transform, ask, "Why on earth is there no live version of the Affine filter or the Equations filter?"  and then you could try messing around with the Live Perspective Filter for non-destructive transforms that can be given any blend mode and/or opacity. Careful, though, that live filter easily crashes the app.

That's a great tip Anon,
It doesn't seem to exactly reproduce the same result as 'duplicating the layer/making a blendmode-varianced symbol of it on top', at least not in the way I tried it (regardless of changing the scope of the filter), I do not understand why, but I guess that's OK; this is no math we're doing here, that gives a lot of flexibility and freedom to try things out, without making symbols. Thanks.

[lepr]

8 hours ago, OdFori said:

It doesn't seem to exactly reproduce the same result as 'duplicating the layer/making a blendmode-varianced symbol of it on top', at least not in the way I tried it (regardless of changing the scope of the filter)

I have a suspicion of what may be happening in your test document since you are using Symbols, but please attach the document or a link to a download of it.

[OdFori]

On 12/14/2020 at 6:42 PM, anon2 said:

I have a suspicion of what may be happening in your test document since you are using Symbols, but please attach the document or a link to a download of it.

I did the test with picture frames and test images. Trying to mix the 'Lighten' with a 'Linear Light' on top with 58% opacity. Here's the sample file.

The first is copying the layer, and then two different tries with the adjustment layer method. The middle one fails I think because the scope of the 'Lighten' does not hit to the background.

 

didtestagain.afpub

[lepr]

I see your layering and blending structures are far more complex than just an image blended with itself. Each of your examples features three framed images, each image blending with its containing frame and then frames being blended with frames.

The blending operations are non-commutative. For example, the following two lines are not equivalent

A linearLight (A lighten B)

(A linearLight A) lighten B