Temporarily showing layer mask

[DarkClown]

I wonder if there is a quick way to (temporarily) show a mask from any selected layer (e.g. as overlay like the quick mask). Just to control if you covered all required areas when painting a mask.

Cheers, Timo

[i5963c]

Not sure what you mean exactly. If you're painting on a mask, the mask layer must of course be selected (otherwise, you might paint on the pixel layer itself). Normally, you should then be able to see where you paint (with black, white or grey), isn't it? Where you paint, the image will become transparent. Sometimes, the visibility of the painted mask can be 'improved' when the opacity of the mask layer is modified.

I agree that it's not as intuitive as 'painting with an overlay', but, as far as I know, this is how it works in Affinity.

 

[Ron P.]

ALT or Option Click on the Mask thumbnail in the Layers panel, shows the mask in black and white.

[i5963c]

1 hour ago, Ron P. said:

ALT or Option Click on the Mask thumbnail in the Layers panel, shows the mask in black and white.

You're absolutely right, but I understood that @DarkClown wanted to see how the painting on the mask 'overlaps' with the pixel layer that must be masked. Alt/Option Click on the mask thumbnail in the layers panel only shows the mask layer (= layer isolation), without any info about the pixel layer for which the mask applies.

[Lisbon]

I wonder if there is a quick way to (temporarily) show a mask from any selected layer (e.g. as overlay like the quick mask).

Fill layer with 50% opacity.

Image: nguyenam03061999

[DarkClown]

1 hour ago, i5963c said:

You're absolutely right, but I understood that @DarkClown wanted to see how the painting on the mask 'overlaps' with the pixel layer that must be masked. Alt/Option Click on the mask thumbnail in the layers panel only shows the mask layer (= layer isolation), without any info about the pixel layer for which the mask applies.

That's my point! I know how to see the mask isolated, but I need it as an overlay on top of the picture. This is essential, when you work with frequency seperation and you add a gaussian blur over the low frequency. If you want to paint in the effect on the skin you need to know where the (filter)mask is already in place and where not.

The 50% Fill layer @Lisbon mentioned seems a valid approach (considering there seems to be no "easy" one-click feature) - but I don't get it to work. See attached screenshot. What do I do wrong? Is it because I'm working with a filter mask and not a layer mask (not sure if there's technically a difference). It would be nice to have a button like the "quick mask" that just turns an overlay on when you edit whatever kind of mask.

Cheers, Timo

[i5963c]

What you're doing 'wrong', is that - in your example - you actually haven't created a 'real' mask for the 'Low Frequency' layer. Indeed, adding a mask to this layer would apply transparency towards the layer below (i.e. the 50% opaque red Fill Layer), and make this underlying layer visible.

However, your 'mask' is actually applied to (embedded into) the 'Gaussian Blur' live filter layer. This 'mask' only defines where the blur filter applies, but it doesn't give any transparency to the 'Low Frequency' layer itself in order to make the underlying layer(s) visible. So, the 'Low Frequency' layer remains fully opaque, and, as a consequence, you can't see the 50% red Fill Layer...

You can 'circumvent' this somehow, by reducing the opacity% of the 'Low Frequency' layer, but as I said before, all this becomes quite complex. The (unfortunate) reality is that AP lacks a user-friendly way of painting masks.

If you require precise boundaries for masks, I believe that it's better to first create selections (via the available tools and/or via painting on the quick mask) and then create the mask, the adjustment layer or the live filter. When doing so, the mask, the adjustment layer or the live filter will automatically inherit the selection that is active at the moment you create them.

 

[Lisbon]

The 50% Fill layer @Lisbon mentioned seems a valid approach (considering there seems to be no "easy" one-click feature) - but I don't get it to work.

My suggestion doesn't work with embedded masks that come with adjustment layers.
Maybe there is a better approach that I haven't thought of.

---###---

This is not a solution. More like an exercise. Not practical.
Sorry. This is the best I can do.
Cheers.

[DarkClown]

11 minutes ago, i5963c said:

However, your 'mask' is actually applied to (embedded into) the 'Gaussian Blur' live filter layer. This 'mask' only defines where the blur filter applies, but it doesn't give any transparency to the 'Low Frequency' layer itself in order to make the underlying layer(s) visible. So, the 'Low Frequency' layer remains fully opaque, and, as a consequence, you can't see the 50% red Fill Layer...

Thanks for the explanation!

That's why I made the difference between "Layer Mask" and "Filter Mask" ... And for the frequency seperation I need a filter mask on the gaussian blur, since a layer mask gives me different results. As you mentioned already it gets pretty complicated - or better: a lot of effort for an often used task. Again and again and again Affinity is struggeling with efficient workflow.

Any idea how to convert the sdelection from the quick mask into a Filter Mask? It always converts into a Layer Mask 😞

Cheers, Timo

[DarkClown]

7 minutes ago, Lisbon said:

This is not a solution. More like an exercise. Not practical.

Sorry. This is the best I can do.

No need to apologise ... I appreciate your ideas!

[i5963c]

W.r.t. your question: yes, that's very easy in Affinity Photo. At least one thing that's super easy😀.

As said in my last message: I believe that it's most of the time better to start with selections, and then go to masks (if a mask is needed of course). Then the workflow becomes much more 'logic', and the selection options are broader then the precision that you can reach with painting...

Create the quick mask, and click on the live filter or the adjustment layer options. You'll have the 'filter mask' or the 'adjustment layer mask' immediately...

[DarkClown]

Ahh, my mistake ... it does not work, when the filter layer already exists ... you need to have the selection first and than add the filter to the layer to get the filter mask ...

[i5963c]

Yes, first making the selection, is the recommended way of working in AP, I believe, because the masks are then created fully automatically (normal layer masks as well as adjustment layer masks and live filter masks).

However, if the layer exists already, there is still the possibility to apply the active selection as the 'embedded' mask for these layers. This works (relatively easy, once you familiarize yourself a bit with the procedure) via the Layers and Channel panels. It's best to have your workspace defined whereby both panels are simultaneous visible (see e.g. the screenshot below):

• First (of course), create the desired selection (either via the select tools or via painting on the 'Quick Mask'), and make sure to deactivate (if needed) the Quick Mask.
• Activate the layer (to which you want to apply the mask, based on the selection made in the previous step) in the Layer panel (can be a pixel layer, an adjustment layer or a live filter layer).
• The Channel panel contains an entry for the 'Pixel Selection'. Right-click on this 'Pixel Selection' entry in the Channel panel, and select the 'Create Spare Channel' menu option. This adds a new entry to the (bottom of the) Channel panel (default name 'Spare Channel').
• Right-click on this new entry, and select the last menu option 'Load to XXX Alpha', whereby 'XXX' corresponds to the layer that was activated in step 2.

Your selection is now applied as mask to the active layer! So, in just 3 clicks you can apply a selection as mask...

[DarkClown]

Thanks for that explanation. That was new for me. Interesting ... and works fine! But surely not the intuitive way for the newbe

[i5963c]

You're welcome.

One more small remark/clarification: If - in step 2 of the process described above -, you would not have selected (yet) the (correct) layer for which a mask must be applied (e.g. suppose that you need a mask for a layer with name 'XXX', but this layer isn't selected), you'll notice that in step 4 of the process, you won't find the option 'Load to XXX Alpha'.

In such cases, you may find other 'targets' to load the Spare Channel (e.g. RGB channels).

If so, the only thing to do is to select the correct layer in the Layer panel (= step 2). Next, when right-clicking on the 'Spare Channel' entry in the Channel panel (= step 4), the 'Load to XXX Alpha' option will dynamically (= automatically) be included in the menu. This implies that it's also not necessary to repeat step 3 after a change in step 2. In fact, steps 2 and 3 can be performed in an arbitrary sequence. In my experience, this adds further to the 'flexibility' of this workflow solution.

I'm not familiar with macro's in Affinity Photo, so, I'm also unaware whether it would be possible to further 'automate' steps 3 and 4 via a macro. However, I don't believe it would bring sufficient performance benefits (searching and activating a macro would take longer...).

 

PS: The only thing that I find a bit annoying with spare channels is the way you can rename them. Technically, it's perfectly possible, but the user experience to do so (via a popup dialog box at the center of the screen), is (in my view) not very streamlined. In principle, 'renaming' of spare channels is not required for the described workflow, but nevertheless, I often consider it valuable (also for other use cases). I've raised a feature request to make it much more smooth (similar to renaming layers), but I'm afraid this is something that adds to a huge pile...

[i5963c]

1 hour ago, DarkClown said:

But surely not the intuitive way for the newbe

I agree, but it's the best that I have been able to distill as a workflow for masking, throughout the years that I've been using AP.

On the other hand, I must also admit that working with selections gives me more precise masks than working with a paintbrush on something like an 'overlay layer'. This last approach is what I (have to) do e.g. in Capture One (my RAW processor). It's indeed more intuitive, but unfortunately less accurate...

The ability to use all selection mechanisms as source for masking is a 'plus' for me (I've mentally changed my mind and forced my muscle memory into that logic). If the selections are created first, it works perfect. If the selection is created after the layer to be masked, I have my workflow as described in previous messages. The only thing that I could image as a further improvement on my process is the option to include the 'Load to XXX Alpha' option as a menu option in step 3 (i.e. when right-clicking on the 'Pixel Selection' channel). This would indeed avoid the need to perform the intermediate step to create 'Spare Channels'.

Taking into account that the codebase is available already (for Spare Channels), this should probably not represent a major amount of work, but as mentioned above, I'm afraid that such feature request will also just add to the pile for the devs...

 

[DarkClown]

Thanks again ... I figured that out already ... nothing is lost working this way. In contrary, you can add additional selections by generating more spare channels - and eventually merge these to a final channel that afterwards can be applied to a filter layer the way you described it. Quite handy if you know how to do it. I keep forgetting about the channels (certainly the alpha channel) and it's helpful beeing remindet to use them more often! Still - it could be easier to understand with less steps - and sadly it does add to a huge pile.

Thx again.

[DarkClown]

I use CaptureOne as RAW processor as well ... AP is only second step in postproduction

[DarkClown]

Biggest disadvantage of selection vs. instant masks is that you work binary with selections (selected - or not) - unlike with masks, where everything is based on a grayscale ...

[walt.farrell]

16 minutes ago, DarkClown said:

Biggest disadvantage of selection vs. instant masks is that you work binary with selections (selected - or not)

Not completely true, when you consider feathering, which in essence sets the alpha channel of the pixel selection, and thus affects the strength of adjustments or colors that you apply to the selected pixels.

I don't want to try to explain it any further, as I will probably express it incorrectly (and even what I've said is probably wrong in some way). There was a long discussion recently about terminology and what it means for a pixel to be "partly selected":

 

[i5963c]

I think you're (only) 'partially' right. When using the Quick Mask, you can also work with 'partially' selected pixels (by applying an opacity to the brush, equivalent to painting directly with gray on the mask layer). So, this looks similar to what you describe for 'masks'.

I normally want pixels to be either selected or not, with some feathering and 'refinements' at the borders. As far as I understand, this also translates into 'partial' selections for masks.

[i5963c]

2 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Not completely true, when you consider feathering, which in essence sets the alpha channel of the pixel selection, and thus affects the strength of adjustments or colors that you apply to the selected pixels.

@walt.farrell,

Your message crossed my reply. Coincidence...😀

[Wosven]

You've got also:

 

[Wosven]

And in use:

[DarkClown]

Thanks @Wosven ... but it seems this only works for layer masks - not for filter masks ... ?!