[AP] Editing a gradient mask layer

[anon1]

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/18001-ap-editing-a-gradient-mask-layer/?p=82848

yeah, it´s because it´s not a vector layer but a mask

[crabtrem]

My error.  I thought the main problem was using the Rasterize to Mask function, which would have made the levels of the gradient fixed. If I'm not mistaken.  But if it is redrawing the gradient tool without it retaining the information of the previous gradient, I see your point.

[barninga]

mdb, i know how draw a rectangle and fill it with a gradient, using either the gradient tool or the fx gradient effect.

your comment suggests that the rectangle with the gradient can be used as a mask to transparency, without losing the non-destructive feature of the fx gradient.

however i don't understand how. do i have misunderstood your comment?

[anon1]

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/18001-ap-editing-a-gradient-mask-layer/?p=82879

 

"Not a solution for the mask but maybe an approach for certain conditions."

 

 

- actually it may have been slightly confusingly described by me because it does not directly correlate to the main question

[barninga]

you have been clear. it's me who forgot the first part of the discussion :)

thanks.

[JimmyJack]

Ha.... seems like two minutes ago when I replied.... and that was response #15  :D .

 

So, re-reading here.....

The problem is the rasterize to mask right? So don't do that. Don't use an "official" mask at all.

 

Do as MBd said. Draw a shape with a gradient in it (Color will not matter, only opacity. Blending mode won't matter either). 

Make the shape bigger than the canvas if you need it to be.

 

Then, instead of rasterizing, just drag that shape into the mask position of your image (vertical blue, not child). 

Gradient controls stay fully accessible/functional.

 

Poncho on green is the image. Transparency is revealing blue layer underneath.

(there's nothing in that top pixel layer....)

[crabtrem]

Not to continue on this track, but I wanted to know what you think about this.  I used Affinity Designer's transparency gradient tool.

 

 

[barninga]

@jimmyjack,

i just can't get it to work. please look at the attached screenshot. i'm sure i dragged the rectangle in the mask position (vertical bar), i repeated the step at least four times. i'd expect to see the image fading to transparency, but apparently the rectangle has no effect.

[barninga]

@crabtrem: good job indeed. it seems to work like expected. unfortunately, that toll is not available in affinity photo, or i can't find it...

[R C-R]

Clearly RCR is just asking why it is so, not that he can't get to his goal which btw is a simple image.

That isn't exactly true. My goal is to be able to control & edit where & by how much the opacity of the "Photo" layer changes without it affecting any other layer in any way. As I mentioned somewhere in this now lengthy discussion, this is a simplified version of a project I'm working on. There will be several other layers below the Photo layer -- the solid color one is just the 'base' layer.

 

I can see no way to do this other than by using a mask on the Photo layer. Since I want a nice smooth gradient effect, that seems to mean I have to rasterizing a greyscale gradient pixel layer to a mask & make it a child of the Photo layer. That of course makes it un-editable, which means I have to start all over again if I want to change the starting or ending point of the gradient, its endpoint greyscale values, or whatever. It also means I am working blind, unable to see the effect of my changes until I create the new gradient.

 

Using a gradient fill fx on the Photo layer creates an entirely different effect, as does using an object layer with a gradient fill.

[JimmyJack]

R C-R: see post #31. It works.

 

barninga: I didn't use a layer FX. Just draw out a rectangle and use the gradient tool in the tool bar.

 

(I'm trying to upload the example... stay tuned.)

My question NOW is why a 1000x667 px image (72) with only four layers is over 40 MB??!!  :wacko:

[R C-R]

Ha.... seems like two minutes ago when I replied.... and that was response #15  :D .

 

So, re-reading here.....

The problem is the rasterize to mask right? So don't do that. Don't use an "official" mask at all.

 

Do as MBd said. Draw a shape with a gradient in it (Color will not matter, only opacity. Blending mode won't matter either). 

Make the shape bigger than the canvas if you need it to be.

 

Then, instead of rasterizing, just drag that shape into the mask position of your image (vertical blue, not child). 

Gradient controls stay fully accessible/functional.

 

Poncho on green is the image. Transparency is revealing blue layer underneath.

(there's nothing in that top pixel layer....)

Maybe I am missing something but I don't get anything like the effect I want. See attached:

Edited February 13, 2016 by R C-R

[JimmyJack]

can you upload your file? 

 

I'm having forum issues at the moment.

 

Edit: remember the gradient is ONLY about opacity settings. Gray/color value means nothing.

You can still put some color in there if you want, in order to see what you're doing better when not in mask position.

[R C-R]

The file is on page one of this topic, in the third post.

 

I'm having forum issues as well. It took several tries to upload the two screen shots in my last post. One is with the shape layer as a child, the other as a mask. Note that in the mask layer one there is no effect on the transparency of the photo layer.

[crabtrem]

So I'm completely lost.  So I created this just now.

 

 

But I am assuming this is not what is being looked for.  But I thought I would show it before I dropped this thread.  Plus I did it in Affinity Designer. 

Sorry if I caused any confusion.

 

[JimmyJack]

:)

 

Something like this? Same rectangle for both. Change from one gradient to another. Add/delete nodes. Change values. Whatever.

 

Don't use a "mask". Use a rectangle/shape as a mask.

I had it in parentheses in an earlier comment so maybe you didn't see it, so I'll say it again...

In the gradient: white/black values (or any color) will not matter, only opacity. Blending mode won't matter either

Fade example jj.afphoto

[R C-R]

Something like this? Same rectangle for both. Change from one gradient to another. Add/delete nodes. Change values. Whatever.

As soon as I change your rectangle layer from conical to linear, it stops having any effect on the layer it is a chid of (the one labeled "photo") -- no color change, no opacity effect, nothing. Changing it back to conical does not return it to the original conical size either.

 

This is basically the same thing that happened when I started with a rectangle layer filled with a linear gradient & added it to the photo layer as a child.

[JimmyJack]

Not sure where the disconnect is....

 

Switching back and forth between gradient types won't keep the original setting, but it will transfer any changes done from one to the other. 

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

I'll make a video.

[R C-R]

If you make a video, please start with a linear gradient.

[JimmyJack]

I should have said: the aim of the vid is to create a gradient fade to transparency... while maintaining gradient editability.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Ztfe5wmHQ

[anon1]

JimmyJack? You know what? you´re awesome! 

Can´t believe it´s that easy. I´ll remember it for the rest of my life!

And also big thanks to the Affinity team for making this possible!

[R C-R]

I should have said: the aim of the vid is to create a gradient fade to transparency... while maintaining gradient editability.

 

Thanks so much for this! The key thing I was missing, even though you explained it clearly, was to alter the opacity of the gradient nodes. That was the disconnect -- somewhere in my addled old brain every time you mentioned opacity for some reason it interpreted that as greyscale.

 

Your timing could not have been better, too. As some might have guessed, this project is for a Valentine's Day card for a friend of mine to give to his wife. Sunday is Valentine's Day in the U.S. so I have just enough time to finish it.

[barninga]

@jimmijack, that's great. thanks for the video and your time. me too, i was trying to use the rectangle as it was a layer mask, where the grayscale per se would achieve the effect. the point was nodes opacity instead.

[R C-R]

JimmyJack,

 

Since this is such a great technique (& at least a couple of us had trouble understanding how to use it) please consider posting a description of it & a link to your video in the Tutorials section of the forum.

 

And again, thanks so much for creating the video.

[dhayton]

Dear all,

Sorry for coming late to the conversation. JimmyJack's solution and video are great. When I need to do this, I simplify his approach by doing one thing differently.

 

On his video, at the 30 second mark, he creates a new shape over the top of the photo, and then adds the gradient to that shape. He points out that the colors of the shape don't matter.

 

For me, the easier way is: rather than create a new shape, select the photo, create a new empty pixel layer (cmd-shift-n), which should appear above the photo (if you have the photo layer selected), and create your gradient.

 

Adjust as necessary and then drag to the "mask position" (JimmyJack's expression).

 

I like this method because it removes the need to ensure that the shape is the right size, it removes the whole color thing (that JimmyJack rightly points out don't matter, but I find them distracting), makes it easy to adjust the mask layer to add the gradient to just portions of the photo.

 

I've added a video for my approach here:

https://vimeo.com/155218897

 

Best,
Darin