Mask image to content of layer only - not below

[DuncanL]

I want to add a vignette to a frame, but not to any content shown behind the frame layer (i.e. to not affect the photo "in" the frame.  I'm sure it should be possible,  but I'm failing to spot the technique.

Simple example - I want the vignette to darken the red frame bits, but not the stock photo behind.

Suggestions welcome, please  Thanks!

 

FrameQuestion.afdesign

[NotMyFault]

[DuncanL]

Hi.  Thanks - but that's the opposite of what I want to do!  That's applying the vignette to the picture - I want to apply it to the frame only, and not effect the image in any way.

[NotMyFault]

Well, just drop it to the frame instead of the picture.

[NotMyFault]

But this does not work as you are using a „Layer“.

suggest to simplify the design:

1. select all 4 rectangles
2. geometry->add
3. move frame out of Layer
4. nest vignette to layer with frame

Edited January 28, 2023 by NotMyFault
Added „not“ which was deleted by autocorrection.

[DuncanL]

Yes,  but that then effects the central image area as well whic I don't want.  That's the key here.
 

[NotMyFault]

It won‘t if you follow the steps exactly.

 

 

[DuncanL]

7 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

But this does work as you are using a „Layer“.

suggest to simplify the design:

1. select all 4 rectangles
2. geometry->add
3. move frame out of Layer
4. nest vignette to layer with frame

 

Ah ha!   OK.  So that's the effect.  I'm just trying to work out why that works and how to apply it to my actual case (where the frame is more complex and I can't just add all the bits together.

Thanks!

[NotMyFault]

Groups and layers (and symbols) are great in principle, but have some nasty quirks when using blend mode „passthrough“, or using anything having partial transparency or adjustments and filters affecting alpha channel.

I can’t say if there are more implementation bugs or more „surprising by design“ quirks.

[DuncanL]

Yes - so it seems I'll have to fake it with a separate layer that I merge all my frame elements into a single curve, make that black and use the vignette inside that that,  layering that over the real frame layer. and tweaking the transparency...  Bit of a pain, since if I change the frame I'll have to regenerate the fake mask frame oject,  but at least it works!

[NotMyFault]

19 minutes ago, DuncanL said:

Yes - so it seems I'll have to fake it with a separate layer that I merge all my frame elements into a single curve, make that black and use the vignette inside that that,  layering that over the real frame layer. and tweaking the transparency...  Bit of a pain, since if I change the frame I'll have to regenerate the fake mask frame oject,  but at least it works!

You can use 2 rectangles, create a compound shape, subtract mode for the smaller one.

in some designs simply use a rectangular shape with big stroke width and no fill.

Instead of separate „mask“ simply use a ellipse gradient fill with suitable colors. There are endless ways to achieve the same visual result. Try to find one which suits you workflow best.

 

[lepr]

59 minutes ago, DuncanL said:

my actual case (where the frame is more complex and I can't just add all the bits together.

Use your partially transparent "vignette" layer as a mask on an Exposure Adjustment, and put the masked Exposure Adjustment as the topmost object inside the Layer (or Group) containing the pieces of frame. That will restrict the adjustment to just the content of the Layer (or Group).

FrameAnswer.afdesign

 

[DuncanL]

14 minutes ago, ,,, said:

Use your partially transparent "vignette" layer as a mask on an Exposure Adjustment, and put the masked Exposure Adjustment as the topmost object inside the Layer (or Group) containing the pieces of frame. That will restrict the adjustment to just the content of the Layer (or Group).

FrameAnswer.afdesign

 

Genius!  That's what I wanted - works automatically with the frame content in a non-destructive way so I can change the content and it just reflects the change automaticcaly.

Thank you very much!  Not exactly an obvious solution,  but makes sense now I know