Masking Layer Fx in Affinity Photo 2

[Bill Carter]

Greeting!

Is it possible to separate the layer Fx which are applied to pixel layer to a new layer that only contains the Fx?

Here's my scenario... I do a ton of sports composites to create high end posters for schools. I shoot all subjects individually and composite them into backgrounds I create. Getting all the different hair colors to blend with the background is always a problem, but I had a very fast method for doing this in PS. I created my own custom actions (macros) to set it up, enabling me to fix this in around 1 minute for each individual. I have left Adobe after 18 years and would love to continue using Affinity, but just don't have time to spend 15 minutes on each individual team member doing things like this.

In PS I would:

1- Use layer Fx to apply an inner glow to the cut out subject, matching the average hair color. The effect or inner glow is applied to the entire subject, not just hair.

2- Choose the appropriate blend mode for the background (normally multiply, screen, or color depending on the background) and lower opacity for a very good blend with the background.

3- Right click on the Fx and choose "create layer", which would remove the Fx from the pixel layer and place it on a new layer above by itself. This also retained the blend mode selected when adding the Fx.

4- Clip the Fx layer to the subject layer below to constrain it.

5- Apply a blank mask to completely hide the effect, and paint in around the hair.

I have tried multiple ways to accomplish the same thing in Affinity Photo 2 and continue to come up short. So far the best way I can replicate this is to:

1-Create a duplicate of the subject (which greatly increases the file size)

2-Add the Fx on the subject copy

3- Create a new group and move the subject copy to this group, add a blank mask and paint in the effect where desired.

I do not get the same results. It just doesn't look as good. The Fx blend modes seem to behave slightly different. There is no way to keep or change the blend mode of the Fx since it's applied to the layer itself vs moved to a separate layer in PS to manipulate any way I want/need. There's not a great way to add a blur to the Fx. I think "the intensity slider sort of does this, but it's not quite the same when blending.

I am attaching a sample of the finished product jpg file from PS as well as the Affinity file showing what I did to replicate my workflow. I welcome any constructive advice to help an old guy set in his ways to find a new way to work in a great piece of software.

Hair masking test.afphoto

[Dan C]

Hi @Bill Carter,

Welcome to the Affinity Forums & our sincerest apologies for the delayed response here as our team are exceptionally busy due to our current 50% sale & extended trial offer.

In regards to Photoshop 'actions', you might want to check out Macros in Affinity Photo - as these allow you to record and replay a set of actions which may help speed up this workflow for you: 

 

However in regards to your specific workflow, unfortunately it's not possible to Mask FX only and not affect the pixel content - or have FX applied to a separate layer affecting the layer beneath, again without masking the pixel content also, our apologies.

Using your sample file, the only way I've been able to achieve this effect in Affinity is by using a duplicated version of the pixel layer. You can condense the layer setup slightly, but as shown 2 pixel layers are still required:

 
I hope this clears things up!

[Bill Carter]

Hello @Dan C!

Thanks so much for getting back to me and taking the time to work through this with me. I have already watched the macro video (and many others), and found it extremely helpful.

My biggest concern with duplicating the pixel layer is the file size. The majority of my poster files are already 4-6 GB with a ton of layers. Perhaps this is something that might be included on a future release. I find having the ability to separate the layer effect extremely useful for many things in a compositing workflow, especially when working non-destructively. I understand this is probably something that's a very niche need though...

Best regards,

Bill

[Dan C]

No problem at all Bill, I'm glad to hear this helped!

I certainly understand your concerns and this may be something our team can look to implement in the future ('Create Layer' from FX) therefore I'll move your thread to the Feedback section of the forums for our devs to see and consider.

I hope this helps

[smadell]

Good morning, @Bill Carter. Some time ago, I created a macro which does what you are looking for (at least in part). I don't remember where the idea came from, but it works fairly well.

In a nutshell, the following steps are taken. (1) A pixel layer is selected on which the Layer FX are to be used. In practical terms, this is usually going to be a cut-out from a larger image. (2) The FX are placed onto that original pixel layer. (3) The layer is duplicated and renamed Effects. The Layer FX, blend mode, etc are all duplicated. (4) All of the FX choices on the original layer are turned off. (5) On the duplicated layer, the Blend Options dialog is opened with the cogwheel icon, and the Fill Opacity is set to 0%. (6) The duplicated layer is rasterized.

The net result is two layers - the base layer is the original cut-out, without any of the Layer Effects, while the upper layer is a rasterized version of the effects without the pixels of the original cut-out. Obviously, the Effects layer can be masked as you like.

Known problems: The Bevel/Emboss and the 3D effects do not seem to like this process. The macro is not set up to handle multiple instances of any particular FX choice (for instance, if you clicked the + icon in Layer Effects to choose a second instance of an Outer Shadow, etc.) I suspect that you could overcome these problems by doing the process manually, but I haven't tried this. Also, since the Effects layer is rasterized, this is a destructive process. You could omit the rasterization, but my limited testing reveals that this creates some weird results if you also use a mask.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that adding a second pixel layer for the Effects will still add to the size of the document, but only in a minimal way since that pixel layer has been simplified by the rasterization.

I'm including the macro and a video below. See if this helps you.

 

 

FX to New Layer.afmacros

[Bill Carter]

Hello @smadell

Very kind of you to share this with me and explain the process! Much appreciated! I installed the macro and tested it out. This will definitely help speed up my workflow. I couldn't figure out how to eliminate the extra pixels I didn't need in my own workflow, so this is great. Thank you very much!!!

[smadell]

Hi, @Bill Carter. I rarely use this macro, but I’ve had it in my Macro Library for a long time. The original method came from a YouTube tutorial, though I don’t remember who the original author was. When I read your post, it reminded me that this macro was available, and I’m glad it’s been helpful. Enjoy it.

[Tiago]

The Macro was very useful, thank you