Applying an adjustment layer only to ONE layer

[CaroleA]

I am using Affinity Photo 2.6 on Windows 10.

If I want to "clip" an image to a shape, I know how to do that by dragging and dropping the image onto the shape layer. The image then becomes part of a "group".

If the starting shape is grey (for example) and I want to darken/lighten it, I can use an Adjustment layer. To apply that adjustment only to the starting shape, I can drag and drop it onto the shape layer. However, in that case, I end up with an adjustment layer that applies to the image, and not the starting shape.

Is there a way to lighten/darken/modify the starting shape, without affecting the image itself?

Maybe there is just a setting that I am missing?

[Alfred]

3 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

If I want to "clip" an image to a shape, I know how to do that by dragging and dropping the image onto the shape layer.

As you say, dragging the image and dropping it onto the shape layer clips the image to the shape. The other way to do it is to crop/mask the image by dragging the shape and dropping it onto the thumbnail of the image layer.

[CaroleA]

4 minutes ago, Alfred said:

As you say, dragging the image and dropping it onto the shape layer clips the image to the shape. The other way to do it is to crop/mask the image by dragging the shape and dropping it onto the thumbnail of the image layer.

My issue is not about the image being clipped but the starting shape that I want to "modify" without that affecting the photo.

For example, if the starting shape is too light, darkening the SHAPE would help show off more of the image (or lightening it would make the image fade away) but i don't want to photo itself to be darker/lighter, just the starting shape.

[RE4LLY]

You just have to change the stack order of the adjustment layer in your layer stack.
In the group pull down the adjustment layer below the layer of your image and it will only affect the parent pixel layer.
You can also achieve that by selecting your adjustment layer and go to Arrange -> Move to Back.

[CaroleA]

4 minutes ago, RE4LLY said:

You just have to change the stack order of the adjustment layer in your layer stack.
In the group pull down the adjustment layer below the layer of your image and it will only affect the parent pixel layer.
You can also achieve that by selecting your adjustment layer and go to Arrange -> Move to Back.

That is great. Thank you for that answer.

I think I might be completely off base in my initial question though, so someone can correct me.

I thought that clipping an image to a shape would behave like a mask, and the level of grey would determine how much of the image is shown or not. Apparently, that is not the case, and when clipping to a shape, the color has no impact.

Maybe I would then, need to use a mask to turn that grey shape, into a "window" to see the image through, and then, that mask can be adjusted. 

Is that how I should do it?

[RE4LLY]

10 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

That is great. Thank you for that answer.

I think I might be completely off base in my initial question though, so someone can correct me.

I thought that clipping an image to a shape would behave like a mask, and the level of grey would determine how much of the image is shown or not. Apparently, that is not the case, and when clipping to a shape, the color has no impact.

Maybe I would then, need to use a mask to turn that grey shape, into a "window" to see the image through, and then, that mask can be adjusted. 

Is that how I should do it?

You are not completely off base, you can use the parent layer to determine how much of the clipped image you see but its not the lightness or darkness that determines it but rather the opacity. So in your case it would probably be easier to just use your pixel layer as a mask instead of a clipping layer.

However if you rather want to stick with using a clipping layer you could use a vector shape instead of your gray pixel layer with an applied opacity gradient which you can then adjust freely without even needing an adjustment layer.

[CaroleA]

1 minute ago, RE4LLY said:

You are not completely off base, you can use the parent layer to determine how much of the clipped image you see but its not the lightness or darkness that determines it but rather the opacity. So in your case it would probably be easier to just use your pixel layer as a mask instead of a clipping layer.

However if you rather want to stick with using a clipping layer you could use a vector shape instead of your gray pixel layer with an applied opacity gradient which you can then adjust freely without even needing an adjustment layer.

Thank you. I am just trying to figure out how to use layered templates for digital scrapbooking. They often come with grey shapes (and sometimes, they are not well defined or have feathering). So, the "easy" way is to clip the image to it, but if one wants/needs more flexibility to adjust the initial shape, using the mask approach might be better.

In the end, both methods would work, but one would allow more options.

[CaroleA]

Adding to this conversation. Clipping an image and masking an image might have some similarities, but when starting with an existing "shape", I am not sure how to get to the "mask" format.

If I have a shape that I want to use as a mask, and is grey, like this:

Once I use it on the image below, that "mask" becomes white:

So, this is not really a mask (it still shows as a pixel layer) and is not behaving like a mask either.

How do I turn that initial shape (as a pixel layer) into a mask to apply to that image?

[prophet]

10 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

How do I turn that initial shape (as a pixel layer) into a mask to apply to that image?

Layer > Mask to Below

[CaroleA]

8 minutes ago, prophet said:

Layer > Mask to Below

That does not seem to do anything different, as it is still a pixel layer:

[Alfred]

23 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

So, this is not really a mask (it still shows as a pixel layer)

A mask can be vector or raster.

25 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

How do I turn that initial shape (as a pixel layer) into a mask to apply to that image?

I’m not sure what you expect to see. The (pixel/raster) shape is being applied as a mask, so that you only see the parts of the image corresponding to the white parts of the mask.

[CaroleA]

1 minute ago, Alfred said:

I’m not sure what you expect to see. The (pixel/raster) shape is being applied as a mask, so that you only see the parts of the image corresponding to the white parts of the mask.

I am hoping to see a mask layer that I can paint on, to add to with black and white.

With the pixel layer, how much is seen through depends on the opacity and not the level of grey so it feels harder to adjust.

Is there a way to start with that pixel layer "blob shape" and turn it into an actual mask layer?

 

[lepr]

53 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

Is there a way to start with that pixel layer "blob shape" and turn it into an actual mask layer?

The command is Rasterise To Mask.

[CaroleA]

4 minutes ago, lepr said:

The command is Rasterise To Mask.

I guess it does not do what I am hoping because once that is a mask, it does not show the image through like a mask would.

Here is before it is turned into a mask:

but once it is a mask, my image disappears (almost):

Either I am missing a step/setting OR I am not understanding how a mask should behave.

Can someone clarify this for me? 

I am very familiar with masks in PaintShop Pro (which does not have clipping) but this additional feature of clipping in Affinity, although it is fantastic to me, just makes me confused as it is only somehow similar to masks.

Thanks for your patience.

[Alfred]

24 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

Here is before it is turned into a mask:

You’ve shown it acting as a mask! If you look at the Layers panel, you can see that the shape is nested so that the visible parts of the coloured image correspond to the white areas in the mask layer. Drag that layer above the pixel ‘Background’ layer (so that nothing is nested) and then — while it’s still selected — invoke the ‘Rasterize to Mask’ command.

[CaroleA]

6 minutes ago, Alfred said:

You’ve shown it acting as a mask! If you look at the Layers panel, you can see that the shape is nested so that the visible parts of the coloured image correspond to the white areas in the mask layer. Drag that layer above the pixel ‘Background’ layer (so that nothing is nested) and then — while it’s still selected — invoke the ‘Rasterize to Mask’ command.

I might be dense, but even if I do the Rasterize to Mask, it still does the same thing. 

I am confused why that black "shape" is turning into such a faint mask. 

I would have expected it to turn either black or white.

Digging further, I think I found an explanation: the starting shape has transparency around the shape. If that layer is merged with a white layer, the resulting MASK is what I expected. So I think i have a partial solution.

Is there a simple way to turn that shape layer into a layer without transparency (other than add a layer, fill the layer and merge the two together)?

[Alfred]

37 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

Digging further, I think I found an explanation: the starting shape has transparency around the shape. If that layer is merged with a white layer, the resulting MASK is what I expected. So I think i have a partial solution.

Good sleuthing!

38 minutes ago, CaroleA said:

Is there a simple way to turn that shape layer into a layer without transparency (other than add a layer, fill the layer and merge the two together)?

I can’t think of a simpler way. You could export to JPEG (an image file format that doesn’t support transparency) and then place the result in your document, but that seems at least as complicated as your ‘merge with a white layer’ method.

[CaroleA]

@Alfred Thanks for confirming this.

[keiichi77]

On 4/16/2025 at 8:11 PM, Alfred said:

A mask can be vector or raster.

A mask cannot be vector. A vector layer can be used as a clipping 'mask'
Rasterize to mask is a defected command. You can only use it with layer with black background and white foreground shapes, if you use it on a layer with transparent background and black graphics, it will end up filling the background with black tint so the whole mask will be a black fill.
This tool is just plain stupid. And the whole masking system is full of bad ux decisions.

If you want to convert your layer into a fully working and recognizable masking layer you have to open the channels, and on the bottom part you can find a pixel alpha channel and its context menu has the create mask layer option. This is what you are looking for. I don't understand, why affinity cannot create a simple context menu item from this, it is a convoluted way of creating a simple mask.

[Alfred]

6 minutes ago, keiichi77 said:

A mask cannot be vector.

A mask determines what is visible and what is not. This can be achieved with raster or vector objects.

Affinity Photo 2 Help: Layer masking

11 minutes ago, keiichi77 said:

Rasterize to mask is a defected [sic] command. You can only use it with layer with black background and white foreground shapes

Have you ever tried to use it with grey or coloured shapes?

[CaroleA]

1 hour ago, keiichi77 said:

If you want to convert your layer into a fully working and recognizable masking layer you have to open the channels, and on the bottom part you can find a pixel alpha channel and its context menu has the create mask layer option. This is what you are looking for. I don't understand, why affinity cannot create a simple context menu item from this, it is a convoluted way of creating a simple mask.

Could you be more specific (or give me a visual)? I cannot see where to "open the channels", and find "pixel alpha channel".

[keiichi77]

I mean the Channels panel. Window / Channels

[CaroleA]

16 minutes ago, keiichi77 said:

I mean the Channels panel. Window / Channels

Ah, thanks. I guess it does what I am expecting, but far from being intuitive! Now that I know, I MIGHT use that, but it does seem a bit convoluted for something that should be (at least, in my head) simple.

[keiichi77]

You can record a macro, and name it like create mask, and you can add it to the Library panel, so you don't have to search among alpha channels. There is no way to add hotkey to macros 😒, so if you use the Library panel frequently and you keep it on your workspace then it is one step less procedure.

[CaroleA]

23 minutes ago, keiichi77 said:

You can record a macro, and name it like create mask, and you can add it to the Library panel, so you don't have to search among alpha channels. There is no way to add hotkey to macros 😒, so if you use the Library panel frequently and you keep it on your workspace then it is one step less procedure.

Yes, I could do that. I was just looking for a "simple command", that just does not seem to exist (yet).

Thank you.