Fade To White...Possible?

[darita]

Let's say I have an image of a person standing in a field of grass.  I want to make an oval around him, then instead of a hard cutout, I want to have it fade to white outside the oval.  Is this possible?  If so, what are the steps, in AP or AD, although I prefer using AD and image may or may no be an actual photograph.

[toltec]

All in Designer

 

 

Draw an ellipse, right click on the layer, and Mask to Below.

 

Apply a Gaussian blur to the mask layer.

 

 

 

 

deer.afdesign

[darita]

Exactly what I wanted, but I've never done a Mask, so I'll give it a try.  Thank you!

[darita]

OK...tried it, but can't make it work.  Please, start from the picture of the deer in the field...then what?

[firstdefence]

Try this.

fade to white.mp4

 

[toltec]

6 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

Try this.

fade to white.mp4

 

Dear firstdefence

 

I was just trying to do a demo for the OP but ran across a problem (bug).

This is a screengrab.

 

This is the output.

 

When I exported the file as a JPEG, it ignored the mask.

 

It did the same thing in Photo 1.6.1.93 and Designer. 

 

Does it work for you?

[firstdefence]

Right It works for me because I created a pixel layer and filled it with white, if I leave the mask without the pixel layer filled i.e the mask with transparency around it, it ignores the mask, try your end. Rasterising the layer gets the correct result when there is no white pixel layer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[toltec]

I only got the thumbnail of the image. However, I tried exporting as a PNG and it worked fine. So I looked in the JPEG Export panel "More" and it is linked to this.

 

If I untick that, it works. Trouble is, that seems to be the default.

 

[firstdefence]

3 minutes ago, toltec said:

I only got the thumbnail of the image. However, I tried exporting as a PNG and it worked fine. So I looked in the JPEG Export panel "More" and it is linked to this.

 

If I untick that, it works. Trouble is, that seems to be the default.

 

 

Yep, unchecking that works also. I saved that as a Preset.

[toltec]

Just now, firstdefence said:

 

Yep, unchecking that works also. I saved that as a Preset.

 

I think a bug report is in order 

 

 

[firstdefence]

Sorry I was testing and thought all the images I added were superfluous after I'd rasterised the layer lol

[lepr]

.

[toltec]

39 minutes ago, owenr said:

 

The problem is known to the devs. The default in the latest beta and next retail version is for the option to be disabled. 

 

Ah, very good.

[darita]

On 2/16/2018 at 0:34 PM, toltec said:

All in Designer

 

 

Draw an ellipse, right click on the layer, and Mask to Below.

 

Apply a Gaussian blur to the mask layer.

 

 

 

 

deer.afdesign

Can you please be more specific in your explanation.  I'm not able to do this.  I've never done a mask before.  Thanks for your patience.

[toltec]

Yes sorry, I started but got sidetracked by a software bug.

 

A deer

 

An ellipse.

 

Note that the ellipse must have a fill colour. Any colour will do, but not transparent!

The ellipse layer must be directly above the image layer.

 

 

Right click on the ellipse layer and choose Mask to Below. 

Masked

 

Click on the ellipse layer thumbnail and apply a Layer Effect. Make sure you click on the Ellipse Layer thumbnail !!!

 

Menu Layer > Layer Effects

Or click on the fx button

 

 

Apply a Gaussian blur

 

 

Result

 

THERE IS A SOFTWARE BUG

 

If you try and save as a JPEG it doesn't work. The image is not masked.

 

You need to untick this first.

 

that option is in the More panel when you Export as a JPEG, (If you export as a JPEG).

 

Then it all works.

 

 

 

[Polygonius]

Thanks toltec - is there anywhere a comparison- guide of the kinds of "mask", except this JR video with the train. (This vid is good, but it does not cover aspects like here?)

I mostly do the the oppsite way: I "nest" the "picture" inside the shape, so the shape become a mask automatically.

On the first view it is doing the same, but it does not! The fx-blur in this method affects the picture itself (= the mask content) but in your way (really handmade-mask) the fx affected only the shape (the blurring image is a result because the shape-outside (mask) get blurred out? Did i get the point?

[toltec]

17 hours ago, Polygonius said:

 

On the first view it is doing the same, but it does not! The fx-blur in this method affects the picture itself (= the mask content) but in your way (really handmade-mask) the fx affected only the shape (the blurring image is a result because the shape-outside (mask) get blurred out? Did i get the point?

 

I think so.

 

It depends on what is the child layer, in this case the ellipse. If you nest an image, that is the child and the blur affects that.

[darita]

Thank you toltec!  Yes!  That works perfectly.