copying a layer to use as a layer mask and adjust mask?

[lepr]

.

[Eric5]

Found a video on supposedly manipulating a mask with an adjustment layer.  Although it does address the other question I had about adjusting alpha only, adjustments are not affecting the mask at all... either in current retail Affinity, nor current beta.  I followed the exact procedure in the video!

[Eric5]

13 minutes ago, >|< said:

Both are possible. I already told you about setting the Curves or Levels channel to "Alpha" instead of its default of "Master" in order to adjust a mask. Regarding your first requirement, a mask can be made from any object by using Layer > Rasterise To Mask.

 

Yes you did, and thank you, however adjustment layers of mask using the exact method described are not working. 

[Eric5]

I can see the image thumbnail in the layers section changing as I change curves, however, the same is not happening to the main image, and it is the only layer selected currently with nothing above it.

[Eric5]

Anyone else experiencing this??

[JimmyJack]

10 minutes ago, Eric5 said:

Anyone else experiencing this??

I'm gonna guess that the adjustment isn't in the right spot. Care to post a screen grab of the layer stack? Or better yet the .afphoto file itself .... if it's not too big. (if it is big, how about a mock up using smaller "stuff")

[Eric5]

I can maybe try, but probably not until tomorrow.  I followed the video precisely, making sure the masks and adjustments were where they were supposed to be. 

[Eric5]

Attaching a quick screen capture video of what's happening.  The last thing I do is select the mask after curves and you can see that the mask was not changed. 

[Patrick C]

15 minutes ago, Eric5 said:

Attaching a quick screen capture video of what's happening.  The last thing I do is select the mask after curves and you can see that the mask was not changed. 

I'm not sure why it wasn't working on your end. I recreated what you were attempting here.

[lepr]

.

[JimmyJack]

What @>|< said.
You're masking an image (and refining that mask) to reveal the same exact image underneath.

Hide the background and play with the levels sliders (alpha) to see how you're really affecting the mask.

Edit: Whoops, jumped right to the last post and didn't see @Patrick C 's vid. That's what he was showing.

[Eric5]

Ok, thanks, all, looks like I got it.  The issues I still see here are 1) the awkwardness of getting this to work compared with how PS used to do it; 2) I still can't see how the mask itself is being changed by the curves, etc; and 3) I see no way to do things like gaussian blur or sharpening directly to the mask.  I can sharpen or blur the layer affected by the mask, but not the mask itself.  

I guess this is still usable, but hoped it'd be a lot simpler.  I still put a request in for them to change it to the way PS does it.  

Thanks again for all the help.   

[JimmyJack]

1 hour ago, Eric5 said:

Ok, thanks, all, looks like I got it.  The issues I still see here are 1) the awkwardness of getting this to work compared with how PS used to do it; 2) I still can't see how the mask itself is being changed by the curves, etc; and 3) I see no way to do things like gaussian blur or sharpening directly to the mask.  I can sharpen or blur the layer affected by the mask, but not the mask itself.   

1) agree
2) do you mean see a b/w representation of the mask itself? Then no, not when using an adjustment. You can see it if you're painting on it. If you want to see it as you work with adjustments you'll have to make a pixel layer from it, do your work and then rasterize that into a new mask. Certainly not a great solution.
3) you should be able to manipulate the mask with anything that has an Alpha component to it. I.E. all the blurs and distortion live filters..... (leave Preserve Alpha unchecked).
BUT..... I think there's a bug. You can't just drop these onto the mask while it's a child of something (sometimes it works?). More often than not though seems like you have to haul the mask out, apply the blur (etc) and THEN drop the combo back onto it's target. Clarity, unsharp mask etc don't see alpha, so, afaik, those won't work.... you'd have to do the same workaround  as in #2.

Having fun yet? Welcome to Affinity .

[Patrick C]

55 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Having fun yet? Welcome to Affinity .

They have a trial version exactly for the purposes of trying out the tools and seeing if the workflow will be appropriate for whatever kind of work you are doing.

Ive seen this trend of people (on this forum but also in life) gettig agitated and upset that things don’t fit exactly what they need, when they are often trying to do very specific things and want to do it in the quickest way possible with the least ammount of effort. While of course this would be ideal, you don’t get something for nothing.

Serif is a reatively minuscule company compared to Adobe and they are clearly trying their best to deliver an affordable product that has demonstrated its conpetency in doing a large percentage of what PS and AI can do, in its own way.

it is totally unrealistic to expect every single thing that is requested to be implemented in the way that suits your workflow, since everyone’s is different, and also because Serif is pretty damn small compared to Adobe (which has much less excuse for lack of features and usability of certain aspects of their software)

 

[JimmyJack]

14 minutes ago, Patrick C said:

They have a trial version exactly for the purposes of trying out the tools and seeing if the workflow will be appropriate for whatever kind of work you are doing.

Ive seen this trend of people (on this forum but also in life) gettig agitated and upset that things don’t fit exactly what they need, when they are often trying to do very specific things and want to do it in the quickest way possible with the least ammount of effort. While of course this would be ideal, you don’t get something for nothing.

Serif is a reatively minuscule company compared to Adobe and they are clearly trying their best to deliver an affordable product that has demonstrated its conpetency in doing a large percentage of what PS and AI can do, in its own way.

it is totally unrealistic to expect every single thing that is requested to be implemented in the way that suits your workflow, since everyone’s is different, and also because Serif is pretty damn small compared to Adobe (which has much less excuse for lack of features and usability of certain aspects of their software)

 

It was a wink. Not an angry face. Relax dude.

I disagree with the whole small company argument though. But you're right about one thing... either the software does or it doesn't.

[R C-R]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

I disagree with the whole small company argument though.

I think there is much more to it than that. They are trying to do something no other software developer is (to my knowledge) trying to do, that being developing a suite of apps around a common file format, including very high memory efficiency, the ability to run in a user-friendly way on systems with anything from the smallest laptop displays up to several of the largest external displays available, preserving as much as possible a high level of responsiveness regardless of how powerful the hardware is, & providing all that at a very affordable purchase price with very liberal licensing terms; plus offering world class, no B.S. customer support.

That is a very difficult thing for any software company, whether giant or tiny, even to think about trying to do, much less pull it off as well as they have.

[Patrick C]

2 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

It was a wink. Not an angry face. Relax dude.

I disagree with the whole small company argument though. But you're right about one thing... either the software does or it doesn't.

Sorry this wasnt directed at you so much as an observation on an attitude/frustration that I’ve seen from many users.