| » Forum Index » General comments » Topic: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask |
|
Posted on 01/07/09 3:56:56 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1871 Reply  |
The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Before I ask Adobe's top executives to exclude this archaic tool from rhe next version of photoshop--presumably CS5--I would like to know what this feature can do that the supremely fantastic Quickmask Tool cannot do? I supressed my natural antipathy towards the Layer Mask to see what advantages it had over the exhalted Quickmask Tool, and found none! On the contrary, I can actually see what I'm masking. And as for throw-away masking layers, one can do the same with Quickmask by simply duplicating layers, and selections. Michael 
|
Posted on 01/07/09 5:09:18 PM |
|
Nick Curtain
Model Master Posts: 1768 Reply  |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
I love LMs Michael, so please don't ask them to discard the mask on my account. I'd guess I speak for many others too. Both tools have their advantages and at the end of the day I doubt whether they would listen to you anyway. Why not concentrate your energies on your art instead. Nick |
Posted on 01/07/09 5:11:47 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7047 Reply  |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
They're very different tools, Michael. QuickMask is a great way of making selections, certainly, but only with a Layer Mask can you selectively hide parts of a layer. Duplication and selection? Much too clumsy. |
Posted on 01/07/09 10:12:30 PM |
|
Jota120
Ingenious Inventor Posts: 2615 Reply  |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Quickmask does not suite me too much i.e. I tend avoid. Layer Masks great  Gives me the precision and control I like. Have to work a bit hard though
Just personal view of course and we all do things differently in PS. Trevor |
Posted on 02/07/09 9:15:21 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1871 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
I doubt if they would listen to me Nick as there are too many old fogeys who are set in their ways, which is why I never had the slightest intention of writing to them. Regrettably, I have to (provisionally) disagree with Steve's remark "...but only with a Layer Mask can you selectively hide parts of a layer." the Quick Mask Tool can do everything that the Layer mask can do. It also can selectively hide multiple parts of layer, and yes, the marching ants can be removed simply by clicking View-Show-Selection edges (unchecked). However, Quick Mask can do something that the outdated Layers Mask cannot do, and that is to see what you're precisely doing by showing a translucent overlay (red)! Michael 
|
Posted on 03/07/09 05:45:12 AM |
|
Nick Curtain
Model Master Posts: 1768 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
OK Michael, so let's say you're blending two layers together, namelly hiding part of the upper layer to reveal the content of the one beneath. Painting on the mask in grey, or black at low opacity, will provide a real time view of what you're trying to achieve and is exactly the basis for your argument. It must be preferable to QM, which won't show you "what you're precisely doing" as it will merely offer the translucent red overlay, as you say. The LM can be adjusted infinately. In addition, by using the modifyer keys you can hide the mask temporarily, produce a selection from it and show a black and white interpretation, i.e. channel view, which can be painted on directly to tidy up any parts which have been missed, or you wish to replace. (But you don't need me to tell you that, I just mentioned it for the benefit of the less experienced, who may wish to experiment with this valuable addition to the tool box) Is this not preferable to producing a selection from which you will have to delete pixels?. Yes, you can save the selection and reactivate it, but what a 'clumsy' way of going about things and if that's your workflow, then you're quite welcome to it. Steve is spot on. QM drives a selection, it does not hide the layer. You ask any professional and they'll tell you that both tools have their own purpose and that they would not be able to work effectively without masks. I use QM very effectively, particularly when retouching eyes, to enlarge them, or enhance colour and I would not be without it. Why someone with your knowledge and experience feels it necessary to make such a sweeping statement, I just don't know, unless it's just for effect of course? "Before I ask Adobe's top executives...." ........ "I never had the slightest intention of writing to them". ???? If you don't like using masks, then put a bit of masking tape over the part of your monitor where they appear to cover them up and perhaps save a bit to stick over the keyboard, just in case you get the urge to write some more rubbish. |
Posted on 03/07/09 07:31:19 AM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7047 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Whoa! Steady on, chaps, or it will lead to fisticuffs! |
Posted on 03/07/09 9:26:36 PM |
|
Paul 2007 thru 2010
Lego Legend Posts: 361 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Layer masks were one of those Photoshop things I didn't understand and so never used and never learnt to use. I think it was Steve's book that really made me look deeper into PS. I used layer masks ALL the time. My favourite use for them is to reduce the influence of adjustment layers. I never EVER use the eraser now. It's always a layer mask. Just in case 
I only recently found out that you can shift click to turn them on and off and ALT click to actually SEE the mask. These two things made them even MORE useful. |
Posted on 03/07/09 11:11:15 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1871 Reply |
Ok, here comes the vindication and refutation...
Phew, just finished  ! Clearly, I have been put to a lot of trouble today by actually doing a whole day's work on the 15 images below, so with my surgeon's scalpel I'll go through this bit by bit to prove and vindicate my initial assertion.
The real issue here is to establish the fact that Quick Mask can indeed do everything that the Layer Mask can do; therefore, the issue here is not so much preference for either method ( I do concede a respect for the passion and love that most have for Layer Mask), but simply to indicate that there is an "alternative" method of masking. Nick, I'm so glad that you rose to the challenge with passion: I hoped against hope you would, for I needed to be absolutely sure that I had indeed eliminated everything that might conflict with my assertion. Your technical ability and artistic thoroughness is impressive, and I have learned a lot from you (now I'm giving away secrets); in fact, I usually wait for your entry first to see how you do things. 
I hope what I present to be both interesting and enlightening: For an image like this I would normally use the Magic Wand tool, or failing that , the very easy-to use Pen tool ( don't get me started, don't get me started), but the Quick Mask tool is under discussion here. The main methodology in the Quick Mask ethos is to quickly access the layers by manipulating the visibility icons of the layers concerned as well as duplications of selections, also further manipulation is achieved by using the opacity slider of the layers concerned. PLEASE NOTE to see the Layers panel and menus clearly, you'll will need to click on the image to read clearly. 
The second image--like the Layer Mask--shows what is happening in the Channels palette, and like the Layer Mask it too ( at this stage) can be modified ; however, by following the expedient of duplicating this channel layer one make further adjustments to the Quick Mask selection: 
The third image has been selected: 
The fourth image shows the option of switching of the "marching ants" and still have full functionality of the selection: 
In the image 5 we see no selection; however, any adjustments will still have an effect as seen in image 6: 
Finally, here is an example of some of the origianl shading being put back from a selection or selection backup by applying the Eraser tool. 
|
Posted on 04/07/09 00:25:41 AM |
|
Paul 2007 thru 2010
Lego Legend Posts: 361 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
You've not yet grasped the concept of layer masks Michael. Say you have done all of the manipulating you needed to do using your method. You send off a proof to whoever you are working for. They phone you up and say "did you know you have chopped the top of the angels left wing?" What do you do? With a layer mask you just go "click click" with the brush and there it is. What do you do? Do you need to start cloning from the un masked layer you kept? Layer masks are not just for cutting out. Below is an image I was playing about with some time ago. See how I have many layer masks. Each one still beautifully editable. I think Quick Mask is wrongly named. Personally I think Quick Selection would suit it better. After all, it is a QUICK way of making a selection. The selection can be used to make a mask if you want. 
See the layer mask next to the flag. It's partially the outline of the skyscrapers and partially a gradient. It stops the flag showing in front of the buildings and makes it fade out to the right. The flag layer is complete and if I decided later that I wanted the flag to fade out later, I just need to fix the gradient on the layer mask. "A Layer Mask is for life. Not just for Christmas." |
Posted on 04/07/09 06:27:38 AM |
|
Nick Curtain
Model Master Posts: 1768 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Michael Thank you for the kind compliments and apologies for being rather blunt. The tools are for different purposes and I think Paul as illustrated superbly the power of the Layer Mask. I think all we can do is use the method we prefer. Nick |
Posted on 04/07/09 4:04:51 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1871 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Paul Thanks for showing a great example of the kind of thing one can achieve without Layer Masks: in the image shown (quickly cobbled together) everything is reversable with duplicate selections as well as an infinite number of variations possible: 
You say, and I quote: "You've not yet grasped the concept of layer masks Michael. Say you have done all of the manipulating you needed to do using your method. You send off a proof to whoever you are working for. They phone you up and say "did you know you have chopped the top of the angels left wing?" What do you do? With a layer mask you just go "click click" with the brush and there it is. What do you do? Do you need to start cloning from the un masked layer you kept?" No! Not at all: with a duplicate selection" I just go "click click" with the Brush QM or Eraser (to paraphrase you  ). I did actually tried to explain this in the earlier sixteen shots.
I believe the human brain is still little-understood: one man's meat is another man's poison. But again thank to you Paul and Nick in untangling some of the mysteries of this subject. PS Without Steve's help over the years I would not have moved on to where I am now: I'm indebted to him for pulling me up, so I have the greatest respect for him. 
Michael
|
Posted on 04/07/09 6:12:11 PM |
|
Paul 2007 thru 2010
Lego Legend Posts: 361 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Well Michael. Layer masks are there if you need then. Please don't write to Adobe. I don't know what I'D do if they removed them from CS5 on your advice. |
Posted on 05/07/09 3:29:14 PM |
|
Paul 2007 thru 2010
Lego Legend Posts: 361 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
What makes you so driven Michael to not use the Layer Mask? I will agree that you can do most of the same things the way you do it. Yes you can go into QM and you can draw a gradient like you did on the flag so that id fades out nicely. The end result is no worse visually than using a LM. To keep the gradient you made for future use though, you have to either create a new channel or save the selection (which just creates a new channel). Then because you had to physically remove pixels from the flag layer to make it look like you wanted you also have to keep the original flag layer in case you want to go back and make changes. So that is an extra layer to keep and a selection to save. To ANYBODY who likes to streamline a work flow, when you discover you can use a layer mask that removed the need for keeping backup layers and having to separately save a selection why would they continue to use this other method. A Layer mask is just a grayscale image. How you create it is up to you. QM and LM are not mutually exclusive. There are many times I use QM to create a LM. QM is more of a "how you create it" thing where as LM is a "what do you do with it now" thing. An analogy.(maybe a poor one) Think of a layer mask as a Bank. Whether you earn your money working in an office or busking on the street you can still put your money in the same bank. With a bank you can pay direct debits and electronically transfer money. You cannot do that with cash. But if you need cash you can withdraw it. Likewise it doesn't matter if you create a selection with QM, magic wand, colour range, lasso, CTRL clicking a layer or the many other ways, you can still store that selection as a LM (simply by clicking the LM button). Plus you have the flexibility of the LM. You can view it solid, view it in red, delete it, disable it, copy it, CTRL click on it to make a selection. You are free to use what ever you want. The layer mask police will not come round and arrest you. I am just puzzled why you are so against layer masks. Can you please answer these specific questions Michael. I'd be happy to answer any of your specific questions if you want. 1) Why do you say layer masks are outdated? 2) What is it you feel the quick mask can do that a layer mask cannot? Be as detailed as possible. |
Posted on 05/07/09 11:51:49 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1871 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Paul, First of all I’m overwhelmingly flattered that you think that I would the slightest influence on Adobe’s Top Brass—think of the riots that would ensue if the unimaginable happened. In answer to your first question I would say at the time of saying that, I was unaware of the intensity of passion for the Layer Mask, and that to ask people who quite clearly love it to abandon it in favour of Quick Mask was asking too much. It clearly is not outdated! I was using hyperbole to get a response to my own unanswered questions. Essentially it was said because I found an equal alternative method that suited me better. However, in answer to your second question “ What is it you feel that the Quick Mask can do that a Layer can’t? Be as detailed as possible.” Needs some careful analysis to answer in full. Why am I different? Maybe because I’m left-handed, have only the sight from one of my eyes, or maybe many years ago I had a pituitary tumour surgically removed with subsequent radiation treatment—I don’t know. What I do know is that I’m not a big keyboard-shortcut enthusiast; I find it quicker (yes quicker!) and easier to access the main menu for most ( excluding frequently used main ones) of my commands. When I first started Photoshop, I accomplished everything I wished without going anywhere near the Layers Mask, and the Quick Mask process became the established norm. However, in order to get around to answering your second question, I need to start at the beginning of the image manipulation process within Photoshop: selection is the key here! It’s selection that we start with in most of our work—well at least in mine. I only use three selection tools: the Magic Wand, the Pen Tool, and the Quick Mask Tool. I have a massive hard drive and bags of power under the bonnet of my computer; therefore, multiple selections and multiple layers are not a problem; moreover, I’m able to activate or make visible or invisible as many layers as I wish, and with as much adjustments and formatting as I wish. For those—like me—who use this well-entrenched and well established routine will find getting from point A to point B the line of least resistance. Therefore, finally, to answer your question “ What is it you feel that the Quick Mask can do that a Layer Mask can’t? Be as detailed as possible.” There are two answers: although on paper they appear to be equals, it is my opinion that the Quick Mask red overlay makes the selection less strident and easier to use, and therefore easier on the eye than that of the Layer Mask. And finally my method is easier on the brain and eye than the apparent dislocated method of Layer Masks. Please note the second part of my answer is contingent on those of us who are used to using the non-layer mask method. |
Posted on 06/07/09 01:08:22 AM |
|
LonnieK
Diorama Dreamer Posts: 238 Reply  |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
I will agree that the ruby overlay view is quite helpful. Oftentimes, when I'm working with a layer mask, I tap the "\" (backslash) key which instantly toggles the mask to a ruby overlay. Very handy. |
Posted on 06/07/09 10:29:05 AM |
|
Paul 2007 thru 2010
Lego Legend Posts: 361 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Michael, thanks for taking the time to answer. I guess it's a case of do what you are comfortable doing. Photoshop is great for providing many routes to the same destination. I have learnt a few things because of this thread, so I am grateful to you for starting it. I have learnt that even though you may disable a layer mask, you are able to view it as a ruby mask and still edit it without it affecting the image. |
Posted on 07/07/09 7:22:19 PM |
|
Jota120
Ingenious Inventor Posts: 2615 Reply |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
Sorry not much technical stuff here from me, just my retrospective disposition. An interesting discussion. Very glad it did not go hot. Thanks for been open and candid comments from Michael and appreciate others views. I guess I stand by my original comments, though I did not add much to the discussion. Even so it was good to "revisit" QM positive aspects and supporters - Michael. Tools are tools. Our goal is to get to an end result, probably as easily and quickly as possible. We have our favourites and which we are most comfortable with. Even so I think we should give time to get familiar with others and "new" features (could be old, something we discover after prompted). Sometimes this pays off, others frustration or not suitable. Originally I wanted to get results in some areas with QM and other tools. They could not do reach my goal. Learning, continuing to learn the power of Masks with Channels/Alpha helps me reach them strongly. Frequent use, makes it more intuative and quicker. Tutorials, including Steve's of course, help this learning process, and most "The Friday Challenge". So Micheal, et al, I appreciate your position. But maybe when you have some free time revisit, explore the potential additional powers of Channels and Masks. CS4 even seems to make some aspects of Masks workflow quicker these days (They were missing before maybe?). If you get the results you want already, fine. Take it easy, we are all different, but share common things, at least wrt PS here. Trevor |
Posted on 19/02/10 05:21:11 AM |
|
Wideangle
* Posts: 12 Reply  |
Re: The long-awaited demise of the outdated Layer Mask
All in good fun...but we could all just get the plugin Fluid Mask Pro... Trump of all masking tools. Anton Seriously, I've made amazing selections out of hair on a solid background in less than 2 mins with defaut settings. |