A shadow scope-missing 'layer mask hides effects' of discoloration in CS5

Similar Questions

• Is there an equivalent for Photoshop adjustment layer masks After Effects?

  I have a clip showing the clouds in a blue sky and the Valley in the bluish shade, and I want to darken the blues of the sky without affecting the Valley. Effects such as Hue/Saturation or curves produce good results on the sky, but apply to the entire composition.

  In Photoshop I would just do something like painting a gradient on the adjustment layer mask, but I don't see an equivalent in after effects CC2015.2 and wonder if I forgot something. Pointers?

  John

  Mast track controls are in the Modes Panel. The second icon in the lower left corner of the timeline will reveal the switches and modes column in the timeline panel, or you can press F4 to switch between them. If the second icon is not selected, then you should also see a switch at the bottom of the column switches switches/Modes.

  Here's how I would setup a colour correction in this train yard shot to put a glance Kodachrome faded on the bottom of the frame without turning the yellow sky.

  

  If you look very carefully between the cars, you can see the start and the end points for my gradient.

• Script to create a shadow over each layer mask layer in my document

  I tried to find out how this script, but I'm really new script and he couldn't understand. I would like to a script that would create a layer clipping above all layers mask in the document. So, it would create a empty new layer above each existing layer, rename the new layer based on the layer it's on top of + a suffix and apply a clipping for new layers mask.

  So, if I had a PSD file with the following layers:

  Layer has

  Layer B

  Layer C

  the layers that results would be:

  Layer A_clip

  Layer has

  Layer B_clip

  Layer B

  Layer C_clip

  Layer C

  Any help would be appreciated.

  Thanks to mike hale and paul riggott.

  2015, use it at your own risk.

  #target photoshop

  If (app.documents.length > 0) {}

  app.activeDocument.suspendHistory ("Add clipping of the hidden layers", "restart ()");

  };

  service restart () {}

  //////////////////////////////////////////

  var theLayers = theLayerNames ();

  //////////////////////////////

  for (var m = 0; m< thelayers.length;="" m++)="">

  newLayer (theLayers [m] [1], theLayers [m] [0] + "_add")

  };

  //////////////////////////////

  $. gc();

  };

  ////////////////////////////////////

  function theLayerNames () {}

  the file;

  myDocument var = app.activeDocument;

  get the number of layers;

  Var ref = new ActionReference();

  ref.putEnumerated (charIDToTypeID ("Dcmn"), charIDToTypeID ("Ordn"), charIDToTypeID ("Trgt"));

  var applicationDesc = executeActionGet (ref);

  var number = applicationDesc.getInteger (stringIDToTypeID ("numberOfLayers"));

  treat the layers;

  var theLayers = new Array;

  for (var m = 0; m<= thenumber;="" m++)="">

  try {}

  Var ref = new ActionReference();

  ref.putIndex (charIDToTypeID ("Lyr"), m);

  var layerDesc = executeActionGet (ref);

  var layerSet is typeIDToStringID (layerDesc.getEnumerationValue (stringIDToTypeID ("layerSection")));.

  isBackground var = layerDesc.getBoolean (stringIDToTypeID ('background'));

  If the layer group not collect values;

  If (layerSet! = "layerSectionEnd" & layerSet! = "layerSectionStart" & isBackground! = true) {}

  theName var = layerDesc.getString (stringIDToTypeID ('name'));

  theID var = layerDesc.getInteger (stringIDToTypeID ('layerID'));

  var theOpacity = layerDesc.getInteger (stringIDToTypeID ('opacity'));

  theLayers.push ([theName, theID, theOpacity])

  };

  }

  catch (e) {};

  };

  return theLayers

  };

  create new layer.

  function newLayer (theID, theName) {}

  Var ref = new ActionReference();

  ref.putIdentifier (charIDToTypeID ("Lyr"), theID);

  var / / desc = new ActionDescriptor();

  desc.putReference (charIDToTypeID ("null"), ref);

  desc.putBoolean (charIDToTypeID ("MKV"), false);

  try {}

  executeAction (charIDToTypeID ("slct"), desc, DialogModes.NO);

  } catch (e) {};

  // =======================================================

  var idMk = charIDToTypeID ("Mk");

  var desc5 = new ActionDescriptor();

  var idnull = charIDToTypeID ("null");

  ref2 var = new ActionReference();

  var idLyr = charIDToTypeID ("Lyr");

  ref2.putClass (idLyr);

  Desc5.putReference (idnull, ref2);

  var idUsng = charIDToTypeID ("Usng");

  var desc6 = new ActionDescriptor();

  var idNm = charIDToTypeID ("Nm");

  desc6.putString (idNm, theName);

  var idGrup = charIDToTypeID ("group");

  desc6.putBoolean (idGrup, true);

  Desc5.putObject (idUsng, idLyr, desc6);

  executeAction (idMk, desc5, DialogModes.NO);

  };

• Script to add the layer mask to all layers but the background?

  I have been a professional editor/Retoucher for photographers for the past three years. I use a lot of stock, but I've never branched in scripts so far. I am trying to refine my workflow and scripts to not appear to be the next logical step.

  I do a lot of work in the interiors, which is essentially manual HDR. Here's my current generation process, which I would love to find a way to script. I tried to be very clear, but let me know if it needs to expand. I use Photoshop CS5.

  1. pull brackets, color corrected TIFF in Bridge.

  2 re-order as needed, with the main exhibition downstairs. Click on 'Tools' > 'Photoshop' > 'Charge in the form of layers Photoshop"to get a PSD with layers in the correct order and main as exposure layer from bottom (base).

  3. manually go through each layer and add a layer mask hide all each layer except the background layer.

  4. Save as a PSD, using the original name of the background layer as the file name. To do this, I just copy the name of the layer (example.tiff), paste in the Save dialog box and then use the drop-down menu to select PSD (save as example.psd).

  I hope to automate steps 3 and 4 as they are the majority of your time for me. Any contribution is appreciated!

  Thanks again.

  Yes, your change is good.  This way the last layer will not have a mask applied.  I wasn't sure if you wanted that, but in the control for the background layer.

  Regarding the economy, what file format would you save on?  Here's how to save a psd:

  docRef var = activeDocument

  var doneFolder = new Folder('/c/photos/')

  var NomCouche = docRef.activeLayer.name

  var psdOptions = new PhotoshopSaveOptions();

  psdOptions.layers = true;

  app.displayDialogs = DialogModes.ALL;//include this line if you want that the coming dialog box.

  docRef.saveAs (new file (doneFolder + "/" + NomCouche + ".psd"), psdOptions);

  app.displayDialogs = DialogModes.NO;//Resets at ALL - you won't let it work on.

• Is there a way to apply the shadow to a masked image effect?

  Is there a way to apply the shadow to a masked image effect? (Hidden through the default effect video opacity). When I try to do, the shadow effect applies to any image not only the hidden portion.

  I have not messed with the masks very well, but you're right. The shadow does not work on a masked image.

  I got it to work if by nesting the masked image.

• Layer masks and blending modes

  I read on the layer blending modes in Photoshop CS6: The Missing Manual, p.121.  They talk about setting exposure using the blending modes, and they show how to darken an image by using the following procedure.  (1) activate a layer, (2) create a mask of levels, (3) the blending mode of the layer to multiply the value.

  My impression is that blending modes change how the pixels on one level interact with the pixels on the next lower level; that is, it implies there are at least two layers of the image.  So I'm not surprised that if I have a single layer without a mask and I change the blending mode from normal to multiply, it is without effect, probably because there is no immediately lower level to allow interaction.  However, if I have a single layer and create a layer mask, then changing the blending mode from normal to multiply darken the image.  That must involve the pixels of the layer are interacting with transparent pixels on the mask.  What?

  Can someone explain what is happening in reality not here?

  Use layer blending modes, you need to the two layers less.

  As you mentioned above:

  '(1) activate a layer, (2) create a mask of levels, (3) the blending mode of the layer to multiply the value'

  step 2 means create a levels adjustment layer that comes with a default mask if you want to make local adjustments.

  in this case, if you have a layer and add an adjustment layer, it works as if you duplicate the layer.

• "Select inverse" equivalent - or a clipping on the top layer mask

  Hiya.

  I'm looking for something in Illustrator that would allow me to do the equivalent of what a "select inverse" then delete, or would a "layer mask" in Photoshop. I haved tried various combinations of clipping mask and dedicated way without any acceptable results.

  
  

  included is a screenshot of what I'm talking about:

  

  I was given this file and it's messy. I am wanting to delete all points except those on top of the layer gradiented.  (as this second picture).

  

  There is no living text. Currently, gradiented layer is separated the two layers and it has a line on that. Each wee point is its own form now too.

  When I tried clipping or transparent traces or various pathfinder effects masks I ended with results that look like this:

  

  I am so at a loss for what to do. I tried moving layers around - which is at the top, which is located on the bottom. I tried to remove the red and black shadow-ish layers below; all sorts of other miscellanopus and so forth as well.

  Any help would be simply amazing!

  1. Select all tasks and 'group '.
  2. Select the gradient objects and "copy".
  3. Stick in front of the Group Spot
  4. Make work path transparent "(Cmd/Ctrl + 8)"
  5. Small group composed of path and tasks
  6. Take the clipping mask (Cmd/Ctrl + 7)

• Display problem in 16-bit mode of layer mask

  With the new version of CC 2015 of Photoshop, I came across a weird problem in layer mask mixture. Here is an example, what it looks like:

  

  I opened a raw file (.dng) from Lightroom (16 bit, ProPhoto), created a black layer mask and began to paint with pure white. As you can see, the transparency model in the background is always visible, even if the density of the mask is 100% and the white brush was normal and opacity and flow were both 100%. The white layer mask doesn't seem to be completely opaque.

  But it's more weird. Then, I put two rectangles in the image. This is the checkerboard disappear, but the color of the rectangles has no effect on the image on the top. So the white layer mask is opaque and not fully opaque at the same time!

  I then saved the image in jpeg format and the picture looked like it should be there:

  

  Apparently, the question has something to do with rendering on screen, not the content of the actual image. I also noticed, that changing the picture mode to 16 bits to 8 bits makes the disappearance of the problem. But as I also pay for the 16-bit mode, I would use it...

  Everyone found this and you are able to reproduce this behavior? Or am I missing some setting somewhere? Can anyone suggest a solution, or should I just wait patiently as the bug fix?

  Layer masks and alpha channels are all 8 bits, regardless of the number of image bits.

  What you have tried to solve this problem?  Your video card driver is entirely up to the site of the manufacturer of the card?

  What operating system do you use?

• Gum changing from white to black on the layer mask, leaving the image transparent.

  I used the following method in CS5 to erase parts of a layer/bring these pieces back again if necessary. It works in the same way after that I upgraded to CS6 (not sure if the version difference plays a role or not.)

  What I'm doing here is blend two layers that overlap in one of the other

  1. create the layer to the top layer mask

  2. Select pure white in the color selection window

  3 select the Eraser tool, set the opacity to 30%, 50%, flow 100% hardness

  4. Select hide, erasing the edges of the image where there is overlap to eliminate hard edges and merge the images into another

  5. when I need to highlight an area of the image at the top (one mixed), I pass the color pure black opacity set to 100%, hardness 100% and paint over the areas that I want to "undo" my deletion.

  -Sometimes happens a lot after my initial deletion, so a simple cancellation or who goes back in history is not a possible solution at this moment here.

  -Another note: I have to move over the other layers to align as much as possible, make the story do not brush useful in this case.

  Previously, this would simply restore the image to where it was originally for this place, by removing completely all masking. Now, when I do this procedure, the area that I'm trying to "undo" is however, as if the opacity is set to a level lower than 100%. This poses problems because I want to have the completely opaque image at this stage.

  Some other notes I hope to answer some questions that may arise in advance:

  I haven't settled the opacity of one of my layer masks

  I tried to do the same operation by using the Brush tool (with 100% opacity and hardness, using the opposite colors), with the same result

  As we have earlier I don't know another effective way to achieve the same goal. I'd be happy to do it differently but if necessary.

  All the layers in these documents are dynamic objects

  Thank you!

  I'm sorry it's so confusing. I guess the only reason why I use the Eraser tool is a vestige of when I was actually erase the image - and also I get the brush and Eraser different opacity value to quickly switch between them.

  @Theresa actually, I didn't watch only the mask. Of course the mask was gray in the areas that I was talking about. But that lead me to realize that while the color picker looked purely black and white, I was working with a grayscale image, and it was in fact color and converted to looked at pure Grayscale black and white. I need to set the color of the brush at a certain point, when working in RGB (which I rarely do) and not realised.

  Sorry for posting something with such a trivial response, but you all help me to understand thank you!

• Collage of texture color to black and white in a layer mask

  Hi all

  First time poster long time lurker here.

  I'm pasting a layer of color in a layer to texturize mask a shape I've done, I've created. Whenever I have the Option + click on the layer mask and then paste the texture, it sticks in black and white instead of color, see capture below (forgive the watermark) of the screen:

  http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=wC8Da4V0FAc

  Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance!

  If I understand correctly, layer masks are black, white or gray. Is that they hide or show parts of the layer according to the value of your gray of the mask. They are not in color.

• Layer Mask question, please help.

  Hello

  My layer mask does not work, do not know what is happening. I use 4 CS. I want to use the blend effect so I put the photos on a white background. I click on the layer mask on each photo, select the tool brush on the picture but does not work, is either appear black or white when I use the brush paint on it. So not bad, the foreground color should be gray & white based on layer mask, but it appears black & white instead. Please see the screenshot below. Please help, thanks

  

  Hi, I'm going to try explain your problem.

  In your posted example we see that you have three layers in the layers panel.

  On each layer, we can see, on the left side, there is the thumbnail of the layer, it is a display of the actual image of your layer, then a thumbnail of the layer mask (the white rectangle on the right side).

  A layer mask works as follows: you tell Photoshop to show or hide the actual parts (pixels) of the layer with the grayscale values. Indicates a white pixel on the layer masks Photoshop to display the area of the image with a (non-transparent) full opacity, while tells a black pixel on the Photoshop layer mask to hide the layer completely (0% opacity.) Gray values will therefore partially show the image data.

  But you paint on the document, and you must specify Photoshop if you want to paint on the image (what you did in your example, and you don't want to) or if you want to paint on the layer mask (what you want to do). This indication is called targeting. It is simply done by clicking on the thumbnail of the layer or the layer of your layer mask thumbnail. (By clicking on different areas of a layer in the palette layers are different orders, you give to the program). For example, if you want to move the layer that you hide to another, in order to paint on his mask, sure to click on the layer of the other layer mask thumbnail in the layers panel.

  In Photoshop CS5.5 and earlier versions, you'll see that a layer or its mask is targeted because there will be three contours around her: a black, a white and a black once again, as the actual layer data in the highlight 0928 your image layer. You should see these three contours around the layer mask to paint over it.

  CS6 the target indicator is different, look in my image, we can see that the layer mask is targeted with white corners: I then have the part of the black layer mask by targeting the layer mask in the layer panel and then paint on the image where I want to hide the layer.

  

  If you want to change the layer (photos, in your case), just click on the thumbnail, and you're ready to go!

  I hope this helps.

  See these help documents: laquerbe Basics: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-78e3a.h tml

  Layer masks: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/masking-layers.html

  Some the search results for "Masks fundamental layer" in Photoshop help: http://community.adobe.com/help/search.html?q=layer+mask+basics&x=0&y=0&lbl=photoshop_prod uct_adobelr & hl = en_US & lr = en_US & auto = 0 & area = 0

  (It is one of the best ways to search for files of tutorials or help)

  Stone

• Why different size of the PNG-24 file format: vs deletion of pixels in the layer mask

  I noticed in Photoshop CS5.1 and CS6 strange behavior when saving web files in the PNG-24 format.

  CASES1.

  I have a layer photo 260 x 360.

  Create square 200 x 200 and layer mask to hide selection (effect: transparent square hole inside)

  Save for web in format PNG-24 (transparency)-> 131.4 k file size

  CASE2.

  I have a layer photo 260 x 360.

  Create the square Marquee 200 x 200 and delete pixels (effect: transparent square hole inside)

  Save for web in format PNG-24 (transparency)-> 66,93 k file size

  Both pictures got same transparent square hole, but sizes are so different. Using mask does not reduce the size of the file PNG24. Why is it like that, bug?

  

  For cases 1 and 2 the number of pixels in the image is exactly the same thing then you must consider other factors to take into account the file size differences.

  Assuming that the image is a RGB/8 image:

  1 uses a mask which means that it is a picture of four channels that require 32 bits per pixel.

  Case 2 has no mask is only a picture of 3 channels that require 24 bits of pixel.

  If the content of the data in Photoshop is different for the two cases, and the psd for case 1 file size would be larger than in case 2.

  In PNG, transparency of files can be specified by declaring the individual pixels to be transparent or an alpha channel can be added. Again, it is 24 bits per pixel compared to 32 bits per pixel.  If Photoshop, using enregistrer save for Web, creates an alpha channel for cases 1 and says the individual pixels to be transparent in the case 2, then the differences in file size that you can find should.

  Paulo

• Select, copy and paste layer masks

  Hello

  I am a beginner when it comes to Photoshop, so my vocabulary can be a little off. I'll try my best to explain my situation. Let me know if I do not make sense, or if you need more details.

  I have problems using a mask to create a selection that I can then use to paste a background image in an another PSD. I have isolated the part of the image that I want to select using a layer mask successfully, but when I try to copy/paste from an another PSD, the image appears as the "shadow" or the black silhouette that I used for the background of the original PSD image through the mask.

  It is logical that this is happening because I select the mask which is only a black outline of the image I wanted to show through the second layer. But I saw on a tutorial that someone could "turn the mask in a selection that appears around the mask, so that you can then cut out the object and paste it into a different environment."

  Here is the reference. It is the last two images in the tutorial:

  Using layers with Photoshop masks

  Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!!

  To load the mask as a selection:

  Hold down the CTRL key and click on the mask, now, the selection will be charged.

  Then click on the thumbnail of the layer (NOT on the mask) and copy or cut the layer for any other destination

• import of photoshop in editable way AE layer masks?

  Hello

  This may sound silly but... using ch & AE CC 2015, is it possible to import Photoshop layers with their respective in After Effects layer mask so that we can still change the mask layer in AE?

  What I have is PS layer mask is applied to the layer AE but I can't find a way to change this layer in AE mask.

  Thank you

  I have a PS file with lots of layer masks I want to animate (the position & scale of the masks themselves) in AE.

  It is not possible. The masks themselves must be converted into actual layers using for example a selection. They can be used as mattes in AE and animated in any way you want.

  Mylenium

• Bug in layer mask

  I've just updated to Photoshop 2015.5, but the "Layer masks" feature doesn't seem to work as it should. The system does not allow the image to hide entirely, there is always some left over.

  Thank you. I knew that the default values are black and white. The foreground color seems to be black, but in reality, it was another nuance (just a bit wide). I have reset the selections of color on their values and everything was back to normal.