Bug in layer mask

Similar Questions

• Error tool brush with layer masks

  I've identified a bug in layer mask in Photoshop for Mac 14.2.1. When you work with no vector layer masks, the Brush tool will not paint one value darker than the white level in the mask. For example:

  When a layer mask is created from the icon at the bottom of the layers window, the mask itself is white, representing a total visibility of the hidden layer. If you try to use the brush with 100% black (for in fact hide something in the layer there is), it does not work. I am able to use the bucket tool paint and pencil to fill in black mask tool, but not the Brush tool. If the mask is 67% gray, and my brush tool is set to 66% gray, it does not yet affect mask; White level cannot be decreased, not increased with the Brush tool. Bug!

  Your brush, blending mode is set to Normal?

• view the psd with feather and the layer mask

  Hello

  There is one case where I can't display a modified to correct Photoshop image in LR.

  If the PSD file has a layer mask with a feather, LR displays a hard edge mask.

  There is no problem with a normal gradient or shadow a layer style.

  I'm on CC PS and LR CC, latest versions.

  Anyone have the same problem?

  Thank you

  JO

  

  This is a known bug in the latest version of Photoshop. Adobe knows about it, and I think they're going to fix in the next version of PS.

  HAL

• Layer mask groups converted from work plans to the size of the artboard in older versions of Photoshop

  I wanted to start this post as an idea, but I couldn't choose communities (it wouldn't let me), so here it is posted...

  ----

  Just came across this with a customer...

  I use for a mobile design project work plans, and I just got a screenshot with some texts asking why among work plans were really great. Way bigger than a phone. (I'm under NDA and cannot post the screenshot, but imagine there are a lot of iPhone size work plans and two of them seem to be at a right angle)

  I opened the file and on my end, everything is the right size. Remembering the weeks ago to tell the customer that they need to update their version of Photoshop for all this work correctly, I have take a look at the screenshot and see that they are on CC2014 - none of the work plans.

  What I'm asking here, is that, since we have data, plans of work are objects of a defined size and 'alive', why not just use these data to hide layer groups at the opening of the PSD / PSB (PSB in my case) in older versions of Photoshop?

  It could save you a TON of hassle and confusion.

  Hi Zack,

  High level to your query response is: no, there is no conduct business case for a general solution to what you are suggesting. So I don't see what is happening.

  I say that as someone who likes to give back and forth and backward compatibility.

  There are two parts of the problem that you raise. They are related and somewhat intertwined.

  1. Having the version previous (2014) do something reasonable with the data from the version the most recent (2015). Either the old version should be taught on the most recent data so it can make a decision about what to do, or the newer version must put additional data in the file format for consumption by the older version.
  2. Back and forth between versions. As you say, a much more difficult problem. In fact, we do a good job of that today. But we must be sure that whatever we do for (1) not to damage and back the wrong way.

  Let's be very clear: 2014 will not be touched, except for critical bugs, absolutely. And even before 2015 is released, it would have not been corrected to make it behave better with work plans. There is no way that I could see what is happening. So all we have done for better backward compatibility had to be entirely done within 2015.

  For the round trip, the general problem is something like this: we want to 2014 to read an object that has properties of 2015, he does not understand. While we might learn ch to keep these properties as opaque property, must also have rules for when these properties are not valid and thrown on the floor. Probably, if the object is changed. But not always. And sometimes when another object parent is changed. And so on. Right now, we destroy them unknown content from their reading in the old version. Make us and record what we understand. As a user, you receive an alert telling you that we are do this. It's the safest thing to do.

  There are special cases where a developer can see an opportunity to preserve a level of backward compatibility and back and forth. We try to do if we believe that it is safe. But this scenario happens only occasionally.

  In the case of work plans, made us really think about this: If we added a mask to the group for backward compatibility, it should do something with this mask reading around 2015. And what would happen if the user edited this mask in 2014 and opened upward in 2015 - and who edited mask do not align with the structures of the artboard? Things started to get dark quickly. We started to see traps. The workflow together to sheath special round trip had to be tested and verified. The cost was rising and this expense must be filtered through a cost/value trade-off. And then what happens when we add a new property to the structure of work plan? At these efforts for nothing?

  So we compromised with what you have today. Work plans become groups in 2014. The Group and the layer structure remains intact. Doesn't secretly add us and remove masks for the round trip. You can safely change the groups to your heart's content. When return you this document in 2015, you redo the work plans of the groups. Was not clear and safe way to do more than that given the time that we had.

  Take a step back and think about your problem, it doesn't seem to be a value to a script that converts group work plans + layer masks for your workflow to have your documents that is consumed by the customers of 2014. This would be carried out in 2015 because she would need understand the work plans. And maybe vice versa from 2014 to 2015, assuming that the documents were not published in a hostile way. We're not likely to write such a script as a generic tool, but someone competent with script might be able to do this.

  More that I intend to write, but hopefully, it gives you additional insight in the compromises that we have faced.

• 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?

• 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

• 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, 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

• By default gray layer mask

  Hello

  I made a few changes on a photo and in the Panel layers (screenshot below), some of layer masks are gray instead of black.  I made these changes in quick succession of each other, so I don't understand why some are out some grey and black (which is OK)?

  I was doing a box on an image selection, and then by clicking on the button layer mask below layers panel, which then creates a layer / layer mask with the selection and the selected layer mask option (i.e. color balance, brightness / contrast, etc.).

  Any help on why this happens and whether or not it is correct would be great.

  

  You did all of the selections as a path with the pen tool (or other vector tool)? If you did and you add the adjustment layer, you will get a vector mask gray/white.

  

• How can I create a rectangle on a layer mask?

  If I choose the layer mask and the retangle tool. PS always create a new layer.

  I can't find the possibility to combine function with a layer mask

  Thank you as your help!

  I suppose you create a rectangle with the Rectangle tool, instead use the rectangle selection tool, m on the keyboard and fill with black, gray or white with your selected layer mask.

  Terri

• Layer mask problem

  Somehow, I've changed a setting that has now caused me problems with my layer mask. When I add a layer, then make a blurr Gaussian then to create a layer mask using the ALT key and clicking on the layer mask that my mask should appear in black. However, it doesn't. And I can't figure out how to change... or what to change to correct it. I'm a windows help using Photoshop CC. I do not know how to make the screen print see here since my photoshop so need advice on that a well... Can someone help me? Thank you very much! Kristy

  Your screenshot is confusing because you have either thumb nails disabled in the options panel, or you don't actually have a layer mask.

  

• 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.

• Paste an image into a layer mask does not work even after several approaches

  I can't paste an image into a layer mask. I tried to keep 'option' by clicking on the layer mask (to activate the white), then "Control + V" to paste the image but it still places the image in a new layer. I tried to paste through the Palette layers without success (pasta in a new layer). I tried to use past special from the Edit menu, but the past command is grayed out. Any ideas for why it does not work for me?

  I tried to keep 'option' by clicking on the layer mask (to activate the white), then "Control + V" to paste the image

  Did you select > all and edit > copy the image you want to put in the mask?

• Help! Question of layer mask and reverse brush colors

  For days now, I was unlucky in my quest to find an answer as to why my brushes became out of whack. When I use a brush and paint on the same area, the colors are reversed in this area! Ive set brush settings by default, but the question will not let me be! Layer masks have become another issue. The white rush works but not the black. Opacity and flow is set to 100. Please help because nobody has found an answer.

  You can post a screenshot? Looks like your blending mode of the brush is put on the screen and not normal.