ISO50

Smart objects as layer masks would be a great addition indeed when vector shapes just don’t cut it …

I’ve had to do something like this once and ended up finding a way-of-sorts to have multi-layer masks but it’s pretty convoluted, so it’s only for emergencies I guess. Maybe there’s some way to simplify it though?

1) Put all mask layers and all artwork layers in two separate smart objects and create a Clipping Mask between them, using the mask as a base.

2) Open up the mask smart object and create yet another smart object of all the layers inside.

3) Open the layer styles dialog for this newly created, third smart object, and head to the “This Layer” slider in the “Blend If” section of the Blending Options. Hold Alt/Opt and drag the left part of the white slider on the right all the way to the left.

This should make light parts in the mask transparent while keeping the dark ones opaque. And I hope all that made sense :D

Haleluia amen I second that.

Yep I think this would be a great addition to the software.

I work a lot in Adobe After Effects where I am so used to pre-composing a bunch of layers in order to use it as a layer mask. Then I can freely travel back into that pre-composition and change stuff as i need, whether it is vector, pixels or a mixture of both, and my changes are reflected in the layer mask.

Then when I use Photoshop I feel a little hampered by the constraints you mention.

Any other after effects users ever used after effects for a still image composite? I have, but it never feels right! and of course my PS knowledge is lesser than my AE knowledge.

Have you tried using the knockout parameter in the layer property panel ? If you set it to shallow, than setting the fill parameter to 0% it will mask every layers beneath it. To prevent this, you group the mask layers and the layer to be masked. That way you can have multiple layers masking. Here’s a little example : http://www.glockenspiel.ca/photoshop_knockout_shallow.png and http://www.glockenspiel.ca/photoshop_knockout_shallow_2.png

I’d think masking groups would be better fit under the Channels palette, as that’s where the actual raw masks are stored.

In a way this is sort of possible? If you use a lower layer as a clipping mask (that option click line thingy), you can use that as your additive mask function, which you can view by toggling the visibility off of the layer you’re clipping. both of these layers can be masked as well, so essentially you have, 3 layer masks affecting one layer, without even nesting yet. It’s not infinitely but you add the group nesting you speak of, you have about 8 separate editable layers of masking.

One suggestion I would have for Adobe would be to allow groups to be “option-clicked” onto a clipping mask – which again would add 2 more levels of masking (the actual layer and it’s layer mask) or better yet allow a group to be the clipping mask – and everything in the group folder would be evaluated on its grayscale values to be a composite mask, additive and subtractive, complete with blending modes.

I was thinking of a similar concept for when I get my blog back up. I have a lot of ideas of things to change/unify between the programs.

I definitely agree with this one. I also wish Illustrator’s layer masks were easier to use with complex shapes, instead of requiring it to basically be one path/compound path.

Honestly, if Photoshop were more like After Effects, it’d be a lot easier and quicker. AE effects work much better, faster, and always function like Photoshop’s do on smart objects. Sometimes I work in AE and bring it into Photoshop!

Yeah, something like AE would be nice where you could have multiple vector and bitmap masks and set them to add, subtract, intersect, etc.

One thing that bothers me (maybe I’m dumb and am doing something wrong) but if I want to blur a layer without blurring the mask I have to unlink and then relink the mask. It’s kind of a pain. I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to blur both at the same time so I don’t understand how this could be a useful feature.

Oh, god yes – I’ve wanted this functionality for a long time. I’m actually hoping that one day Photoshop will have the option to use a node-based system a-la Nuke or Shake, or at least take a few cues from After Effects – it would allow for so much more flexibility…

I think it would be great if there was an option for layers to keep their names being dragged from one document to another instead of renaming it “LAYER 27”
Or if files themselves kept their names as they are dragged into a PSD.
Right?

i love this new column!

something i have wanted from adobe and can’t figure out why it never works is the distribution tool in photoshop. it seems to work fine in illustrator but whenever i try and distribute in PS it never evenly distributes. perhaps i’m doing something wrong but no one in my office can figure it out. we have all resigned to the idea that the tool doesnt work right. and i’d like to think we are all competent designers. can someone either answer this or can adobe fix this please?!

Great simple idea…I’ve tried accomplishing this method of designing for so long only to be forced to search for an inefficient way around it. I’d be surprised if they weren’t already considering this feature.

@Steve – I see what you mean about smart objects and clipping masks. This is basically doing what Scott asks for in his original post. But there is a problem for me.. I have to enter the smart object and make my changes, and I can’t see the effect ‘live’ on my masked out layer. Unless I am doing something wrong? On a normal layer mask I like to paint my mask while looking at the result.

@jeff clermont – Hey Jeff, I just had a play with the knockout groups. They are pretty cool, and do help. I still find it a bit limiting though because I can only seem to have the bottom, or ‘background’ layer being revealed. What if I want more layers underneath? I’ve only had a 5 min play with this so maybe I don’t get it.

Thanks for the insights though, they will defo help me out.

Oh and for all those compositors out there that are saying they would like a node based workflow – and I know this is off topic, but have you seen a plugin called filter forge for PS? It’s for making your own PS filters. I got the demo the other week, it’s pure node goodness like nuke or eyeon fusion.. mmm

@John – Yeah, if you want to have other layers underneath unaffected by the knockout layers, put them outside of the group. The only thing is you can’t have subtractive or additive mask.

How about using clipping masks on a group? I can’t count the number of times I’ve wanted to apply an adjustment layer to only one group, only to be frustratingly denied.

@Nate G – I’m pretty sure you could achieve the effect you speak of by selecting the outline of the group layer mask, then selecting the layers in the layers palette and hit the layer mask button.

@Frank – Blurring a layer without blurring the mask, in my experience, leads to a very unnatural looking layer. For example, if you’re trying to use a motion blur, the contents would be blurred, but then be defined by a hard edge, which is visually confusing. I’m curious, in what context would you not want to blur both?

this is needed. I think I’m going to enjoy this new category, and I hope Adobe starts listening/commenting. Keep ’em coming Scott.

Just use After effects!
…yes for stills images

What about node based compositing? Which applies to everything, not just masks.

Surely this a much more flexible approach to the whole process. The presentation and methods of interaction could still be managed as per some previous suggestions, but really a powerful node based compositing work flow is is sorely missing in a modern graphics application.

I just want to beable to have longer film strips that i can edit. i do most of my masking in AE not PS since i am mostly a motion designer that comes from a print background. very interesting thought scott. i think the smart object idea someone said here might be a simple solution in the future.

I used to do a lot of work in Shake, and that really showed me how powerful masking (or rather layering) can be. It gives you complete (and non-destructive) freedom to add, subtract or otherwise combine as many masks as you please, and in an intuitive way.

I would *love* a node based photoshop. Not gonna happen though…

The one simple addition I would love to see in Photoshop is the ability to add bleed when setting up a document. It’s available on Illustrator and InDesign, and almost every project I work on has me adding 6mm, working out 3mm from each edge for guides, then a further 10mm for spacing….. life would be so much easier with this simple bit stck on.