| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/29/2008 07:58:47 PM · #1 |
Suppose I have an image in two layers, one underexposed and one regular exposed (or anything really). I want to selectively underexpose parts of the image -- that is, choose regions of the image where the bottom layer should show through. I could use an eraser at low opacity on the layer, or I could use a mask and paint over it with a soft brush. Is one method better than the other? What are the pros and cons of each? I've been using the eraser more and more, but for all I read about using masks, I can't help but think it is more advantageous.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
06/29/2008 08:19:00 PM · #2 |
| Using the mask gives you more flexibility indeed. |
|
|
|
06/29/2008 08:28:09 PM · #3 |
| Using a layer mask will make it easier to undo your changes. The black will get rid of anything on the mask and white will leave it. If you want a different opacity. Middle gray from the swatches is like 50% opacity. If you work on something for awhile. You can use a white brush and undo your changes. Where if you use erase and a few steps down the line change your mind you would have to redo everything back to the step where you changed your mind. |
|
|
|
06/29/2008 09:28:46 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
... Where if you use erase and a few steps down the line change your mind you would have to redo everything back to the step where you changed your mind. |
Which, if you have already saved and closed the image, becomes impossible.
In other words...what they said.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2008 09:59:56 PM · #5 |
| These are good points. It sounds like at a basic level they do the same thing, but working with a mask gives you more flexibility and is more forgiving. |
|
|
|
06/29/2008 10:12:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bvy:
These are good points. It sounds like at a basic level they do the same thing, but working with a mask gives you more flexibility and is more forgiving. |
From an output point of view, they do the same thing (they remove portions of the layer). However, the layer mask is easily reversible (either partially or fully), while the eraser cannot be reversed unless you have undos remaining (or have saved the original layer, which can still be tricky to "partially" restore).
|
|
|
|
06/29/2008 10:19:19 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by bvy:
These are good points. It sounds like at a basic level they do the same thing, but working with a mask gives you more flexibility and is more forgiving. |
From an output point of view, they do the same thing (they remove portions of the layer). However, the layer mask is easily reversible (either partially or fully), while the eraser cannot be reversed unless you have undos remaining (or have saved the original layer, which can still be tricky to "partially" restore). |
Right. I use PSP X2 which does have an "unerase" function (left click). I found that by a combination of accident and desperation. But still, I can see that masks are probably the smarter choice. |
|
|
|
06/29/2008 11:37:49 PM · #8 |
Mask is nondestructive. I like nondestructive.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:27:40 AM · #9 |
Another quick question: Is there any real difference between using a black brush at 50% opacity versus a gray brush (128/128/128) at 100% opacity?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:30:50 AM · #10 |
probably not, but it's easier to change the opacity than the colour...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:01:57 PM EDT.
