Auto Mask in LR 5.7--excellent and amazing tool

[kirkt]

This exercise brings up a question regarding how auto-mask works - is the auto-mask brush sampling an RGB conversion of the raw data to determine the selection of the mask?  If so, couldn't the RGB channels from which auto-mask is drawing color information just be exposed to the user so that the color channel itself could be used as the mask, obviating the need to brush at all?  For example, the aspen grove image, and Francisco's image of the sky versus foliage - the blue channel would give you the mask you are looking for (you could alter the contrast, invert the channel, make a garbage matte to limit the mask, etc.) without having to brush and select the tree trunks or the sky.  

If the auto-mask tool is working on some proxy RGB channels, then it would be cool to see LR make those channels accessible to the user for precisely this kind of adjustment.  The mask pixel intensity would also be based, presumably, on channel luminosity, making the mask vary in intensity instead of a uniform selection of all pixels that meet the auto mask criteria - this would preserve the natural contrast of the mask - presumably this could be overridden with a brush stroke to uniformly select the pixels in the mask.

Just a thought - i realize this is treading the tightrope between LR and PS pixel editing, but I'd be interested to hear how LR creates the auto mask in this context.

kirk

[John Caldwell]

 A few LR versions ago, the Auto Mask sampling behavior was different, as the teaching of the time was the center of the brush at the time of touchdown defined the sample. I used Auto Mask more in those days, and liked this aspect of the sampling. I learned to exploit that aspect from Jeff Schewe's post in 2010, from this thread "Problems With Auto Mask". I still remember the thread because I benefited from it.  http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=49575.0

"Actually, it's a bit more sophisticated...it's the CENTER of where your brush first hits and that point remains for the duration of that stroke. Next stroke it's again the center of THAT stroke. So the better strategy is to be very accurate where you start a stroke and while the mouse is held down you can really go anywhere and that first sample will be the mask tone/color."



It would be interesting to know why the new mask sampling behavior is different. To me it seems that more often than not, we would not want the sample to be continuously updated as we drag into differing content. No? Wayne video is certainly excellent, and he shows a good way to get around the ever-evolving sample, but why is it designed this way?

John-

[Gulag]

 I have never used a selection tool in CC or prior versions of Photoshop that can come close to the accuracy you can get with Auto mask in LR.  I would love to see such a tool implemented in CC, for a copy and paste, it would be a dream.  

That simply says how little you know Photoshop and the selection tools available native to Photoshop. What the guy in the video tries to do can be easily done in Photoshop even in CS2 with much more sophisticated controls available to you. May I suggest you try Select Color Range tool?

[Wayne Fox]

That simply says how little you know Photoshop and the selection tools available native to Photoshop. What the guy in the video tries to do can be easily done in Photoshop even in CS2 or CS3 by using the Color Selection Tool.

as the “guy in video”, I will agree with your comment to a point. I have used those tools for many years.  But for me the LR technique is simpler, I believe faster, very effective most of the time, and of course isn’t modifying any pixels or even requiring a secondary file.

there are certainly advantages to layers and masks many times, but with pretty much everything in Photoshop/LR there are many ways to accomplish the same thing, this is an alternative which might be appealing to many.

[Gulag]

as the “guy in video”, I will agree with your comment to a point. I have used those tools for many years.  But for me the LR technique is simpler, I believe faster, very effective most of the time, and of course isn’t modifying any pixels or even requiring a secondary file.

there are certainly advantages to layers and masks many times, but with pretty much everything in Photoshop/LR there are many ways to accomplish the same thing, this is an alternative which might be appealing to many.

I don't use LR because I use Photoshop CS2, which is a free download from Adobe. There is nothing wrong with your using LR to do what you need to do. But, for me,  CS2 is far better because I can do all I need to do there for free.

[jjj]

I don't use LR because I use Photoshop CS2, which is a free download from Adobe. There is nothing wrong with your using LR to do what you need to do. But, for me,  CS2 is far better because I can do all I need to do there for free.

Not worth the tiny saving in my view. Newer versions of PS are so much better when it comes to ease of use and in particularly raw conversion.

[Tony Jay]

Not worth the tiny saving in my view. Newer versions of PS are so much better when it comes to ease of use and in particularly raw conversion.

Agreed!

Tony Jay

[jjj]

That simply says how little you know Photoshop and the selection tools available native to Photoshop. What the guy in the video tries to do can be easily done in Photoshop even in CS2 with much more sophisticated controls available to you. May I suggest you try Select Color Range tool?

I've done stuff in LR really quickly that would take a lot of tedious masking to do in PS and got a better result too. Not just talking auto mask here BTW. As a result I rarely use PS anymore for the sort of selections I used to have to do to grade an image.

[Schewe]

I don't use LR because I use Photoshop CS2, which is a free download from Adobe.

It's only a "free download" if you already own a license...otherwise it's a pirated version. Adobe allowed owners of CS and CS2 to use a non-activated version because the activation server were shut down. So, do you have a legit license to CS2 or not?

[jjj]

It's only a "free download" if you already own a license...otherwise it's a pirated version. Adobe allowed owners of CS and CS2 to use a non-activated version because the activation server were shut down. So, do you have a legit license to CS2 or not?

I wondered about that too. But dumbly forgot to mention it.

[Simon Garrett]

It's only a "free download" if you already own a license...otherwise it's a pirated version. Adobe allowed owners of CS and CS2 to use a non-activated version because the activation server were shut down. So, do you have a legit license to CS2 or not?

I completely agree with that point.

However, Adobe appear to be making no attempt to enforce their copyright on CS2, and the existence of the unprotected version is widely known.  In many countries it might be difficult for Adobe to pursue infringers, as courts disapprove of what might be inferred as "ambush" tactics: making something (apparently) freely available, and then only later pursuing "infringers".  They might be able to get the courts to stop people using it, but might be unable to exact any licence fee from infringers. 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Well, Wayne Fox's posts always bring a sense of enlightenment to me, big or small :-)
Thanks for bringing it up OP.

I actually had come across this technique sometime back with a sky vs mountain horizon line, but when you don't use something often enough you tend to forget it in theback of your mind , well some of us do, at least... between C1,LR, PS, and other tools, I better use it or loose it :-)

And FranciscoDisilvestro, that was a great follow up in showing a added way of usage! 
And very true as Schewe mentioned the subtractive strength with Erasure.

Yes you can in PS, with color range and other options, but this is regarding Raw dev, and non destructive. There are also plenty masking plugins that try to make it easy. Now once LR or PS figure a way to read your mind and where you want the mask on tricky subjects with mixed backgrounds and it can distinguish between a light gray and a slightly darker gray...then we can have an easier time in editing life.

I will exercise this more often.

[Gulag]

Not worth the tiny saving in my view. Newer versions of PS are so much better when it comes to ease of use and in particularly raw conversion.

its a big savings in terms of computing power/weight and battery life, especially in the field. Of course,  if you have a team of porters, you can carry everything, including a generator or two. To me the savings are not tiny at all. On the other hand,  the advertising encourages you to use the CC.  So I guess most people will be following that advice. Of course, for many professional retouchers here, the CC will be far better because it now supports their need for more than 100K layers in one document. I guess that is a Progress. But, for shooters like myself, CS2 gives me everything that I ever need, such as color modes, channels, and tons of selection tools. If I need professional retouching work done, I hire professionals. Unlike many here perhaps, I hate spending my time on retouching.

[Phil Indeblanc]

While this has gotten off topic a bit, but likely enough to fulfill the OP. Some of the responses do give me the opportunity to voice about CC, PS, etc...

 I will be avoiding CC as much as I can. I have CS2,  CS5 and CS6(different licenses).
There are other apps like Corel Paint(I also have up to x7), that I can change to if I have to, and even others if need be. I don't believe in a rental use basis for such a product.

I don't rent cars every 2-4 years to have the latest and greatest, and I don't want to be forced into doing it for the apps I use and pay into. I will resist as much as possible. If LR went cloud, I would surely use alternates. If CS6 stopped working, I would have a dedicated system without upgrades to keep it working, then switch if need be.

Any  company that moves towards rent and greed as the only means of use of their service or product(now a service) in this manner should not be supported in my opinion. If your opinion differes I have heard it, and understand your position and not interested in it and how you find it so great.
Cell phones, internet connections, power, water, gas, all these things we are already forced to pay on a monthly basis. Yet for a greedy software company as some others with greedy lawyers take on this business model, I don't want to be a part of it, and will call it out as GREED. Not only is the encouragementt of this business model hurtful to the mass public, but also very bad for overall economic health and environmentally to be abusing resources just to have them repurchased in such instances of "planned obsolescence".

JMHO

[Gulag]

Essentially you're talking about the difference in mentality of those who want to be free and those who desire to be in bondage. But the truth is that the world is full of those who want to be slaves. And nothing you can do about it.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Essentially you're talking about the difference in mentality of those who want to be free and those who desire to be in bondage. But the truth is that the world is full of those who want to be slaves. And nothing you can do about it.

It's full of people who run software for which they've not paid, too. I notice you haven't answered Jeff's question.

Jeremy

[Gulag]

It's full of people who run software for which they've not paid, too. I notice you haven't answered Jeff's question.

Jeremy

What I was saying is whatever the guy in the video was trying to accomplish in Lightroom can be easily done inside Photoshop,  even in version 7 or CS2. And that is a technical fact. So the op's claim it can only be done easily in Lightroom is technically incorrect. Do you have beef with my claim?

Now back to the question you parroted.  I understand most people don't think or don't need to think.  I tried not to point this out earlier because I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Since people like you keep bringing it up as if it was a great point to make.  

Look,  I'm sorry to say this, but that is a really stupid question.  And it basically reveals how stupid those who believe it's a great question to ask are. Do they really think people simply pirate the software that is a decade old and abandoned to save money?  If whatever the latest is the best,  according to brainwashing advertising, people would simply pirate the latest and many do. Since I don't give a crap, I hope they may Google to see whether or not the CC or CS6 pirate version exists?  

Let me share one of my favorite American poets with you here (and perhaps this quote might have certain relevance).

"There’s nothing to mourn about death any more than there is to mourn about the growing of a flower. What is terrible is not death but the lives people live or don’t live up until their death. They don’t honor their own lives, they piss on their lives. They shit them away. Dumb fuckers. They concentrate too much on fucking, movies, money, family, fucking. Their minds are full of cotton. They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can’t hear it. Most people’s deaths are a sham. There’s nothing left to die."

— Charles Bukowski

[Gulag]

What I was saying is whatever the guy in the video was trying to accomplish in Lightroom can be easily done inside Photoshop,  even in version 7
3 or CS2. And that is a technical fact. So the op's claim it can only be done easily in Lightroom is technically incorrect. I understand people don't have time to learn how to the tools inside Photoshop well because they tend to want some automation to hold their hands. Do you have beef with my claim?

Now back to the question you parroted.  I understand most people don't think or don't need to think.  I tried not to point this out earlier because I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Since people like you keep bringing it up as if it was a great point to make.  

Look,  I'm sorry to say this, but that is a really stupid question.  And it basically reveals how stupid those who believe it's a great question to ask are. Do they really think people simply pirate the software that is a decade old and abandoned to save money?  If whatever the latest is the best,  according to brainwashing advertising, people would simply pirate the latest and many do. Since I don't give a crap, I hope they may Google to see whether or not the CC or CS6 pirate version exists?  

Let me share one of my favorite American poets with you here (and perhaps this quote might have certain relevance).

"There’s nothing to mourn about death any more than there is to mourn about the growing of a flower. What is terrible is not death but the lives people live or don’t live up until their death. They don’t honor their own lives, they piss on their lives. They shit them away. Dumb fuckers. They concentrate too much on fucking, movies, money, family, fucking. Their minds are full of cotton. They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can’t hear it. Most people’s deaths are a sham. There’s nothing left to die."

— Charles Bukowski

[jjj]

Essentially you're talking about the difference in mentality of those who want to be free and those who desire to be in bondage. But the truth is that the world is full of those who want to be slaves. And nothing you can do about it.

Utter nonsense. I don't like the rental model but I use CC simply because overall, it makes my life easier.  I could stay with CS6 or whatever version to prove a point, but why would I use use inferior/slower software when there is a better version available? I always used the latest version of PS and LR and every update has been significantly improved compared to previous versions, so paying the low monthly fee makes no difference to the cost for me.
And despite the extreme and ridiculous examples you used to say why later versions are not needed, you are convincing no-one but yourself. Recent versions of PS/LR are much faster/easier to use with vast improvements in quality of raw file rendering. I've gone back to old work and redone shots [much quicker too I might add], the quality is that much improved.

[jjj]

What I was saying is whatever the guy in the video was trying to accomplish in Lightroom can be easily done inside Photoshop,  even in version 7 or CS2. And that is a technical fact. So the op's claim it can only be done easily in Lightroom is technically incorrect. Do you have beef with my claim?

Now back to the question you parroted.  I understand most people don't think or don't need to think.  I tried not to point this out earlier because I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Since people like you keep bringing it up as if it was a great point to make. 

Look,  I'm sorry to say this, but that is a really stupid question.  And it basically reveals how stupid those who believe it's a great question to ask are. Do they really think people simply pirate the software that is a decade old and abandoned to save money?  If whatever the latest is the best,  according to brainwashing advertising, people would simply pirate the latest and many do. Since I don't give a crap, I hope they may Google to see whether or not the CC or CS6 pirate version exists? 

Let me share one of my favorite American poets with you here (and perhaps this quote might have certain relevance).

"There’s nothing to mourn about death any more than there is to mourn about the growing of a flower. What is terrible is not death but the lives people live or don’t live up until their death. They don’t honor their own lives, they piss on their lives. They shit them away. Dumb fuckers. They concentrate too much on fucking, movies, money, family, fucking. Their minds are full of cotton. They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can’t hear it. Most people’s deaths are a sham. There’s nothing left to die."

— Charles Bukowski

So despite the very lengthy and not so slyly insulting reply to a simple question, you failed to answer it.
So are you using a legitimate version of PS or a pirated copy?