Sorry, but masks, lassos and selections are driving me mad

[StephaneB]

Hi

I am proficient with Photoshop, ACDSee Edit mode, Picture Window, LightRoom, Rawtherapee. In a word, I am not a beginner in photo editing.

And yet, I cannot for the hell of it figure out how to make what should be very simple things with Photoline.

For example,I would like to draw a selection that would be an ellipse, feather(soft edge) it like I want it to be without going through 10 thousand trial and errors, then invert the selection, and make it a layer mask for a curve adjustment layer.

Nowhere the documentation explains how to do that.

Nowhere the documentation explains how I can tune the soft edge while seeing what I am doing.

I suspect Photoline is a magnificent photo editor and probably much more.

But the way it is designed and the way it is (un)documented, it is way too hard to apprehend to be an attractive alternative.

Could someone point me to a decent book explaining how to efficiently use that software?

If not, no problem, I'll find something else.

Thank you.

[Hoogo]

1) Select the "circle lasso", check the settings of the tool.
2) Draw your ellipse, invert it with Shift+ALT+I or "Tool > Mask > Invert".
3) Adjust the soft edge.
4) Open the curves dialog "tool > curves", leave it with the "create layer" button.

This is a 1:1 translation of your request.
A better solution would be a gradient:
1) Check that you have the "View > Panels > Adjustment layer" available, will be needed later
2) Select the gradient tool.
3) Check the tool option "draw in new layer" and draw a white ball
4) Use the "Add adjustment button" from the panel and add a curve.
Now you can adjust an correct curve settings, position and size of the ellipse anytime.

[StephaneB]

Firstly, thank you Hoogo for trying.

But sorry, it does not work.

first method:
1) select the circle lasso => OK
2) Draw your ellipse => OK. Invert it => the whole picture turns green. Why? No idea. Somehow the lasso that is supposed to be the same thing as a selection which is supposed to be the same thing as a mask appears not to be the same thing.

Second method:
1) Check, I always have that visible
2) Select the gradient tool. I suppose that is the color gradient, I did not find anything else with gradient in it.
3) Check the tool option "draw in new layer". There is not such an option. A search for "draw in new layer" in the help file returns nothing. Same search in the PDF "manual" returns nothing. There is a toggle button with a hot tip that says "In active layer (ctrl)". Tried with that untoggled, figured that might mean "draw in new layer".
4) I chose the circle gradient type, but that does not allow me to make an ellipse. Anyway, tried and... wow! This gradient tool sure looks and feel powerful! So much so that I could not find a way to have a simple gradient going linearly from black to white! And the so-called documentation does not even begin to explain what does what and for what all this is supposed to be useful. And how the hell to get something basic done.

Again, thanks for trying to guide me.

[StephaneB]

I've been able to do it with the ellipse lasso.

The scary thing is: I don't know why it did not work before.

After the previous effort, I closed PL, started it again and suddenly it worked like it was supposed to.

And then it shows it is better than Photoshop because that ellipse is an object and is kept as such so I can go and modify it later. With Photoshop, the only way to alter an existing mask is with bitmap tools like a brush, dodge/burn, things like that.

I still think PL is severely under documented and is made way too hard to approach.

I don't know what the ratio between downloads and purchases is, but it could be well improved with step by step tutorials showing how to do the first things.

Still no idea what the gradient tool is, though.

[brucet]

StephaneB welcome to the club. After many years using 'other' software I to have jumped to PL. And yes it's not easy to change. First PL uses different terminology for many items. That's a challenge! As for documentation I also find it lacking for English speaking folk! But while I think it could be improved I also understand that it may not be a priority for the folks at PL. Have you downloaded the manual from the download page? (Bottom right).

My only suggestion is for those more knowledgable than us to look at the manual and see if PL would allow them to add some more examples to the manual. Some practical step by step examples to clarify some of PL's unique features.

So far PL has been a pleasant experience for me. Thanks mainly to the ability to call on external programs that allow me to jump back to older programs to feed some old habits!!

regards

[StephaneB]

Hi

I have downloaded the manual. It has the same text as the help file.

If documenting is not a priority, then a lot of time is spent developing and maintaining what are essentially hidden features. Hidden greatness does not help much.

PL is very tempting, but for pure photography, it faces tough competition from the likes of Lightroom (obviously) and ACDSee, wich is basically at the same price.

PL seems to be able to do a lot of things that ACDSee cannot do, true. At this stage, I am not sure how useful those additional things are for photography.

I have found one important thing where PL is much better than ACDSee: spot removal - healing brush. Perfect, seamless. At least on a developed layer. I tried it on a RAW file and it was a disaster. For spot removal, ACDSee is equally mediocre in both cases

[photoken]

spot removal - healing brush. Perfect, seamless. At least on a developed layer. I tried it on a RAW file and it was a disaster.

Make sure you're applying the Healing Brush to the RAW image layer and not to the adjustment layer. I just tested the Healing Brush on one of my RAW images and it worked fine.

[StephaneB]

spot removal - healing brush. Perfect, seamless. At least on a developed layer. I tried it on a RAW file and it was a disaster.

Make sure you're applying the Healing Brush to the RAW image layer and not to the adjustment layer. I just tested the Healing Brush on one of my RAW images and it worked fine.

I made sure.

This is the result:

https://q50n5a.bn1302.livefilestore.com ... pmode=none

[Alan9940]

Hello StephaneB,

Oh my, I can so relate to your current stress level with PL! I, too, like I'm sure many others all had to trudge through that steep learning curve when working with a new piece of software. Don't know how long you've been using PS, but I started with PS 5.0 in 2000 and I still recall the "pain" and time involved getting up to speed to the point that I could work on real images. PL is no different in that respect; partly because it's a very powerful program. Also, learning what common PS functions that you're used to are called in PL makes things a bit more cumbersome, too. But, that's just the way it is...

The manual? Personally...and I don't mean any disrespect to the brothers or whoever wrote it...but, it's basically useless. I wouldn't waste too much time with it. IMO the best way to learn PL is to keep plugging away at it and asks questions on this board. We have several very helpful and knowledgeable members such as Hoogoo, Burkhard, and PhotoKen that, in my own personal experience, nearly always provide a quick and useful response. I would have been totally lost without them! Scan though this board looking for "Experiment" in the title...lots of really good information in those posts.

If you stick with it and "suffer the pain", I think you'll find PL to be an editing platform that you return to often because in many ways it's more powerful than PS! For example, I can apply a LAB curves adjustment layer without switching modes as in PS. That switching back-n-forth always drove me nuts!!

Good luck!

Kind regards,
Alan

[StephaneB]

Hi Alan

Yes, the Lab mode local to the layer is one of the things that attract me to PL.

I really think the authors are missing lots of sales because of the useless documentation.

I started with Picture Window in 2001, then moved on to Photoshop 7 in 2003. I used Aperture extensively between 2005 and 2010 when I moved it all to Lightroom. For several years now I have used a combination of Lightroom, Photoshop and the Nik plugins.

I never found Photoshop as opaque as PL can be. And most of all, I never found it so unpredictable. In PL, I do something, I think I found how to do it but the next time the behaviour is different. Surely there is a toggle or something else somewhere that must be different, but how to know? Where to look?

I mean, just the 4 buttons Use Mask, Hide/Show Lasso, Edit Mask and Show Mask are a disgrace! There is absolutely no need to have such complexity. It is simply bad UI design.

I am drifting toward renouncing, really. Somehow, I find that life it too short for this. Spring is here, I want to spend time taking pictures and printing them, not decipher a bad UI.

Maybe PL needs a Rosetta stone more than a manual.

In any case, as I said on dpreview, my suggestion for release 20 is: do not change anything to the software. Spend all the time documenting it thoroughly. In 2 parts: a User's guide and a Reference Guide. Do not forget the User's guide is supposed to have some tutorials and to explain where, when and why a feature is useful.

This would be a major progress, well worthy of a major release in my opinion.

[photoken]

The manual? Personally...and I don't mean any disrespect to the brothers or whoever wrote it...but, it's basically useless. I wouldn't waste too much time with it. IMO the best way to learn PL is to keep plugging away at it and asks questions on this board.

I've gotta say a quick word in defense of the Help file. I found it very useful when I switched over to PL. When I looked up the help for a tool, I kept a test image open and followed all the explanations by actually doing them. That cleared up any confusion over terminology, etc. I also followed the hyperlinks to the additional descriptions and did those actions, too.

Oh yeah, that took a long time, but I spread it out over a couple of weeks, taking it a little at a time.

You're absolutely right about the help here in the forum. Hoogo, bkh, and Herbert123 were outstanding in patiently answering my questions. If I've been of any help to others, it's my way of thanking those folks for the help they gave me....

[photoken]

I mean, just the 4 buttons Use Mask, Hide/Show Lasso, Edit Mask and Show Mask are a disgrace! There is absolutely no need to have such complexity. It is simply bad UI design.

I strongly disagree. Those four buttons provide functionality that I use, and having them easily available is great.

[Herbert123]

Hi Alan
I mean, just the 4 buttons Use Mask, Hide/Show Lasso, Edit Mask and Show Mask are a disgrace! There is absolutely no need to have such complexity. It is simply bad UI design.

Why on earth would you think so?

In Photoshop hiding the selection marching ants requires an obscure shortcut key - I used that option on a regular basis in Photoshop. Photoshop also provides the quick edit mask mode at the bottom of its tool panel. Being able to darken/blend out the unselected parts of the image is also quite handy at times. In Photoshop I would have to turn on the channel for that selection in the channel panel.

Basically, in Photoshop the same functions are ALL OVER THE PLACE in the GUI, while in Photoline they are nicely grouped at the bottom of the tools panel.

Arguably the icon design could be improved (the kittens are cute, though ;-P ).

So I would have to disagree with you on this. Photoshop makes it far more complicated to perform these basic functions.

[photoken]

(the kittens are cute, though ;-P ).

[Herbert123]

About the manuals: I view software manuals as a good reference AFTER the user has become reasonably proficient with the software. Point in case: the Adobe manuals. They are terrible for beginners. Those manuals only became useful for me after I already knew how to work the software, and they helped in figuring out the finer points of the functionality in question.

I actually tell my students that, in order to understand Adobe's manuals, they will have to learn the software first.

If software manuals were any good, video and paper tutorials, books, dedicated magazines, and classes would be pointless. Obviously, reality tells us otherwise. They should serve as a function reference/description, and no more. And if you thought Photoline's manual is bad, you ought to check out the one for ClipStudio Paint!

Now, I do completely agree with you that the existing tutorials for Photoline are scarce and rather unprofessionally made. It would be nice to see more professionally made ones.