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

[Herbert123]

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

batman-mask-for-cats.jpg

[photoken]

The cat looks rather ... angry. Disappointed that the Canucks might not make the playoffs? Nyak...nyak...nyak.

[Herbert123]

The cat looks rather ... angry. Disappointed that the Canucks might not make the playoffs? Nyak...nyak...nyak.

Batman *is* angry inside

Imagine: that cat must be meowing in a Michael Keaton fashion. huhhhmeowuuhhh

[StephaneB]

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.

You're right of course. The only problem is that the Internet is full of tutorials, howtos and instructions for Adobe software, making the process actually feasible with a reasonable investment of time.

For Photoline, the situation is of course much different. Good luck finding an explanation on anything in PhotoLine. One might think it is not the fault of the authors if people do not produce information for Photoline as they do for Adobe. I disagree. They are clearly outsiders, they know what market they go in, the information work is on them and no one else. And without it Photoline is useless for most photographers.

[StephaneB]

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.

I would certainly not pretend that Photoshop's UI is a model to follow. That said, it has been years since I saw marching ants in Photoshop.

But the relationships between lasso, selection and layer masks are really a byzantine mess. I cannot figure what it brings to the table for photography.

For me, a triumph of UI design is the U points in the Nik plugins. Powerful, elegant, discoverable (very important), quick to learn and to use, they hide very complex algorithms behind an intuitive UI.

[Herbert123]

Well, I believe we should be comparing Photoline to similar applications such as Photoshop, Corel Photopaint, Affinity Photo, and so on. In Photoshop and most other image editors a layer mask is limited to at most one bitmap mask, and one vector mask. Not so in Photoline: the flexibility is astounding in comparison.

But with that additional flexibility comes additional complexity as well. For example, it is possible to assign adjustment layers and even layer effects to a layer mask. And layer masks can consist of groups too - and to top it off, layer masks may be virtually cloned across the layer stack. Heck, layer masks can have their own layer masks

This does give one a great deal of freedom, albeit at the cost of simplicity.

Photoshop complexity is similar in scope: with clipping layers things can be masked non-destructively, but Photoshop's layer stack is more complicated and far more awkward to use in this regard compared to Photoline. I have seen layer stacks in Photoshop which are ridiculously obscure and complex, in comparison to relatively easy and simple solutions in Photoline to tackle the same setup.

In my opinion Photoline, Photoshop, and other more advanced image editors must cater for much more than merely photo editing nowadays. I mean, look at Photoshop (which takes it to a whole new level): 3d functionality, video support, animation, 3d printing... If you cannot figure out what Photoline brings to the table for photography editing, than Photoshop must be deemed to have become quite incomprehensible for this task.

And, of course, that is why most photographers prefer to avoid Photoshop as much as they can, and like to work in a dedicated RAW developer such as Lightroom, Raw Therapee, DxO, or comparable applications. Those applications allow themselves to focus on that task foremostly. The same holds true for plugins such as Nik: simple, elegant, and focused on a limited range of photography-related tasks.

I disagree that Photoline's selection and masking tools are any different or more difficult to grasp as the ones in Photoshop, Gimp, or Photopaint. I started in Photoshop v3.5, and I still use it in my classes. When I first started in Photoline, I had no issues working with the selection tools (lassos) in Photoline, other than realizing the distinction it makes between the selection outline (lasso) and the actual mask (a greyscale bitmap).

Instead, some of the tools (such as the possibility to freely switch from selection outline to vector outline editing with the vector lasso) make life so much easier compared to Photoshop (in which the same can only be accomplished by having to convert a selection back and forth with the paths palette) and similar image editors.

It is just that Photoline's workflow is a tad different in certain cases. For example, the Liquify filter in Photoshop opens a dedicated modal dialog, and forces the user to leave the regular Photoshop interface. If the user requires this filter to be applied in a non-destructive manner, (s)he is forced to first convert the layer in question to a Smart Object.

In Photoline the same action is simply performed by applying the liquify tool. It creates a new liquify layer, which is by default non-destructive. It can also be easily duplicated, and the strength controlled with the opacity slider (even with a negative value, which effectively inverses the effect!). And the user is not limited to just one liquify layer: the work can be divided into multiple layers, thereby allowing the user to work in stages.

That is FAR more elegant than Photoshop's implementation, in my view. Those layers can even be cloned, and moved/transformed individually - mind-blowing!

Photoline merely deviates from certain "standards" in a number of function areas - and this may make it more difficult to understand when one attempts to approach it with a fixed mindset, accustomed to a particular workflow (such as the one in the industry standard Photoshop).

The same holds true for the opacity range from -200 up to +200. Suddenly no more need to duplicate layers and invert them. Or the layer masks, which are parented to layers, rather than embedded in it (Affinity Photo and Krita also work like this). Or the option to work directly in a particular channel through the tools, rather than in the channel panel and with image mode switches.

When approached with an open mind, transitioning to Photoline becomes a smooth process.

Are there caveats and GUI issues? Yes, certainly. As with any other application things can always be improved. You should have seen version 17 (the one I started out with, I believe): the interface was remarkably static, and old-fashioned looking. In just three years we have seen quite a dramatic improvement. And the developers are very open to workflow improvements and enhancements. Just propose it to them. Photoken and I have seen many of our suggestions being implemented throughout the past few years.

When I work in Photoshop during classes, things feel often slow and cumbersome compared - although certain things still work better in Photoshop (the Refine Edge command springs into my mind, for example), mostly I feel like the workflow in Photoline allows me to work much faster now.

Anyway, do not expect to learn to work well in Photoline (or Photoshop) within a mere week or two. It takes longer than that. As with any high-level application. Perhaps it does not suit your workflow, and that is fine too. I think one thing to keep in mind with Photoline is that it is a very powerful professional-level image editor of which, similar to Photoshop, the GUI cannot be over-simplified. This is just in the nature of the "beasts".

(sorry for the long text)

[photoken]

But the relationships between lasso, selection and layer masks are really a byzantine mess.

Absolutely not. See this explanation:
http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.ph ... =15#p37429

[brucet]

Two comments.

1/ I think one of the issues with changing to any new software is unlearning old habits/work flow.
2/ Rather than rewriting the manual how about a short "Getting Started" document for PL. One that would cover just a few basics that were the most commonly used.

I've found it a high learning curve. In my case time is the issue. With work to do and travel I simply don't have the time to sit down and experiment.

And thanks to the 'clever' users on this forum there is always help.

regards

[Alan9940]

Ken - sorry, but I have not found the manual/Help file as helpful as you. I think part of the reason many new users to PL don't find this documentation helpful is because they don't know what term to search for. We've discussed this previously on this board...in many cases (most?) it's not that the functionality/information is not there, rather it's deciphering what to call it in PL! Two cases jump to mind: Levels = Histogram Correction (actually in this case the PL description makes more sense to me), Gradient Map = False Color. Maybe I'm a bit slow with these things, but how does the experienced PS user translate Gradient Map into False Color? Perhaps a useful document for the new PL user coming from PS would be a single page providing these translations? I can tell ya that for me this type of documentation would have saved me much time and pain in the beginning.

Herbert123 - very well said and I agree with all points made! Yes, PL presents a rather steep learning curve to the new user, but once you figure out the basics and start doing real work with it you come to realize just how powerful the software is! I'm still a ways away from mastering PL, but I gotta say that I return to it time and again for my digital photography needs because I can do many things so much simpler in PL vs PS. Any complex piece of software takes time to learn, right? I won't even admit to how many hours I spent learning Dreamweaver (CS3 at the time) when I built my first website...now there was an arduous piece of software to learn! ...for me, anyway.

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Perhaps a useful document for the new PL user coming from PS would be a single page providing these translations?

I like that idea. That would be the equivalent of brucet's "Quick Start Guide".

It's been suggested before, so how about we do it ourselves? I don't have PS, so those who do have it will have to do the heavy lifting on this. Perhaps a new discussion thread beginning with a list of PS terms, functions, adjustments?

[brucet]

Ken if someone makes a 'basic' start on a document and posts it here, maybe we can all contribute over a period of time. (Krita has a 'public' input document).

The only 'caveat' is that there needs to be some form of control of which version/format is the latest, etc etc etc. Otherwise it will be a real mess.

I have a background in doing discussion papers and submissions to government bodies. But I don't have the software knowledge. Given some help I could draw up a draft paper. Formatted in something like OpenOffice, so that it's available to everyone.

And it all has to be done with the blessings of the developers.

regards

[photoken]

The only 'caveat' is that there needs to be some form of control of which version/format is the latest, etc etc etc. Otherwise it will be a real mess.

I think that an alphabetical list of PS terms would be the simplest, and make it easy for new users to find the PS term they're looking for.

[Herbert123]

How about we setup a Wiki? Or an online documentation such as the one for Blender?

And yes, this should happen in cooperation with the developers.

[Herbert123]

And if this does happen, a basic structure must be decided on from the very beginning.

[Alan9940]

My Adobe Creative Cloud subscription will expire by 3/31, but I still have CS6. I would be happy to provide any input to this new document that I can.

Kind regards,
Alan