P:(Masking): Allow Paste of Mask created in Photoshop to Lightroom

I don't dispute that being able to copy the paramters is useful.

I suppose my statement presumed extra context: namely that I was comparing the mask created on the target photo vs the pasting the mask from the mask source photo, in which case they end up being identical. 

I have much more control creating mask selections in Photoshop, where I can use any number of tools that are not available in Lightroom in order to refine exactly what I want to mask. If we disregard the internal resolution limitation on masks (which introduces separate issues regarding mask detail and whether it corresponds to Photoshop) we should be able to produce the desired result using a luminance mask on the grayscale image produced in Photosohp for use as the mask. A luminance mask on a grasyscale image corresponds either to the mask or its inverse (depending on how terms are defined). 

If this image could be copied from the source image (the mask produced in Photoshop) and pasted without recomputing onto the target photo, the result would be a Lightroom mask correspodning to the mask defined in Photoshop.

"Copying and pasting a Luminance mask results in the mask being recomputed on the new image (making copy/paste perfectly useless, since this is what creating a new mask does).  ... In the case of the luminance mask, paste behavior is simply definitionally wrong (you are not pasting anything: BUG)."

I still don't understand why you think the current copying behavior of luminance ranges is "perfectly useless" and why "you are not pasting anything".   It's obvious the parameters of the range get pasted (which is what I was demonstrating before).

Lots of people find the current behavior very useful. A typical use case: You've taken a number of shots of the same scene with the same exposure, either from slightly different angles or with the subject moving a little between shots. You'd like to adjust the temp and tint of the mid-shadows. So you make a luminance range mask on the first photo and then copy it to the other photos. It doesn't matter that the photos aren't identical -- the same range of shadows gets adjusted the same way.  Copying a bitmap mask from the first photo to the others wouldn't accomplish this goal, since the photos aren't identical.

Conversely, I still don't understand in what use cases you would find copying the bitmap mask resulting from a luminance range to be useful.  I wonder if others here implicitly understand something in your feedback that I don't?  

@richardplondon 
"But for what it's worth, AFAIK LrC (and ACR) masks are built up of elements - be they brush 'dabs' or a gradient in a certain place or whatever, of which the location coordinates and sizing ets are parameterised as % of the frame."

Richard, 
That is still true for Brush, Gradient, Radial, masks but AI Maskes (Select Subject - Select Sky) have a pixel component.

A little unclear to me who is responding to who here. But for what it's worth, AFAIK LrC (and ACR) masks are built up of elements - be they brush 'dabs' or a gradient in a certain place or whatever, of which the location coordinates and sizing ets are parameterised as % of the frame. They are not expressed in pixel terms as PS mask channels are: different beasts entirely. In LrC you can sync the same masking across two different images with the same content but completely different pixel resolutions, and the visually same result is seen. Same for crop and Transform etc. There is no persisting bitmap mask that you can do anything with, only the on-the-fly implementation of brushing parameters. That implementation may indeed be secretly cached as bitmap but it seems even this may be at a standard resolution, disregarding the native picture resolution as well as crop boundary and such. Same principle for selection by luminance and/or hue, by Sky, by Subject.

PS masks on the other hand, are fully resolution dependent. This is inextricable - I suppose someone could translate a layer BlendIf setting into a LrC luminance selection though, and translate the action of the adjustment layer in PS, into visually equivalent LrC based adjustments.

How often would be require this though? PS for the PS stuff that PS is good at, LrC for the LrC stuff that LrC is good at - works for me!

The link you provided at least should provide access to the masks so that I can fix this myself. 

SHAME ON YOU ADOBE.

[Abuse removed by moderator]

Not being able to copy a luminance mask from one photo to another is a BUG. That you think it is not makes clear how little Adobe cares about its software or how it is used. . 

Please clarify your reasoning regarding resolution? Where do you source this information?

I am an Adobe Employee and that is the current specification for the Mask dimensions. It has been posted in other threads:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/new-masking-feature-differences-between-smart-preview-and-original/m-p/12616505#M257864 

As far as civil— what are you talking about?

This comment is on the edge.

"Bottom line is that you are responding to a topic that you don't seem to know anything about. "

In any case, I've converted your bug report to a feature request - this is not a bug. If others find your reasoning sound and want the feature as well they will vote. 

Even if this resolution claim is correct (and I have seen no basis for it), it does not address the deficiency. 

Taking a luminance mask from a second photo of the same resolution and pasting it to the first does not encounter any issue here. So even if I cannot simply paste a Photoshop image (inexcusable oversight), there is no good reason why I cannot make a luminance mask from it and paste that.

This is a bug of neglect. 

Please clarify your reasoning regarding resolution? Where do you source this information?

As far as civil— what are you talking about?

An additional consideration:

Realize the pixel dimensions of the mask in Lightroom are not the image dimensions - but rather a short edge = 1920 Pixel max version of the image's aspect ratio. 

Even if the paste of a Photoshop Mask were allowed, it would have to be scaled to match CR/Lightroom's max Mask dimensions. It would never be a simple "paste" operation. 

OP - please keep your discussions civil. 

Thank you.