Your thoughts on working with Intersections.

[C.Cella]

Hi all. 

I use Intersection(s) aplenty in my work but there are several aspects that I don't like. 

First of all I wish the Intersection button was visible alongside the Add and Subtract buttons. 

I do not like the current way to reveal it. 

I also don't like that we cannot immediately turn/convert an existing Mask into an Intersection.

This I have feature requested but was implemented only in "Copy Settings" plug-in by @johnrellis so it is not available to all users. 

(I highly and wholeheartedly recommend John's plug-ins)

Lastly one very problematic aspect of Intersections is that in history they are referred/named as "subtractions".

After 1 year and more of Masking 2.0 I am frankly curious to know the opinion of other users on Intersections !

Are you happy with how things are now?

Would you prefer Intersections to be doable more directly? 

.

[dj_paige]

Since you asked

First of all I wish the Intersection button was visible alongside the Add and Subtract buttons.

I do not like the current way to reveal it.

I don't mind the current method, holding down the ALT key (on Windows) is very simple. Having a button would also work.

I also don't like that we cannot immediately turn/convert an existing Mask into an Intersection.

I'm not sure what this means.

Lastly one very problematic aspect of Intersections is that in history they are referred/named as "subtractions".

I realize that this is how it is done, I don't have a problem with it, could you explain why it is a problem for you?

[C.Cella]

@dj_paige

What I suggested was to right click on a Mask and "Convert to Intersect".

Now users must first do it in two steps:

1) invert the mask

2) then covert it to subtract

•• Calling an inversion as "Subtract" is plainly wrong.

I thought it was self evident.

Using my example history should say "Intersect". 

It is not possible to make sense of history with such incorrect naming. 

For example which of these steps is a an intersection and which are actual subtractions ?  

. 

[dj_paige]

What I suggested was to right click on a Mask and "Convert to Intersect".

I have never felt the need to do this. So I am okay without the feature. When would you need this?

Mathematically, an intersect is really a form of subtraction. Maybe that's what Adobe was thinking.

It is not possible to make sense of history with such incorrect naming.

For masking, don't look at the history in my History Panel, so if it says Subtract instead of Intersect, I don't particularly care. I do change the default names of the mask so it is more clear to me what I am doing. Can you give an example where you look at history to help you understand?

[C.Cella]

"Can you give an example where you look at history to help you understand?"

I look at history all the times. 

It helps makes sense of what I did, especially when I go back days after to a photo that has not been finalised. 

If a history step says "Subtract" but it was actually an "Intersection" then it's a plain lie.

I can't make sense of what really happened during the editing of the photo if history lies. 

I thought this problem with incorrect naming was self evident.

I am surprised I have to explain why it is wrong and problematic to call "Subtract" something that is called "Intersect". 

.