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

[Asher-]

I am trying to use a mask created in photoshop. This is an obvious task that should be easy. No surprise that Lightroom does not support it in any obvious way. 

Several problems: 

* Lightroom has neglected to allow masks from files

* 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). 

* Copying and pasting an automask results in the automask being recomputed.

In both cases, the mask is created perfectly on the BW photoshop file.

* In the case of the luminance mask, paste behavior is simply definitionally wrong (you are not pasting anything: BUG).

* In the case of the automask, there should be an option to apply without recomputing (sometimes I can see recomputing being desired, but when this is not desired it interferes with proper behavior: BUG). 

So how do I go about doing this obvious and basic task?

Until a solution is provided, this is considered a bug in Lightroom's masking feature. 

[Rob_Cullen]

My 'simplistic' understanding is that LrC is a 'Parametric' editor, Ps is a 'Pixel/raster' editor - they are totally different editing modalities.

I see reports of LrC masks being 'exported' to pixel based files to use as a Ps mask, but like RGB files cannot be reverted to raw data files, I would expect problems trying to convert Ps masks to work in a parametric editor.

Also interested to see a reply from 'one who knows'.

[Asher-]

That's not how image processing works.

Internally, all product images (including masks) have to be converted to some sort of bitmap representation. The mask can be described as a series of grayscale values that describe how opaque the mask is at each pixel. Otherwise there would be no way to map 1:1 between the pixel-based image (produced by interpellating the raw) and the mask layered on top of it. 

The real question is: why is it so difficult to apply such a mask to a photo in Lightroom? Both obvious methods have been incorrectly implemented. It's as if the Lightroom developers have tried to intentionally make it difficult. I don't think any of them ever actually use Lightroom. 

[johnrellis]

"Lightroom has neglected to allow masks from files"

As you've observed, that's currently not implemented by LR. If you want Adobe to implement it, I suggest you post a feature request in the Ideas section:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863...

[johnrellis]

"In the case of the automask, there should be an option to apply without recomputing"

Please submit that as a feature request:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863...

While waiting for Adobe to implement it, you could use the Copy Settings plugin to copy original Select Subject/Sky masks (without recomputing).

[johnrellis]

"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)."

Can you explain more why you think the current behavior isn't useful?  

[Asher-]

Can you explain the difference between pasting an existing luminance mask and creating a new luminance mask?

[johnrellis]

Here's the result of copying a luminance range mask from the left photo to the right photo:

Here's the result of creating a new luminance range mask on the right photo:

[Asher-]

I don't know what you think you are demonstrating by configuring a luminance mask and then pasting it (which then recompultes) vs an unconfigured luminance mask. 

If you configured the second one the same way as the first they would look identical.

[richardplondon]

Perhaps if it helps to clarify this, we might use the example of an adjustment layer in Photoshop, which has been given certain Blend If settings to restrict its action according to luminance values in the layer stack below.

And then consider what happens, if you copy such an adjustment layer from one PS document, into another. You will not get the same 'practical' results from Blend If, unless it is being given the exact same input to operate with. That is part and parcel, of embodying the same 'logical' result.  

That kind of entity and that kind of logical operation, is probably the closest PS analogy, to a LrC local adjustment using a luminance mask. There is no mask bitmap involved, and nothing seen in the Channels palette. Just a layer that has been given dynamic rules, making it act in a certain selective way.

Extending this, something that there is no analogy for in PS: a Subject selection is merely an instruction of the same kind. The practical fruition of which must equally await the dynamic application of that instruction, onto this new image's own content. The requirement to approve recalculation is different, but harking back to the BlendIf example, if THAT did not recalculate itself continually and automatically to whatever is below, we would be dissatisfied with that.

In PS when we want a static mask we do that, and when we want a dynamic mask we do that. LrC / ACR is IMO somewhat ahead of PS layers in what you can do dynamically / parametrically and how efficiently; its focus is parametric and even, its brushed masks are resolution independent, because that is how it makes most sense to navigate its particular task landscape.

PS is way ahead of LrC when it comes to static bitmap masks and what you can do with those. That's clearly a very different task landscape being navigated by that. Hence seeking to map or transfer the tactics and solutions from one onto the other, is IMO going to be prove as pointless a quest, as it would be trying to mount oars onto a motorbike.

[Asher-]

This is incorrect. Your logic only applies to the interface side of things, not to the internal rendering of the image. 

When you create a luminance mask, internally a bitmap is rendered that matches to the resolution of the current image and its luminance values. If the luminance values or the image changes, the bitmap gets recalculated. There is no existing method that exists to apply a luminance mask to a photo (which is a bitmap) without producing a bitmap. This is true even if you create the mask in some other format, such as a vector description; in order to understand what to do with the components in the image (each representing a pixel), a bitmap is produced (an injection s created that maps one source location to each individual destination location). 

You are conflating the luminance mask settings (equivalent to blend-if) with the luminance mask that this produces. Of course if you move the settings, you get a mask on the new image. But the desired result here is to move the mask itself (not the configuration to create the mask). 

People seem to think "parametric" means that magic happens. This is not the case. Lightroom is still a bitmap image editor. "Parametric" means that it describes the edits in a non-destructive way. 

You are incorrect that the brushes / masks are resolution independent. Masks are described in the XMP files as a series of "dabs", where each dab is a brush stamp of a specified size. The XMP also includes the ID for the computed mask value, but I have not been able to find the corresponding data in the database. 

[Abuse removed by moderator] The internals pipeline that renders the image necessarily has to create a computed bitmap in order to apply the mask. 

[ Note from moderator: forum guidelines are to be kind and respectful to others. ]

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

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. 

[Asher-]

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

As far as civil— what are you talking about?

[Asher-]

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. 

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

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... 

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. 

[Asher-]

[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. . 

[Asher-]

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

SHAME ON YOU ADOBE.

[richardplondon]

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!

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

@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.

[johnrellis]

"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?  

[Asher-]

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.