Erasing vs. masking

Forum|Forum|7 years ago
July 3, 2018
3 replies
346 views

When bringing one image into another for purposes of compositing, I could either mask or erase pixels that I know I don't need from the imported image. My impression is that erasing those pixels would cause a smaller increase in the overall file size. From that perspective, erasing would be more efficient. Is that correct?

A related question: Would masking and then applying the layer mask be equivalent to erasing?

This topic has been closed for replies.

JJMack

Community Expert

There is a lot more to compositions then just isolating the content you want. Often if not always images need to to scaled to work with each others scale. Different focal length lens, camera resolutions etc need to be scaled to work together IMO its best to use Smart Object layers And if you do you will find you can not change these layers pixels. The eraser tool will not work on smart object layers. I would always strive for best quality over layer size overhead. If the image will be used on the web all that overhead is not in the Jpeg or Png file used on the web. Those file types do not support layers.

JJMack

Doc_PitAuthor

Inspiring

Thank you for the responses.

davescm

Community Expert

Masking every time. It is none destructive, meaning that you can go back and alter it at any time.

Dave

Sahil.Chawla

Adobe Employee

Hi Doc Pit,

I believe, masking would be better as it would give you an option to reveal or hide of any part of the image, and you'll have an option to go back and fix the mistakes. Erasing will not give you that level of flexibility.

Regards,
Sahil

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded