• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
35

P: Ability to apply masks to individual Smart Filters

LEGEND ,
Nov 09, 2011 Nov 09, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

If this hasn't been asked for already I am flummoxed!!

At present the only way of applying filters with different masks to a smart object (say a sharpening followed by a background blur) is to apply the sharpening (with a mask) to the smart object, convert this to a smart object and apply the blur (with a mask) to this smart object. Not only does this make the workflow confusing (since some of the edits are hidden) but it also increases the size of the file considerably.

If masks could be applied to individual filters this really messy situation would disappear.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS SOON!! Smart objects are a great idea ... but you seem to have done an initial cut and now you are doing nothing to make it into a more useful and mature feature.

Idea No status
TOPICS
macOS , Windows

Views

1.9K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
27 Comments
Community Expert ,
Nov 09, 2011 Nov 09, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In case you mean a Gaussian (or other) Blur – would using a blurred instance with a Layer Mask instead of blurring the partially sharpened SO not also work?

Basically I support the request for individual masking for Filter applications on SOs, but your statement »you seem to have done an initial cut and now you are doing nothing to make it into a more useful and mature feature« seems not wholly appropriate when one considers the improvements SOs do have undergone since CS2.

Edit: To elaborate on the improvements: perspectival transformation, mask linking, ...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Nov 09, 2011 Nov 09, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My main request was of course to have masks with each smart filter - not to complain about the enhancements to Photoshop.

However, since we are on the subject:
- still can't use the Lens Blur filter
- auto-align layers and auto-blend layers still cannot be used which means that panoramas, for example, cannot be done on ACR objects, nor can focus-stacking be done on ACR objects (or any kind of object for that matter). However these can be done manually so there can't be any technical reason for not implement them.
- can't use liquify and vanishing point (if puppet-warp can work as a smart filter then presumably liquify and v-p could also).
- can't do content-aware scaling (I guess this makes sense as CAS needs to add/remove pixels)
- can't do HDR on smart objects (not even HDR Toning!).
- there are quite a few other things that would be very useful in the Lightroom/ACR integration of Smart Objects (a simple one would be the ability to use the original RAW file in the SO and not the (automatically converted by Photoshop) DNG file).

It would seem to me that mask linking should have been there all along - this is more in the nature of a bug-fix surely. As for transforms - scaling, warping etc - they were there in CS2.

So even though smart objects have some of the new features added in new releases (for example Lens Correction), which is nice even if it is to be expected, the smart objects aren't much smarter than they were 3 releases back. I suspect the reason is that people aren't using them much because they are heavy on computing (I had trouble using them on 1Ds files and couldn't use them on 1DsIII files until I upgraded my PC). Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there are so few wish-list items for smart objects? Perhaps another is because people don't realise how powerful they are so they don't bother using them? Maybe a third reason is that Adobe aren't putting in the effort to make them really smart (which isn't very smart to my way of thinking!).

BTW Christoph - yes, of course you can use a blurred copy of the smart object with a mask, but this adds a lot to the file size (for example, flattened file 280MB, file with one ACR SO 310MB, file with duplicated ACR SO 475MB ... no filters, adjustment layers, masks). Also blurring is simple because it's unlikely you would want to go back to the sharpened SO - but what if you want to apply some develop sharpening with a mask then apply some creative sharpening with another mask, say? Doing this with a copy of the SO doesn't work ... you would have to rasterize it before applying the creative sharpening - better to nest the SO (which is also better file-size-wise: 385MB).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Expert ,
Nov 09, 2011 Nov 09, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

»It would seem to me that mask linking should have been there all along - this is more in the nature of a bug-fix surely. As for transforms - scaling, warping etc - they were there in CS2.«
Not perspectival transformation, though.
That was a particular problem if one passed a file with perspectively transformed SO to someone using a lower version, because the transformation would get lost on updating the SO.

»I suspect the reason is that people aren't using them much because they are heavy on computing«
I suspect that many people are not using them because they may not not have taken the time to read the »What’s new«-section in the Help for many versions ... as you say, SOs are powerful, so the willful ignorance of some users baffles me.

»of course you can use a blurred copy of the smart object with a mask, but this adds a lot to the file size (for example, flattened file 280MB, file with one ACR SO 310MB, file with duplicated ACR SO 475MB ... no filters, adjustment layers, masks).«
I tested with a dng and the psd with the SO is 246MB, the one with two instances of the SO 344.7MB, the one with the SO converted to a SO 470.9MB.
But you are right that with certain masked Filter combination the nesting would seem best.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Nov 10, 2011 Nov 10, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, definitely the perspective transform is a great addition!

I came across this link which shows the differences in smart objects between CS2 and CS4 (but not CS5).

CS2 to CS4 Smart Objects

One of the things that really disappointed me with CS5 was the lack of developments on smart objects - and I very much hope Adobe rectify this in CS6 (which would be the only reason I would have to buy CS6, unless there are other major improvements in HDR, for example). However it may be that there are improvements in SOs between CS4 and CS5 that I am not aware of?? Perhaps performance improvements, for example? Anything in that area would be great!

I expect the differences in your relative file sizes compared to mine are due to a different kind of image - I've tried it with a file, both RAW and DNG, and in my case the SO converted to SO is still smaller in both cases than the duplicated SO.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Expert ,
Nov 10, 2011 Nov 10, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You may be right that CS5 offered little new with respect to Smart Objects. Puppet Warp being applicable as a Smart Filter may have tainted my perception – but it is not a distinct Smart Object feature itself.

In any case I hope your feature request will garner some more support.

I can’t locate the thread unfortunately, but I’m pretty certain one of the Adobe engineers (probably Mr.Cox) once commented on the issue over at forums.adobe.com and it is more complicated than us simple users might expect.
Still, if it is at all achievable maybe they will reconsider whether the benefits may justify the effort.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Nov 10, 2011 Nov 10, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Christoph,

I've had a response from Adobe and it appears that the main difficulty is one of performance. If the smart filters are all active and you paint on one of the filter masks then they all have to update in real-time ... which would clearly be very compute-intensive and probably very slow. However they have said that they will look at the issue again (perhaps they can disable the other filters during painting on a mask, for example).

It's interesting to me that you are the only person so far who has taken me up on this topic ... maybe we need a campaign to get people to start using smart objects (I would personally be lost without them ... just think, for example, of the ability to go back into the ACR object when a new version of Camera Raw comes out, click on Lens Correction or the new process and voila!).

With very fast processors, cheap memory and very cheap storage there seems no good reason not to use Smart Objects.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Dec 19, 2012 Dec 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It would be e great feature if every of the Smart Filters applied to Smart Objects could become a filter mask.

Due to the fact, that there presently is just one mask for all the filters, for partial filter application Layer duplication is necessary. No big deal - but messes files up.
Would lead to more tidy and neat files.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Sep 14, 2013 Sep 14, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The problem is getting more severe as more filters are converted into Smart Filters. You might have one mask for Field Blur, a different mask for Sharpening, and no mask at all for Liquify. Currently that requires either two duplicate layers (which almost triples your file size), or two levels of nested smart objects which has the downside of hiding what each nested smart object contains.

I notice that when a smart object is nested, the underlying image is not duplicated, so that when you save the file, you are still only saving a single copy of the image. If there was a way to create a duplicate of the smart object layer that didn't actually copy the image, that would certainly solve the problem of having multiple smart filters with multiple masks that doesn't also result in a huge file size increase. In essence you are creating a Smart Layer which contains a pointer to the image it was created from rather then a copy of the image. That gets you multiple masks for multiple filters without huge increases to file size.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Guest
Sep 20, 2014 Sep 20, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied



For smart filters if you stack them you only get a single mask. I want each smart filter in the stack to have its own mask. That would be super helpful!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Dec 19, 2014 Dec 19, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied



[En] Will it be possible one day to give to the smart filters an individual mask?
[Fr] Sera-t-il possible un jour que les filtres dynamiques aient chacun un masque individuel?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Nov 07, 2016 Nov 07, 2016

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Is it possible to add 2 or more smart filters to a layer, each filter having it's own mask?

I need to create an editable file, where 2 areas of the same layer have different blurs applied.

Thanks for any help.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Nov 07, 2016 Nov 07, 2016

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The only way I can think to do this is by creating a new smart object for every smart filter you create. So for example if you have a smart object and apply a Gaussian blur you will get a single smart filter mask and control over blend modes. If you then convert that structure to a smart object then you can apply a different smart filter to the new smart object and also use it's smart filter mask. In order to edit your Gaussian Blur you would need to double click the current smart object, make changes then press ctrl or cmd-s to save and go back to the top level smart object. I guess you could apply as many smart filters with masks as you want that way, but I suspect it would get confusing very quickly.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 26, 2017 Jul 26, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This is also how I do it now. I'm hoping Adobe comes up with a better way to accomplish this in a future release

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Expert ,
Jul 26, 2017 Jul 26, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

No, you can't do it as you would like to. That request has been asked of Adobe numerous times, but afaik nothing has been done about it.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Nov 04, 2018 Nov 04, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied



Currently, only one Mask is available to multiple Smart Filters applied to a Smart Object. This causes a 'conflict of interest' 🙂
It would be a very powerful tool to have an individual mask for each Smart Filter applied to a Smart Object. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jan 29, 2019 Jan 29, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied



It would be very cool to be able to add a layer mask to each individual effect on a layer (ex. a layer mask on the drop shadow effect on a layer).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Mentor ,
May 14, 2020 May 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A decade later and we're still waiting for this feature...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
May 14, 2020 May 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

eartho, sadly Photoshop developing team is busy designing mostly useless gadgets to attract new buyers, while well established tools like the one mentioned here, are lacking much needed improvements. So, don't hold your breath. Profits are more important to Adobe than countless cries for improvements from the veteran Photoshop users like you and me.
Further, so called 'experts', whose job is to convey our suggestions to the team of developers are mostly kids, who have no idea what we are talking about, so only the problems they can comprehend 'make it' for evaluation. For us - long time, professional users, who can greatly contribute in making Photoshop better tool because of our invaluable experience with the program - it is very frustrating to see that for 10 years, none of the Adobe representatives even took a minute to acknowledge our efforts here and many alike. A single 'we don't give a damn' would be better than this ignorance. 
But hey, that's what having a monopoly affords you. Go Adobe!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Expert ,
May 14, 2020 May 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I sympathise with the frustration but I think you are being unfair to members of the Photoshop Team. 
They may not have dropped by on this thread but on many others they have provided input, acknowledged bugs etc. 
Also I somehow have a vague memory that one (possibly Chris Cox way back) elaborated on the problems with this particular request, but that may have been on the general Photoshop Forum. 

Two other issues: 
• There’s not just useless gadgets; Photoshop for Linux is probably one of the most-voted Feature Requests so now we got ... Photoshop for iPad! 
• Alternatives to Photoshop exist and that makes the monopoly-accusation very problematic. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Mar 09, 2022 Mar 09, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

c., I admit perhaps my recent replie's tone was a bit too harsh. But I assure you, it is well deserved.

For professional users who use this program to make a living, PSD is an invaluable tool which in today's world of graphic, printing and science has no real competitor. Yes, I praise Adobe for continuously providing a tool that is the cutting edge and the only truly reliable graphics program on the planet. But especially because of that, they should do a better job improving existing, well established tools. My experience in general is obviously frustrating. Adobe seems to make needless changes to tools that worked well for decades while tools that desperately need improvements, like allowing unique Mask to the individual Smart Filters stay untouched.

In general, I love Photoshop and I owe it to my entire successful professional life. I still care, and therefore I continue to point out what I believe needs improvements.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Apr 06, 2022 Apr 06, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Currently the mask is filtering all Smart Filters of a layer, but I need to mask eacht Filter individuallty.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Nov 23, 2022 Nov 23, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

no updates since 2011? omg...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jan 11, 2023 Jan 11, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I need it too.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
May 03, 2023 May 03, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Being able to add different masks to individual filters would solve so many problems for me! Currently I'm nesting one smart object after another, not very efficient for my workflow. When I want to edit a certain effect, I have to walk through all these nested SO's in search of the one with the filter I'm looking for. Then walk back through the whole chain to see how the change has effected each of them. And it makes resizing a hassle as well when I've done it too early in the process and want to adjust a cut-out I've made. On top of it all, masks tend to respond unpredictable to resizing and cutting and the nesting certainly doesn't help.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
May 27, 2023 May 27, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's so funny! Adobe pretending to be progressive with all those fancy AI features, but can't make simple masks for over a decade... LOL 🙂 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report