Luminosity Masks

[MikeFromMesa]

The whole idea behind Luminosity Masks is that you can mask the highlights or shadows for adjustment regardless of where they are in the image or how many locations are involved. For example, if you have a photo of some bright flowers in several clusters in a photo with a dark background a single LM will allow you to adjust all of them at the same time while not adjusting the dark background (or the exact reverse if you wish to do that). Something like this may be possible using the Nik stuff, but would require a different mask for each group of flowers, and hence a lot more work.

In addition the ability to adjust only the lights or shadows can be adjusted in a LM to gather more or less of the adjusted area, and the adjustment is automatically feathered so there are no hard edges unless the user wants them. The best way to visualize this is to take a photo and convert it into black and white. You will see light areas, dark areas and mid tones areas and if you adjust the color bands in PL to boost or reduce individual colors you can see how the B&W image changes. Using that “greyscale” image as a mask then allows you not only to adjust the lights and darks separate from the rest of the image, but allows you to revise the point where the lights and darks become mid tones than thus revise the LM itself to revise how much adjustment will take place.

I hope this is clear. If not I can write a longer post with greyscale images to show what I mean.

[John-M (Melbourne, Australia - Win10)]

Luminosity Masking provides the ability to create a mask that contains only the brightest or least bright parts in an image, and so allows you to make adjustments to only those parts.

Thanks Mike - I have a better understanding now.

In the meantime, you might like to try working with Smart Lighting - using the Spot Weighted mode. This mode gives the impression that it applies only to faces (in that its tool is applied to any faces it identifies) … but, you can use it in a similar way to which you describe the way that Luminosity Masks are applied …

The whole idea behind Luminosity Masks is that you can mask the highlights or shadows for adjustment …

The method suggested by Peter/@OXiDant is to place one (or more) Spot Weighted “rectangle” over a bright part of the image, and another (or more) over shadow areas.
I cheat a bit by encompassing (if I can) an area comprising both bright & shadow areas with just one “rectangle”. Either way, you then move the “rectangle(s)” around until you get the result you like.

This is probably(?) less precise than Luminosity Masking - but it’s very quick & easy to apply Spot Weighted Smart Lighting - - and I’ve had good success with it.

Regards, John M

[Calle (Christian)]

Thanks for the explanation, Mike. To answer your original question: No, I don’t feel limited by not having luminosity masks at my disposal in PL.

I could imagine that a luminosity mask could be another local adjustment tool or that I could set a U-Point to select on luminance or color only instead of color+luminance combined.

In software which relies on layers like Pixelmator I see the need for this feature and how it could be useful for me. For blending pictures I missed it already.

[ColinG]

That is a useful technique John but how does it allow you to add colour adjustments etc to the areas based on their luminosity or to manipulate the areas selected by adjusting the luminosity range? I cannot see how that comes anywhere close to the power of luminosity masking.

[John-M (Melbourne, Australia - Win10)]

That is a useful technique John but how does it allow you to add colour adjustments etc to the areas based on their luminosity or to manipulate the areas selected by adjusting the luminosity range?

It doesn’t Colin … but this alternative suggestion may get you some of the way (?) towards your aim whilst waiting for luminosity masking capability to be added to PL.

John

[John-M (Melbourne, Australia - Win10)]

I could imagine that a luminosity mask could be another local adjustment tool or that I could set a U-Point to select on luminance or color only instead of color+luminance combined.

A nice idea ! Perhaps you could make a request out of this, Christian ?

John

[ColinG]

At the end of the day I guess it is all about where PL intends to end up. Does it want to grow into a Lr/ON1 type of program or is the idea that it will just be a very good raw editor that can hand off to other apps if further editing is required.

[ColinG]

Colour range and Luminosity masking are two great strengths in Lr and indeed ON1. Certainly Lr offers the functionality within the radial filter and probably the gradient as well. Have not tested ON1 that far.

[MikeFromMesa]

This question about whether or not PL would add LM functionality came about due to the addition of that kind of adjustment tool in some other workflow tools. People refer to Lightroom as the main alternative to PhotoLab but I consider CaptureOne to be PL’s real competitor and they just added it as built-in functionality. That means that of the 3 top Mac workflow tools (at least in my opinion) PL is the only one without this ability.

Of course it depends on where PL is going as a tool but I think that if they expect to be able to remain a viable photo workflow tool they need to keep up with the competition but, in general, I wanted to know if others felt the need for this functionality as much as I do and the answer seems to be mixed.

[John-M (Melbourne, Australia - Win10)]

Mike - Does Luminosity Masking depend on layers ?

If so then that would be an issue for implementation in PL - which does not rely on the (complication) of layers. If not, tho, then @calle/Christian’s suggestion might well be do-able.

John M

[MikeFromMesa]

All of the current implementations of luminosity masks that I am aware of involve layers, but I am sure that PL uses layers, even if virtual, in its internal editing. How else can it allow for undos for every action that is taken except to do those adjustments on internal layers so those layers could be removed as someone walks back through the adjustment steps?

The layers do not have to be accessible to the users to be used internally.

[uncoy (Alec Kinnear)]

It is a very easy way to create a mask based on luminosity and indeed to manipulate that mask further using brushes. I use it a lot in Lr along with colour range masking. ON1 has a nice version of it also. The original mask is created automatically and you can either work with that or adjust the parameters bringing more or less into the mix - white being 100% in and black being 100% out. The mask as I said can be further adjusted using the brush.

Wouldn’t you be happier using Lightroom, Colin? You want a DAM and you want pixel editing in DxO PhotoLab.

DxO PhotoLab USP is that it’s the best RAW converter in the world. Adding all of this non-core functionality will make PhotoLab bloated, slower and harder to maintain. Something like Lightroom.

Hey, you wanted a leaner, better RAW converter and that’s why you abandoned Lightroom – did you not? I certainly did.

Luminous masking would be an awesome feature – after:

1. hardware acceleration
2. viable preview mode for always responsive interface on sliders

So that we can work better and faster with the tools we already have. Existing local tools are slow enough that it makes sense to bounce an image to a pixel editor Affinity Photo or Photoshop if there are more than just a few small touchups.

Adding yet more tools until the ones we have are fast enough to use efficiently doesn’t make sense to me.

[ColinG]

What a very strange response Mr Kinear. I never asked or wanted DxO to create a DAM I was quite happy with it being a raw converter and using it on the back of an existing Dam. It was I believe DxO who decided a DAM was needed! As for luminosity, this was a discussion about where PL was going and what functionality it needed. Nothing more and nothing less. That is why I asked - where does DxO see PL going? I think you are reluctant to see change which is fair enough. But I really do believe DxO needs to move on or be left behind, but it is a pretty good raw converter. Oh and I have certainly not abandoned Lr and probably never will.

[MikeFromMesa]

People have different needs in their photo processing so my needs are not going to mesh well with those of some others, but personally I use PL for a number of reasons.

1. I don’t need, nor want, a DAM. It does not bother me that PL has the beginnings of one, but I have no need for one and do not see any such need in the future. If Dxo wishes to add a full functional DAM to PL it will not bother me at all except that it will take away time and talent from other functionality.

2. PL not only works well on my system, but it is very, very fast so I see no need for hardware acceleration. I am only using a MacBook Pro, so I do not even have a particularly fast system, but have no performance issues with PL.

3. Adjustments on my system show up very, very quickly, pretty much in “real time”.

4. I see nothing wrong with adding new functionality and, in fact, think that if PL does not keep up with the competition it will wither and die.

In my view there are only 3 top tier workflow tools on the Mac - LR, CaptureOne and PhotoLab. I have CaptureOne (version 11) and Lightroom CC, but I use PhotoLab because I consider it better than the other two, but I sorely miss built-in Luminosity Mask functionality in my processing. Lightroom and CaptureOne have it, only PL does not. The general rule is keep up with the competition or suffer the consequences.

Personally I would love to see luminosity masking added to PhotoLab and the sooner the better. Software that does not meet the needs and constraints of the market will fail and I think that the clock is ticking. Please bear in mind that I am not referring to my needs, but to the available functionality in competing software of the same quality.

Obviously YMMV.

[OXiDant (Peter)]

Mike,

would you be so kind to show me, us, some examples why luminosity masks is so powerfull?
( i am not a experienced user of masking and find the local toolbox of dpl stil have dark corners to explore for me.)

i am just curious about your skill in this why it is important and why you need this .

Peter.

[Tilmann]

Just in short:

• no, I didn’t really miss LM yet. (There’s always another way, with eventually more effort…)
• but yes, I’d definitely appreciate them. (Could’ve already used them several times…)

I agree that this should be a tool under local adjustments if it’s implemented.

Tilmann

[ColinG]

Peter, there are so many ways to use Luminosity masking from working with the ranges to create complex masks to all sorts of edits where light values can create a filter to the effect. If you want to get an idea I would recommend you view some of the many free Adobe or ON1 tutorials on YouTube. I believe that this and colour range masking are the most powerful masking options available. U Point can get close to colour range but imo is not the best implementation of it.

[OXiDant (Peter)]

Peter, there are so many ways to use Luminosity masking from working with the ranges to create complex masks to all sorts of edits where light values can create a filter to the effect. If you want to get an idea I would recommend you view some of the many free Adobe or ON1 tutorials on YouTube.

Hi Colin, yes i will watch a youtube, but what i ment was a example where you use DPL’s toolbox and compare this with a Luminosity Mask tool to compare the results. This way @MikeFromMesa can show/visualize what DPL is missing. Because watching a on solution tutorial isn’t revealing missing stuf in a other only how that tool works. And specialy that part i am interesting in.
i am keen to use one toolbox (DPL for me in this case) as good as possible instead of using a buckload of toolsets partly because of not understanding the usage properly.
If i understand the lack of something i can figure out a workaround or search for a small single toolset to complete my toolbox.
I know there are people who use this app for that, that app for this, and in case of serious thing the other app. but hence if i remember all the things in one app how to use properly i will be happy.

Watching this i can think of a simple but very handy addition in DPL;
Because the sliders for different corrections (highlight/shadow/midtone/black) are in essence a “mask” why not show that if asked?

I painted some boxes to show what i mean.
Just add a checkbox which reveales the selection/ effective area of this particuliar area. like you can in local adjustments with “M” This way you use the masking of the application.
And if they also bring a “feathering slider” in to the tool, you can fine tune its border between the next slider. more feathering means the both are effecting the same part , less feathering means harder edge of the masking.

Not sure if its easy to do but the underlaying masking algoritm is already there just show by command is needed.

(edit: this luminosity tutorial watching shows my why i don’t use Photoshop CC: too complex for me i would be lost inside for ever searching for the right handle to get what i want…)

[MikeFromMesa]

I am not an expert either, but consider the following example.

You have a photo with a bright background, perhaps a sky, and a dark foreground, but objects in the foreground stick up high enough to blot out part of the sky. Perhaps they are buildings or trees or shrubs, perhaps something else. The sky itself has clouds, perhaps white or grey, and the sky is not evenly colored. You want to adjust the sky and only the sky, and you want to try to even out the sky color, but if you use a graduated filter you will also adjust those things sticking up into the sky and the clouds. If you try to adjust only the blues you are likely to exaggerate the difference in sky colors, not reduce the differences.

A luminosity mask would give you a mask with the brighter colors allowing more of an adjustment than the darker ones and thus a vibrance or saturation adjustment would affect the lighter color of the sky more than the darker color because the mask is based on the brightness values of the colors. Since the mask is graduated by the amount of brightness more of an adjustment would be made on the brighter areas, thereby making it easier to even out the sky colors.

Similarly you can create a luminosity mask to adjust only the darks simply by creating a lightness mask and then inverting it, thus allowing you to adjust only the darker areas. Again, you can target the adjustment to only specific colors and only in the darker areas so it is much more precise than using the shadows adjustment which would adjust all shadows in the image.

With a luminosity mask you basically can target any adjustment - exposure, contrast, HSL, colors, curves, pretty much anything - at a specific set of areas based on their lightness or darkness, and since the transitions from light to dark are graduated the adjustments look natural.

When I first started using LM it changed the way I edit photos. Prior to this I used PL almost exclusively and only used Photoshop rarely. Now I probably send half or more of my photos to PS to do the luminosity masking and it would help speed up my processing enormously to have that ability in PL itself. As I mentioned both of its major competitors, Lightroom and CaptureOne, now have this functionality and it is tempting to move to one of them. Well, I dislike LR so if I did move it would be to CaptureOne. I don’t want to do that because I like PhotoLab, and hence my original post.

Hope this helps.

[MikeFromMesa]

One more thing. Since a luminosity mask is basically only a black and white photo, where the whites allow more of an adjustment than the blacks, most tools allow you to adjust the mask in such a way as to control what luminosity marks where the mask goes from mostly allowing a change to mostly disallowing a change. Thus you can easily narrow or widen the areas where changes can be made and, if you wish, completely prevent changes. Luminosity masks thus allow you to use them as brightness masks or, if you wish, as simple cut-out masks.