When you exclude some parts of your luminosity mask by painting black, it is a not reversible method. I am not very skilled with the new composite mask wich can be use in these case I think, can you make a video to explain the process please.
Hi there not sure what you mean by "not reversible". You can paint white again if you made a mistake painting black. Maybe you can clarify if that's now what you meant.
At 5:51I am looking at nicely brightened shadows in the leaves top-left, but also at enhanced white edges against the sky - which were much less at 4:32. Is that a necessary trade off for lighter shadows in this case?
Yes it is a consequence of the dramatic adjustment in the curves. If this is unsatisfactory, you can try to play around with the slope of the curve to see if it helps or just use the shadows tool to lighten.
@@takebetterphotos8132 This sounds as if an efficient method to avoid such halos should be out of reach, and we have to accept such halos in Affinity Photo 2. The 'playing around' should have been a part of your demonstration. It would probably be possible to target the halos with a brush using one of the darkening blend modes - it is in Photoshop.
That sounds like too much work just to brighten the image. 😁 Now that I think of it perhaps it was the blur I applied to the luminosity mask. I'll look out for it when I do such operations. Thanks for the feedback!
@@takebetterphotos8132 Too much work is - e.g. when it becomes necessary to draw a precise mask around a butterfly at 400 % - This repair task is nothing ;O) But of course, it depends on what your image means to you and which standard you prefer.
Exactly what I was looking for. Great. I prefer the second method.
Tha is the better one.
When you exclude some parts of your luminosity mask by painting black, it is a not reversible method. I am not very skilled with the new composite mask wich can be use in these case I think, can you make a video to explain the process please.
Hi there not sure what you mean by "not reversible". You can paint white again if you made a mistake painting black. Maybe you can clarify if that's now what you meant.
At 5:51I am looking at nicely brightened shadows in the leaves top-left, but also at enhanced white edges against the sky - which were much less at 4:32. Is that a necessary trade off for lighter shadows in this case?
Yes it is a consequence of the dramatic adjustment in the curves. If this is unsatisfactory, you can try to play around with the slope of the curve to see if it helps or just use the shadows tool to lighten.
@@takebetterphotos8132 This sounds as if an efficient method to avoid such halos should be out of reach, and we have to accept such halos in Affinity Photo 2. The 'playing around' should have been a part of your demonstration. It would probably be possible to target the halos with a brush using one of the darkening blend modes - it is in Photoshop.
That sounds like too much work just to brighten the image. 😁 Now that I think of it perhaps it was the blur I applied to the luminosity mask. I'll look out for it when I do such operations. Thanks for the feedback!
@@takebetterphotos8132 Too much work is - e.g. when it becomes necessary to draw a precise mask around a butterfly at 400 % - This repair task is nothing ;O) But of course, it depends on what your image means to you and which standard you prefer.
Very true. In that case I would go with photoshop. Their masking is the best.
Still no correction of the mottled shadows of the girl's portrait! Wake me when you do that, please!
I will certainly do! Footage is recorded but backlog is larger this month😁