Vis Mask in Painter: no you're not going crazy.

Many people don't use the Visibility Mask in Painter. To them it is just an extra complex step that gets in the way of painting.

The same can be said for a lot of Painter's extras. Like the mosaic for example or the curves palette. Some folks just want to paint, and Painter is mighty good at it too.

Eventually everyone gets around to exploring the other stuff. And if you ever get round to the Visibility Mask, you can be in for a nasty surprise. You see the principal seems simple enough, there is a Vis Mask (not to be confused with the User Mask) which controls what parts of a layer is visible. That's what it says in the book.

However if you try to erase pixels on an unfilled layer using the Vis Mask. It seems to do what it is supposed to. However if you try and make the pixels visible again you will get nasty black artifacts in your stroke and also around the edges of your stroke.

You might wonder what you are doing wrong. But fear not you are not doing anything wrong. As crazy as it may seem (especially if you are used to a layer mask such as the one in Photoshop) this is how it works in Painter. Some people have come up with "work arounds" like selecting before erasing but this is not very effective for a complex stroke although it does help a bit.

The sad fact is you are not going crazy, it's just another badly engineered part of Painter. If you don't use Vis Masks then it wont bother you. However if you are a Photoshop user and think that the Vis Mask is a layer mask you will have a tough time. Actually I don't know what the purpose of the Vis Mask actually is. It is just a half baked Layer Mask.

Below are some samples: the green stroke has been made invisisble with the Vis Mask then it has been restored but as you can see the problems are obvious.

In case you are wondering Corel have decided not to do anything about this at all it P7, in fact they have indicated to me that it is only a possibility that they will even think about it for P8.

This post is just to reassure the unwary that it is not you who is doing something wrong. In the meantime you'll have to do your layer masking in Photoshop.

thelonious

Many people don't use the Visibility Mask in Painter. To them it is just an extra complex step that gets in the way of painting.

The same can be said for a lot of Painter's extras. Like the mosaic for example or the curves palette. Some folks just want to paint, and Painter is mighty good at it too.

Eventually everyone gets around to exploring the other stuff. And if you ever get round to the Visibility Mask, you can be in for a nasty surprise. You see the principal seems simple enough, there is a Vis Mask (not to be confused with the User Mask) which controls what parts of a layer is visible. That's what it says in the book.

However if you try to erase pixels on an unfilled layer using the Vis Mask. It seems to do what it is supposed to. However if you try and make the pixels visible again you will get nasty black artifacts in your stroke and also around the edges of your stroke.

You might wonder what you are doing wrong. But fear not you are not doing anything wrong. As crazy as it may seem (especially if you are used to a layer mask such as the one in Photoshop) this is how it works in Painter. Some people have come up with "work arounds" like selecting before erasing but this is not very effective for a complex stroke although it does help a bit.

The sad fact is you are not going crazy, it's just another badly engineered part of Painter. If you don't use Vis Masks then it wont bother you. However if you are a Photoshop user and think that the Vis Mask is a layer mask you will have a tough time. Actually I don't know what the purpose of the Vis Mask actually is. It is just a half baked Layer Mask.

Below are some samples: the green stroke has been made invisisble with the Vis Mask then it has been restored but as you can see the problems are obvious.

In case you are wondering Corel have decided not to do anything about this at all it P7, in fact they have indicated to me that it is only a possibility that they will even think about it for P8.

This post is just to reassure the unwary that it is not you who is doing something wrong. In the meantime you'll have to do your layer masking in Photoshop.

thelonious

Hi Thelonius!

I was reading along and suddenly realized thatI didn't know what in the worl you were taking about. But that doesn't surprise me, I'm still struggling with floater/layers/whatever. I did learn how to use the stroke selection thinga ma bob.

I guess Corel is taking the rap for something they got from Meta/Fractal people. I wonder what Zimmer and Derry were doing while they were consulting with Corel? Maybe they will leave soon and design a new package. Who knows.

I still get jazzed about what Painter5.5 can do let alone P7.

Still I hear lots a bad news overshadowing the good news. Most new product get real beta testing upon release to the consumer.
I remember the Pong video game when it came out in the late 60's. I watched three guys lose their jobs in SIlican Valley one Friday afternoon after lunch. They got to playing Pong and forgot to go back to work. And these weren't young guys either. They blew off end of the month shipments cuz' they were captured by technology.

Ah well -- enough of this rambling on -- off subject that is!

Wayne D
Arizona

Though I've not yet tried using this feature it's good to be informed about problems others have experienced with a program. When I do find a problem I also like to be able to go to messageboards such as on talkgraphics and do a search for the problem and possible solutions.

I don't agree that Corel is taking a "rap" for a problem that existed in a program they purchased from metacreations. It's a bug that Corel was informed of and choose not to fix in their latest version. That was Corel's decision. It's strange when you think about it that we have come to accept (or live with) the fact that a lot of software will not always work the way we want or that when there is a major bug that it probably won't be fixed until a new version comes out that we have to pay for when we would not accept that kind of quality (or lack thereof) in any other product or service. Imagine if your car or television won't operate 10% of the time.

I appreciate reading about problems as well as successes with software as it keeps me well informed.

I once tried masking in Painter and after a long time of trying to figure out what the heck was going on...and a few expletives also [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ...I saved it as a psd and just took it into Photoshop.

I am having a hard time acclamating to layers and masks in Painter as compared to Photoshop and so much appreciate your post and explanations.

Don't know if I am doing something wrong or if this is a painter bug but when I run filters on certain layers it also messes up pixels near the egde on other layers.
I was using some of the blur filters on lower layers and they worked fine on that layer but also kept messing up edge pixels on the upper layers.
I remade the file again from scratch and tried selecting the area on the layer before blurring it and it still messed up edge pixels on other layers. I even tried again by hiding the uppermost layers from view while I blurred the lower layer but it still continued to effect pixels on other layers. Not only did it blur edge pixels on other layers but it changed their color and I ended up taking it into Photoshop to repair the areas along the left side and bottom with the rubber stamp tool there.

Wayne, Eky, Freebird, thanks I've taken a lot of flak over this issue including being thrown off the Painter List which prides itself on being a serious forum but is in fact the worst forum I've ever seen anywhere.

Wayne, lol, you got lost. Don't worry I only gave a very rough description of the problem as I wanted to get it up on the forum. It would only be intelligible to users who have some knowledge of the Vis Mask. But fear not I will make a little explanation/tutorial soon.

The full explanation is a little mindbending and actually a rather fascinanting journey. For me this problem started way back when I did the "Flashbak" logo, on the wood one I tried to make one of the rings go behind and I wanted to use the Vis Mask to do this...when I erased too much and restored a bit I found that black pixels got into my layer.

I was new to Painter and I spent many days trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I couldn't understand I tried different states on the Vis Mask, eg invert etc. I thought it might have something to do with preserve transparency... it went on and on. It was a chance discovery that made me realise the sad truth. This will astound you. The logic is unrefutable. Unfortunately Corel seems to have a bunch of cronies on forums all over the place who defend Painter to the death, these people cannot follow a reasoned argument and will brook no complaint against Corel.

It can be a confusing issue to talk about because people get their terms mixed up. Photoshop has a Layer Mask, also Alpha Channels which are used to store selections.

Painter has a Visibility Mask which at first glance appears to be like a Photoshop layer mask, in fact most people refer to the Painter vis mask as a layer mask, We will not do this as it leads to the most confusion. But as we shall soon see the Painter Vis mask is a strange beast that has gotten loose. Painter also has a User Mask, this is exactly like a Photoshop alpha channel and is used for the same purpose ie storing selections.

When discussing this issue people who can't follow the logic and want to defend Painter by
confusing the issue purposely mix up all these terms, so instead of discussing the issue I have to end up correcting mistakes, then I get a bunch of insults, then someone like Jinny Brown will write in saying that there is notthing wrong at all. This has been the usual pattern and indeed it has been repeated yet again recently on the Corel news group. Thank's Jinny do Corel pay you? They should.

Anyway back to the fun bit. The confusion comes when you think that the Vis Mask is analogous to a Layer Mask. it isn't. In fact Photoshop has a vis mask as well and it is this that the Painter Vis Mask is emulating.

Pause

What, do I hear you say that Photoshop doesn't have a vis mask? Well to be sure it does have one but it doesn't let the user see it or to have access to it. How can I say this. I know sounds mad doesn't it. Well I discovered it by accident and when I did suddenly it all fell into place. Because Painter will let you see Photoshops vis mask.

Do this, open a new file in Photoshop. Make new layer then paint a red stroke. Now get the eraser and rub out the middle of the stroke. Now save it in PSD. Close and reopen. Now there no way to restore the middle of your erased stroke is there? Not in Photoshop. You see the stroke has not been erased it has been covered with a vis mask. But you wouldn't know this because Photoshop won't let you see it or use it. It doesn't need to because if that's what you wanted to do you would have used the layer mask that it provides for you wouldn't you. But for whatever reason Photoshop keeps all your information about the original stroke somewhere in the depths of its viscera.

Close the Photoshop file with the stroke, now open it in Painter, highlight the layer with the stroke. you will note that it has a corresponding Vis Mask (BTW a Vis Mask is distinguished from a User Mask by the fact that it is italicised) Now highlight the Vis Mask in the Masks subpalette. Now you have TWO layers highlighted, "Layer One" in the Layers section and "Layer One Mask"in the asks section. Now leaving the mask highlighted turn of the EYE only on the Layer One Mask.

Now if you select a brush or pen and paint with black on you canvas where the missing stroke is you will restore your stroke. Because what you are in fact doing is you are painting on the Vis Mask, you can see the Vis Mask by turning it's eye on.

So there is the proof that Photoshop never actually got rid of the bit of the stoke that you erased.

What does this all mean? It means this, Metacreations knew they were going to sell Painter and they were in a hurry to develop P6 so instead of building proper layer mask they merely gave the user access to the Vis Mask that should in fact be hidden. Because it CANNOT work that the software and the user both paint on the same mask.

Corel didn't notice, they were done like kippers. However now that they have released P7 and Tanya Staples from Corel tells me that they haven't done anything about it in P7 it is fully Corel's baby now. This is not a little annoying but it is a cock up of major proportions and it treats users like mugs.

I'm late for work now gotta go, hope this gives you something to think about.

thelonious

PS here's a little message to JB. after all the crap I've had to endure from you on this topic over the months I wonder if you would be so sad as to still read this post to the end, my bet is you would. wouldn't you. Can't answer this can you without giving it away. Ha Ha so you just have to read it and fume. The truth will out.

[This message was edited by Thelonious Hink on August 21, 2001 at 00:54.]

Try this open the guitar file in the sample section of photoshop. goodies. you can bring this into Painter and restore the background.

Also you can use the extract command in Photoshop and also bring it into Painter and use the Vis Mask to see how Photoshop does the processing around the edge. It is quite interesting.

Thelonious

Thelonious,

I actually had to draw a diagram to follow your explanation and it then I could follow all the terms. Now that I think I understand the problem, I will have to open PS6 and Painter6 to try it out. But I still don't know how Painter's vis mask is supposed to work. Is it supposed to function just like Photoshop's layer mask?

Hi Eky,

You can imagine how frustrating it is then to have a discussion on this when someone with an interest to disrupt the thread start using all the terms incorrectly. The terms I use are the "official" ones. ie User Mask in Painter, that's what they call it in the manual. This is the same as the Alpha Channel in PS.

It is very important not to call the Painter Vis Mask a layer mask. As Painter call it a Vis Mask. The reason for this is because if you call it a layer mask then the tendency is to get it mixed up with the PS layer mask.

If you have a layer in Painter that is completely filled with image like a photograph for example or even a painting if the layer has been filled first. Then in that circumstance the Painter Vis Mask will work in the same way as a Photoshop layer mask, no problem. Apart from the fact that in PS black makes invisible; white makes visible; and in Painter this is reversed.

This goes to prove that the Vis Mask is meant to act like a layer mask. It is when a layer is not filled with image that the Vis Mask doesn't work properly, it erases OK but it won't restore without damaging the layer.

The reason that it is so cockeyed is that in order to be able to highlight the Vis Mask you first have to highlight its corresponding layer first. Otherwise the Vis Mask will not show up in the mask palette. You can deselect the Vis Mask by selecting RGB image in the Mask Palette. But you can't deselect the layer that the Vis Mask belongs to and leave the Vis Mask highlighted because when you deselect the layer the corresponding Vis Mask disappears off the palette. This is why black appears on your layer when you paint on the Vis Mask and you go past the edge. The poor program has Both the Layer highlighted and the Vis Mask highlighted at the same time. So where does the paint go?

This is the sort of problem that Metacreations created when they make the Vis Mask user accessible. Unlike PS who kept it hidden and provided the user with their very own vis mask which they call a Layer Mask.

There is one more very frustrating thing about Painter that can be a real pain and that is Painter will allow you to paint on a layer even if it is invisible ie the eye is turned off. So it is possible to accidentally paint on a layer without realising until it is too late. Be careful on this one.

There is only one problem with doing layer masking in PS from a Painter file and that is if your image is in rif format for example if you have dynamic layers or wet layers and you want to bring it into PS you have to save into PSD which will set all dynamic layers.

Tanya Staples from Corel is trying to say that Corel never meant the Vis Mask to be like a proper layer mask. However this is rubbish. for two reasons one is that it was a metacreations idea in the first place so Corel can't speak for Metacreations. But more importantly they cannot possibly say that it was their intention that painting on the Vis Mask can completely destroy the image. I mean come off it.

If I complain that the scripts don't work properly are they going to say, "yeah we meant that too"? Corel has beta testers who do not even understand the difference between a User Mask and a Vis Mask. And Corel will not discuss this issue at all. In my opinion Corel have proven themselves to be fools. I beleive that Metacreations only provided the Vis Mask because they wanted to rush out P6 and didn't have time to engineer a proper layer mask. They probably thought that anyone serious would just do it in PS. Which I do. But it is an unnecessary pain. I'm sure that if Metacreations kept Painter that we would have working layer mask by now.

So remember boys and girls if the layer is filled with wall to wall image then the Vis Mask is OK. I hope this has made a very cocked up situation a bit more clear.

I remember way back in January someone on the Corel news group was asking for help about this black on the layer business. He even sent in a diagram in ascii code. I really felt sorry for him as he just met with total denial from the same morons who still deny that a problem exists.

The main problem now is Corel incredible arrogance. I see no reason at all to upgrade to P7. I don't see how Corel can move onto P7 before they release patches to fix P6. Like the scripts don't work very well in P6 everyone knows this. But what I don't know is are they fixed in P7. And even if they are why should I have to pay for a bug fix. I should only have to pay for new functionality. So it seems Corel have abandoned P6 and to add insult to injury we don't even know if all the P6 bugs have been fixed.

I'm happy to discuss this issue in however much detail is necessary. Usually by this stage I would have some complete idiot throw a spanner in the works. But she only enters the thread when she can detect that a moderator or someone in power is having trouble following because they only pretend to understand, then they insult me together. However it is more difficult to throw a hand grenade into a thread such as this as opposed to a newsgroup thread.

Regards

Thelonious

[This message was edited by Thelonious Hink on August 21, 2001 at 14:47.]

I have CorelDRAW9, dutch edition. Trying to install the SP2 patch, I got a message half way that a certain file wasn't original, and the install simply broke off. I mailed, but got no answer. I called, and they simply said that this was normal behaviour.
When I read what Corel did with Xara, I simply couldn't believe it.
And now this.
Sorry for Painter, but I have no trust whatsoever in Corel, and I won't ever buy anything from them anymore.

Thanks Thelonious for taking the trouble to explain this. You also gave me a deeper understanding of Photoshop. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

about the layers and masks, Thelonious. I printed it out for future reference so I won't get myself into the troubles you've experienced.

Right on Erik,
I don't know anything about Corel draw or Xara but one thing I do know is that an attitude that a company has will diffuse down through all their products.

I am angry and anyone who cares about about the way Corel is ruining their software should show their anger in the best way. Ie don't pay them any more money. I like Painter a lot if I didn't like it I wouldn't even bother. However I don't like being taken for a fool by Corel.

When I was growing up in the sixties I was led to believe we'd all be going to work with jet packs by now. Where are they, I want my f***ing jet pack. Now.

OK I'm not going to get my jet pack. But when I buy a software package there is an implicit agreement and obligation on the part of the supplier that their product will work. They have a duty and I have a right to expect faulty software to be fixed.

I don't want vector tools with disappearing handles, I don't want faulty scripts, I don't want half baked Vis Masks etc etc.

Show Corel you are angry, Don't upgrade any Corel products. Make them take notice. How? I don't know really after all they just ignore individual users who have genuine questions.

All I can say is if you don't need to then don't upgrade.

BTW Eky you should be OK now the only problems I had was when I thought that I was doing something wrong and I wasted so much time and energy.

Thelonious

Well, I get email from Corel about every 2 weeks and recently email about ugrading to Painter 7. I will respond to it by saying that I am not upgrading and will tell them why. I do not go into Painter to just paint on the canvas. The layer and masking functions are too buggy and until I know for sure they have fixed them, then I am not upgrading.

Not too crazy over Corel anyway. Had the first version of Xara--nice features but buggy and couldn't print from it. Had 3 earlier versions of Draw but all were released buggy and they never inform registered users of patches. Among not giving you Ventura publisher as they said when you very pricely upgraded (they actually put a coupon in the box for you to send when Ventura became ready and they didn't know when that would be) they also messed up the printing from version 4 to 5 and you couldn't place things properly anymore for printing.

ok Xara ltd. of Gaddsden Place somewhere in England. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] (provincial texan that I am. . i believe it is outside of London . . .too lazy to look it up at the moment).

Had a product called Xara Studio. Somehow they made a deal with Corel that Corel could market Xara, the program at least in the US and apparently in the UK. When TigerDirect (a US Computer junkies catalog) helped advertise a Corel Roadshow going through Houston, I got to admire, for the first time, the concept of graduated transparency in a vector application (this was back in '95 . . when CorelDRAW 6 was coming out in conjunction with Win95). I read the TigerDirect Hype and it looked awesome. I went to the roadshow and Xara was great. Admittedly, as Freebird says, version 1.1 had printing problems but Xara (not Corel) fixed them in either version 1.2 or 1.5 AND they did those as free upgrades. (they did not make you pay for a bug patch)They added great functionality in those versions also.

(you know what, Freebird, my recollection is fuzzy I don't recall if us diehard Xara fans just exported to .tif and printed from those -- we so adored the Xara tools)

But the shoddy treatment from Corel that Erik is referring to, I believe, (not being the best of mind readers [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ) is this:

Corel never bought Xara the program or Xara ltd. lock,stock, and barrel. They took great ideas from Xara's product, incorporated them into Corel Draw and then locked Xara 2 the next version of the program in the dustbin in the basement. Barely letting Xara have food, water, or letting Xara see the light of day. Sadly Xara 1.1, 1.5, and 2 were the stepchildren of Corel and Corel really only seemed to show interest in sustaining CorelDRAW!. that is how the xara Community saw it. . ok .. that is how I saw it. (Corel did a horrible job of marketing XARA2). When the contract finally ended between Xara Ltd., and Corel. All rights of ownership and marketing reverted back to Xara Ltd. They were free to market their program as they saw fit. All that time, Xara maintained complete control over the program code of Xara. So I think their parting was amicable. . . as amicable as such a parting can be.

Corel never wrote or owned the code for Xara.

Corel's purchase of Painter and other former MetaCreations software WAS more along the lines of Lock, Stock, and Barrel. To my understanding, they DO own the code for Painter and everything that that implies. (metacreations,if they are still alive --- as if we care--- do not want the program back. they just wanted the money)

And yes, Thelonious, I agree. If you didn't care about Painter you'd let this issue drop. Customer Service people have to realize that when a customer is complaining, they are giving the company a 2nd chance. . . a chance to redeem themselves. I remember a similar instance where I had bought a program called HoTMeTaL Pro and they had a bug that they fixed in a new version. . . they did not fix it in a free patch. A bug I considered a functionality bug. and I never bought the next version. I took my money elsewhere. I switched to Dreamweaver and have never looked back. I quit caring what HoTMeTaL did.

Since Corel now owns Painter. .. the code. .. .I would expect that Corel will sustain Painter. I think that because of the unique nature of Painter, they will never try to make it compete with Adobe Photoshop or Corel PhotoPaint. I'm not sure that Painter could sustain a head to head battle with Adobe Photoshop. Painter used to be marketed kind of as natural media tool (or that's how I viewed it) and not as a competitor to Photoshop. But all that aside, I agree, it is not unreasonable to ask a company to produce a product that works. I think you've been doing a fantastic job presenting the problem here. It makes perfect sense to me. Although, [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] I still haven't tried to duplicate the error on my machine.

But where I'm guessing the Corel people are coming from is this: You can work and work and work and still not get a 100% perfect program. so at what point do you say you can let a program out of the gate? Allow the users to enjoy new functionality? (admittedly, from watching the thread on print quality, one does wonder what new functionality is in this program). Corel has been notorious for letting version A out with bugs (forcing the user to get out the cans of RAID, the big Boots, and the rolled newspapers) but they are normally pretty good at getting alot of stuff fixed in version B. They (Corel) drive perfectionists crazy but they do move the program forward (you may never see the forward motion because of the distraction from the other problems, but the movement is there [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ).

I really hope that they move this feature up on their list of bug fixes. It would make Painter so much cooler to have this feature work the way you describe that it could work. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Thank you all for this fascinating discussion,

Athena
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

(ps I once had professor tell me that as a perfectionist, I might lose out to the person who regularly delivers shoddier material because they do more in the same amount of time and have a greater likelihood of getting decent stuff out ... decent not perfect . .. something seems insane about that. . . but I understood his point.)

A couple of points directed to Mr. Hink...

(1) Painter's method of editing layer/floater visibility masks predates v6. Painter has never featured Photoshop-style layer mask editing, nor did anyone ever pretend otherwise. I do agree with you that the proxy mask system used in Photoshop is desirable for Painter. But keep in mind that implementing this would shoot up Painter's memory requirements tremendously for users who need more than just a few layers. And it would probably slow down screen redraw. The Clip Masking used by PhotoPaint would probably be better because you could manually control which layers use it.

(2) Your problem with artifacts described in the opening message is probably due to your using a captured-dab brush to do the editing. Try using the Digital Airbush, or one of the simple chalk brushes if you want to apply texturing. I don't have the problems you are describing.

(3) You were not thrown off the Painter List bcause it is a cabal filled with Painter yes-men, but rather it's because you violated the clearly stated posting policy.

Doug Frost

Stick to your guns T [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]


I wont be buying Painter 7 now,and you have probably saved me a lot of money and grief.


When someone takes my money for a service I expect the service as stated,if the service cant be supplied for technical reasons then I expect this problem to be remedied so that the original service can be then reinstated.Ok no one is perfect and everyone is just human and prone to mistakes sometimes and I believe in giving people a chance to get themselves sorted,but telling you there is no problem when you can see quite clearly that there is,is just pouring gasoline on a fire and is pure denial on their part especially if you have logically and patiently pointed out the problem over and over again.What it probably comes down too is the viz mask is too expensive to fix and not enough people even know it is broken [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]


Thanks for saving me some cash T,I will probably look for a copy of Painter 6 at sometime in the future [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]


I also understand that it is because you like Painter so much that you are complaining,otherwise you wouldnt care.


Cheers.

Stu.

(1) Proxy Mask? that's a new one on me. Why don't you stick to the correct terminology. Layer mask. If you mean Layer mask, then I do not say that Photoshop's layer mask is desireable for Painter. You are welcome to cut and paste if you disagree.

What I do suggest is that the Vis Mask is clearly meant to act like a layer mask. The evidence for this is that most people refer to it as a layer mask. But check this out. There is an on line training company called VTC (virtual training company) they have dozens and dozens of online quicktime training videos. For about $25 you can subscribe for a month, which I did. On the section about Vis Masking in Painter I was curious to see what they did. They had some image and then they showed how the mask was used to edit the image. Then they show how you can paint on the mask in black to restore the image.

There it was on screen for the whole world to see. It was very small and you had to know what to look for but while restoring the image they had wrecked the layer. You wouldn't notice if you weren't watching for it. This clearly shows that professionals do expect the Vis Mask to act like a layer mask. And as I have said earlier in the thread, if the layer in question is filled with image then it *does* act exactly like a correctly working layer mask.

I've only suggested that the Vis Mask should work as it was intended. After all could you please tell me what is the point of it? I mean how would you use the Vis Mask if not as a layer mask?

Clip masking? I don't know anything about photopaint and I don't want to.

(2) You use the word probably a lot and you are incorrect this time as well. Probably. First of all it is not "my" problem with artifacts. Also it is worth noting that these are not artifacts in the normal way we use the word. The black is the very same black that is painted on to the layer when you paint on the Vis Mask and you move outside the image area. The black artifacts is the very same black. I was just showing how Jinny Brown's workaround would not work. Jinny suggested to make a selection for the stroke you want to edit first so that you won't paint black outside it. But I wanted to show that the Vis Mask contains other data. The black dots are holes in the stroke because it is a chalk stroke so that when you erase and resore you paint black into the holes.

It doesn't matter what brush you use. I can believe that you indeed don't have the problems I've been having. I also havn't been having any problems that others have been having with P7. That's because I don't use P7, geddit?

(3) In fact I threw myself off the Painter List because the administrators are peabrains, who would/could not engage in a logical discussion and stick to points and answer straightforward questions or even stick to their own rules. The Painter List has a set of rules much longer that your arm and I joined this list specifically because I thought it would be a heavy duty place for hard core painter questions. However it is more like a friendly little tea party. The Rules are very specific about off topic threads.

However it soon became apparent that these extensive rules are not adhered to at all.

It all started when Skydancer posted what would have been one of the most offensive missuses of the list I could imagine. Someone had written to her privately to thank her for her images. She posted to the forum threatening this poor sucker with dire consequenses and asked other forum members with a conspiratorial nudge in the ribs, what they thought about it. That's how it all started...

Then we went on to the Vis Mask thread after it got a bit heated. However instead of just dispassionately going through the points one by one and answering questions the Cabalistic members of the List covern would just throw insults.

Eventually it was promised that anyone throwing any more insults would be thrown off the list. I continued to get insults and noone was thrown off. Basically the Painter List is a sad joke.

Now if you want to send me a rif file showing me how there is no problem you can do so.

Regards

thelonious

[This message was edited by Thelonious Hink on August 30, 2001 at 00:21.]

Doug,

There's no such thing as simple chalk. But I've got some samples of a variety of media including your suggested digital airbrush. It seems that you are not entirely clear what I'm talking about or you wouldn't suggest that it could have anything to do with what brush you're using. We are painting on the vis mask remember? It is of no consequence how the pixels are altered on the Vis Mask in relation to the black on the layer business.

Please insert illustrations into the thread to back up anything you say. Or at least a description that we can follow on our screens.

T

[This message was edited by Thelonious Hink on August 30, 2001 at 00:24.]

Quote from P 157 of the excellent Painter 6 WOW book which I'm sure Corel would endorse.

"Using the Eraser variant of the Erasers to remove unneeded paint from a layer permanently removes the information. If there's a chance that you may want to restore the information on the layer, consider editing the layer's visibility mask instead of erasing the layer's pixels. Begin by clicking on the layer's name in the Layers section, then click on its visibility mask in the Masks section.

Choose the Eraser (Erasers), choose a brush (such as the Scratchboard Tool variant of Pens, choose black paint in the Colors section of the Art Materials palette and paint on the mask to reveal the layer again."


This is the entire unedited quote from WOW. Looks like they are using it as a layer mask to me. There doesn't seem to be any warning about not going off the edge or you'll ruin your layer. Do you think they are just playing a nasty trick on us. Well Doug are you going to explain this little anomoly. Somehow I think not.

Of course in the other threads I could never get this far without someone telling me that I just don't understand but they will be happy to explain it. But more likely it would be buried by the moderator telling me not to be rude to people like you who offer useless suggestions without understanding the problem.

T

[This message was edited by Thelonious Hink on August 30, 2001 at 09:44.]

<ul>premises
<LI>we have many talented visitors to this forum
<LI>we have many busy vistors to this forum
<LI>we have many visitors who come here with questions and they hope to find answers
<LI>these sets of people do not necessarily intersect or overlap each other in any or all instances.
<hr>
given that the above are true, I consider it very important for people who post to recognize the needs of the various audiences that gather here.

<LI>I would further point out that if the busy or talented people do stop and diagnose a question or concern that a visitor has, then they should at least do the visitor the courtesy of reading their question or concern in it's etirety. . . .before jumping to a diagnosis. All will be much better served if the plain english that is written here is read carefully before a diagnosis is delivered.

<LI>please appreciate that an off the cuff diagnosis only exacerbates the frustration a user can feel when he or she has plainly taken great effort to illustrate a question or concern.

<LI>of course, it is also customary in civil discussion, to not fly off the handle at visitors who offer their diagnoses in an attempt to salve the injury . . . but sometimes the diagoses or prescribed treatment could be like salt on a wound -- especially if it appears that the suggested treatment has not addressed the source of the problem or only addresses the symptoms.[/list]

With all that said, here are my newest

1. observations on the vis mask issue.
   
   <LI>it seems to be OS independent. I have been able to generate similar artifacts (i'll go ahead and use artifacts because for my images, I got grey dots or darker purple dots . . .not black . .. this will cover any dots that are not colored the color that I had intended and are generated by some vis mask activity) in my images when i use a vis mask that does not go from edge to edge. ( i have not tried to simply go edge to edge on a layer and see if the vis mask works flawlessly. Thelonious is using a Mac OS I am using Win ME
   
   <LI>we have not eliminated that this is not processor dependent. Both Thelonious and I are using non intel processors. this bug could be looking for something that the intel processor delivers (and we know how well intel processors can calculate [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )
   
   <LI>whereas Thelonious seems to be able to duplicate this error regularly, I can only duplicate it every now and then. For me, the artifacts appear sporadically. Although I am looking into a link between the vis mask and the zoom tool. I currently suspect a zoom rasterizing problem corrupts tiny fragments of the layer. but this is only a guess. and I would have to run more tests to be more conclusive for my system.
   
   <LI>this vis mask, when it malfuncions, actually does permanent damage to the layer because when you save the file as a .rif and then re-open the file the artifacts are still visible
   
   <LI>I have no previous experience with Adobe Photoshop so I have no expectations of what the vis mask should do
   
   <LI>I do not make it a habit of reading the manual unless absolutely necessary. This particular topic seemed to be obtusely written (unlike other items in the manual that are more clearly written). . .it was not explained the way i would explain it (and this assumes that I have, through fiddling around, grasped what is going on with the vis mask
   <LI>
   
   1. <LI>when I generate a new layer, we'll call it Bugsy layer Painter generates 2 supporting masks in the mask toolbox
      <LI>these 2 masks are the
      
      1. <LI>Busgsy RGB mask --- this defines the colors within the vis mask
         <LI>Bugsy vis mask ---- this defines the shape of positive and negative space within the vis mask which ultimately defines the positive and negative space within the layer
      
      
      <LI>my observations also note that you can use black ... and i think i read somewhere shades of grey and white to define the shape of positive and negative space in the Bugsy vis mask.
      <LI>whether the Bugsy vis mask is selected is very important in determining if you change the shape of the bugsy vis mask.
      <LI>color selection also seems to play a key role in adding or subtracting to the shape of the bugsy vis mask.
      <LI>whether you have selected the color before or after you select the Bugsy vis mask also seems like an important factor.
      <LI>I was unable to definitively cause artifacts to appear on my layer by erasing and then using the undo last stroke but I did have a mysterious artifact appear in a part of my layer I thought I had not touched with my brush/stylus
      <LI>the Bugsy vis mask is like a stencil i can fill with color by selecting the Bugsy RGB mask. I must have the Bugsy RGB mask selected to color in the Vis mask stencil
      <LI>I think, I can only affect color when I have the Bugsy RGB mask selected.
      <LI>it was while coloring in some fun colors in my bugsy stencil (while having the Bugsy RGB mask selected) that I generated a number of artifacts that showed up within the confines of the Bugsy Vismask
      <LI>I don't know if this is just another bugged feature of the vis mask or an accurate or innacurate reflection of Thelonious' error.
      <LI>If I seem to be on the right track, I will then take the time to generate some step by step images to clarify my experiences.
      
      <LI>If i have been unclear, please tell me. I would now like to get to the bottom of this.
   
   

thank you for your patience and your time

Athena

[This message was edited by T. Athena Hatton on August 28, 2001 at 06:46.]

Looks like you've got something new there Athena. I haven't seen what you describe. I'll be looking forward to a screen shot.

BTW What I describe is not a bug. It is a consequence of using a Vis Mask as a Layer Mask. Vis Masks should not be available to the user to play with. It was just a quick fix so MetaCreations could sell Painter.

Laughingly Tanya Staples from Corel told me that it's supposed to work like that. Yeah sure who wouldn't want to ruin their layer. Doesn't everybody.

I wish some smarty pants who maintains that the Vis Mask is not supposed to be a layer mask would tell me how it is supposed to be used then.

I think this is your cue to step in Mr EW

Thelonious

Now some folks say that no one wants a Vis Mask like Photoshop's layer mask because painter is not an image editing program.

I'd like to point out that Painter has a curve dialog box. This is without doubt the most powerful image editing tool that there is! Who is the potential user of this tool. Many Photoshopists go their whole digital live not using the curves (except in the most rudimentary way) because it is so frightening.

The fact that Painter has curves is a testament to its serious image editing credentials. It also has a clone tool designed for image editing. It is a nonsense to suggest that the Vis Mask was not meant to be a layer mask.

Thelonious

Well, I think that about wraps it up, although I would like to see a screen shot of what you are describing Athena.

However I will do a tutorial soon on how to use and not use the Vis Mask for new users so they don't have a brain spasm.

But if anyone wants to take issue with anything that's quite alright just be nice and clear.

It would be a special treat if that guy who runs the Painter List could explain here as he did to me about how the black is really the default black which fills all new layers but you can't see it because it has an inverted visibility mask with it. That was so amusing.

T