Brush hardness adjustments
Logged
Hi.
Because of my English is very weak You should boost Your imagination.
Imagine.
We have round clock face.
It is not so white.
We wish to do this clock face white.
We create new layer and use for this purpose brush.
Brush size is adjusted exactly to match clock face.
And then we see hardness should be 100% but it is 0%.
We adjusting hardnes and we see - size of the brush is shrinking !!!
And one more time we must to adjust brush size.
My suggestion is - adjusting brush hardness without shrinking/growing global size of a brush..
Darek K
-
When you adjust hardness, the centre part of the brush (the 100% opacity part) stays the same and it's the rest, (the feathered part) that shrinks or grows I think. So the answer is to fit the centre circle to the clock face, and increase the hardness to shrink the outer circle.
Ian
0 -
Yes, I am aware of that - center part this is the size of the brush, but in other apps like Affinity Photo and Photoshop - outer part it is a size of the brush and inner part grows or shrinks.
The matter is a habit, wont from other apps.
Greetings.
Darek K
0 -
What I do not like in the current behavior is that the relation between the inner and the outer circle is not kept when resizing the brush. If I use a big brush, usually the feather circle would be relavitly big, now when I want to do some fine brushing I have to refuze the size if the inner circle and the feather circle. Almost ever. I wish that shrinking or increasing brush size would also adjust the hardness. Other users probably have other habits.
regards
1 -
As far as I can see, the way it works is that if you have hardness set to zero (as soft as it is possible to set it) then the diameter of the outer circle is always double the diameter of the inner circle. And then it's proportional. I tried setting the diameter of a brush so that it was 10 cm in diameter on my screen, then set the hardness to 50%. That gave me a diameter of the outer circle of 15 cm, which to me makes perfect sense. If I adjust the inner circle to 5 cm, the outer one is then 7.5, cm, and so on. That seems logical and consistent to me.
Ian
0 -
Indeed Ian, you're right. My explanation was wrong (weak mind I have), the relation is indeed kept.
And while it makes sense, I wish that shrinking or increasing brush size would also adjust the hardness, but differently than I explained.
If I have a big size brush with let's say 1 cm feather area then I can roughly follow a curved line e.g. a mountain silhouette.
Then if I want to make my mask more precise in the smaller "radius" parts of that line e.g. a valley in the silhouette line.
I shrink the brush size to a similar radius as the valley but the feather area shrinks too.
This gives me a different (more dense) falloff of the mask compared to the big size brush I used for smoother part of the silhouette. So I guess what I wish is that the falloff, the distance from inner circle to outer circle would remain the same, of course the radius would shrink.
If I decided the falloff of the big brush is exactly what I want then I want it for the smaller brush because it gives me the same resulting effect of the layer.
My point is, I find myself adjusting both the size and the hardness almost all of the time, the way I use the brush.
Below I started with the big brush then only adjusted the size, now the smaller brush feathers less than the bigger did.
regards
1 -
I second this request.
I often find that when I draw a mask for an object of a complex shape, like these iguanas below, I need to change the size of the brush all the time: larger size for smoother and bigger surfaces like necks and bellies, smaller size for muzzles and legs, and even smaller size for fingers and spikes on the back.
As I change the size of the brush to match the shape, I also have to change the hardness straight away to keep same level of edge softness throughout the object.
As you can imagine, Auto Mask, Luma Range or Color Editor selection wouldn't work in these examples.
You may suggest that I could draw a hard mask and then feather it, but this wouldn't be as interactive and it wouldn't work where the object smoothly goes out of focus.
Currently the Hardness parameter in Capture One is relative to the size of the brush. I suggest introducing another parameter that would define softness in pixels rather than relative to the size.
Ideally, I see it like this:
• Relative Softness - from 0 to 100, where 0 is no softness, or in other words, softness is 0% of the brush size, and 100 is when the softness of the brush equals the size, softness is 100% of the brush size.
• Absolute Softness - from 0 to 1000, where 0 is no effect and any positive number adds corresponding softness in pixels to already defined Relative Softness.
For example, if Relative Softness = 50, and Absolute Softness = 30, then the soft area of the brush is half of its size plus 30 pixels.
I think generally, Absolute Softness will be useful for precize masking, where you see how many pixels is the softness of the edge, and Relative Softness is for generic rough masks of large areas.
1 -
So, increasing absolute softness would add a gradient corona to the inner brush circle, increasing the overall brush size, like the current hardness slider,
and changing relative softness would leave the overall size "as is" but adjust the feathering/gradient "inside" the current, brush circle?
Each red arrow is indicating a gradient:
What is the hardness at the inner circle (x%) then? Shouldn't it be just one gradient instead of two?
What would be if we had a brush like a radial mask, and we could adjust the 3 circle diameters independently with 3 sliders. ? (no hardness or softness slider needed).
(green arrow indicates the gradient)
0 -
P.S.: I must correct myself, 3 sliders to adjust size are nonsense for 1 gradient.
Either 3 circle diameter sliders for two gradients (from inner circle to middle circle 50% feathering, then from middle circle to outer circle down to 0%),..
... or 2 sliders (inner circle and outer circle) for 1 gradient.
1 -
Maybe less sliders and circles is better / easier, and sufficient at the same time.
Size: controls the outer circle, plus the inner circle is resized to keep the relation.
Softness: controls the size of the inner circle.
The gradient starts at the inner circle with 100% and falls off to 0% at the outer circle, as is today.
Woud this serve your style of masking?
Interesting discussion.
0 -
Hi BeO,
In my mind, Absolute Softness would act similarly to Feather Mask, as if you apply this amount of blur in pixels.
By the way, Softness seems a more appropriate and intuitive term for this.
I know that Adobe uses parameter Hardness to adjust brushes in their software, but If you operate with hardness, then you put a strict limit on how soft the brush can ever be, because if 0 is softness that equals to the brush size, then you would need to go negative to increase it further.
Absolutely sharp brush is a much better datum point, because you can't go sharper than sharp, so it's easier to have it as 0, and increasing value as the amount of softness.
Besides, increasing softness with the increasing value would be consistent with the way Feather Mask works.Your idea about the brush looking similar to the Radial Mask is very neat, I like it!
0 -
>Maybe less sliders and circles is better / easier, and sufficient at the same time.
>Size: controls the outer circle, plus the inner circle is resized to keep the relation.
>Softness: controls the size of the inner circle.
>The gradient starts at the inner circle with 100% and falls off to 0% at the outer circle, as is today.
>Woud this serve your style of masking?
I think Size should control the middle circle and Softness should go in and out.I find it intuitive to aim edge of the brush at the middle point of a blurry edge, and again, this is consistent with how blurring works in any image editing software.
Imagine that you've drawn a mask and then found that it's too sharp. Then you can still use Feather Mask and increase the softness of the mask, keeping the edge in place.
Or you can consciously draw hard mask for the entire object, and then apply feathering. It will work just the same way as a brush with softness expanding in and out.0 -
I think Size should control the middle circle and Softness should go in and out.
That's how it works now, isn't it? And that's also how I like it.
Ian
0 -
Hi Ian,
Yes, correct, this is how it works in Capture One, Lightroom and Photoshop, and I like it as well.
My main point though is a possibility to adjust brush size keeping same amount of softness in pixels.0 -
Yes, I understood the suggestion about keeping the same size in pixels, but I am not convinced that I would prefer it. (Perhaps that's because I like and understand the way it works at the moment.)
ian
0 -
To be precise, it would be keeping same softness in pixels while adjusting the brush size.
But this would be just an extra parameter that you won't have to use if you prefer softness relative to brush size.
Basically, Relative Softness would act exactly like the Hardness acts right now (except 0 for sharp and 100 for "maximum" softness).0 -
I've tried some random brushing now and I have another thought about the way the brush cursor looks.
Indeed, I've said that I liked the current behaviour, but by this I meant specifically that the 50% level of brush stays the same diameter, while you adjust Hardness, and 0 and 100% go in an out. In other words, the Size parameter defines where 50% will be, and Hardness defines how close 0% and 100% will be from it.
But speaking of how the circles of the brush cursor are drawn, I think that inner and outer circle should rather show beginning and ending of the softness gradient: inner circle is 100% and outer circle is 0%.
So, as you increase softness, inner circle shrinks and outer circle equally grows, while the 50% stays where it is.
As you draw, it will be very easy to imagine, where the brush diameter defined by Size is, but you will precisely see where the mask is gonna be at the maximum, and where it will fade to 0.
I think this is exactly what BeO was suggesting, but in different words.0 -
Overall, I think Capture One doesn't have to adapt to terminology and approaches of Lightroom, because as good and as popular as Lightroom is, some concepts are inherited from Photoshop, which is software from previous century with ideas and terms that seemed right 30 years ago, but don't necessarily work well for modern ways of image editing.
0 -
But speaking of how the circles of the brush cursor are drawn, I think that inner and outer circle should rather show beginning and ending of the softness gradient: inner circle is 100% and outer circle is 0%.
My understanding it that this is how it already works now.
Ian
0 -
Overall, I think Capture One doesn't have to adapt to terminology and approaches of Lightroom
I agree. I am always a bit irritated by new users who have come to Capture One from Lightroom and then tell us that they would like the software I have come to know and value to be changed to be more like Lightroom. If I wanted it to be like Lightroom, I could use Lightroom, and when I tried it I found it frustrating that it wasn't like Capture One!
Ian
0 -
Ian, when I do a single brush click in the Display Grayscale Mask mode, I see that the inner circle of the mouse cursor is where the middle of the gradient is (50%), and the outer circle is where the brush fades to black (0%).
When I adjust the Size, both circles change proportionally. When I adjust Hardness, the inner circle stays the same (because it's defined by the Size parameter), and the outer circle changes.
So, in terms of the brush cursor look, I think what both BeO and myself suggest is to get rid of the circle that shows the diameter defined by the Size parameter, and instead introduce a circle which shows where the brush is at 100%.
In terms of the brush behaviour, I want the Size parameter to still control the 50% point as it does now, but add a possibility for the softness to be independent of that. So, if the brush cursor stays the same as it is now, then Size would control the inner circle and the outer circle would be by a fixed distance greater, unless you change the Absolute Softness or Relative softness is more than 0.
I'll try to make some mock up sketches later today to avoid confusion of where I mean the Size slider, size of the cursor circles and size of the actual brush.
P.S.: I actually came from Lightroom just two weeks ago, and I'm blown away by how much more capable Capture One is. I think it should develop further using its own concept and lead the way.0 -
So here are the sketches that explain the two ideas better:
All in all, we can have the 0% and 100% circles as well as 50% circle as options in the Brush Settings. If you prefer to see the softness gradient, you choose the former, if you prefer to see the brush size alone, you choose the latter. And you can also choose both:
P.S.: Is anyone missing the Opacity slider?
1 -
I think that makes reasonably simple and usable brush parameters into something less user-friendly and more complicated.
Also, I am not convinced by your explanation of the current behaviour of the brush. If you set the hardness to 100, clearly the inner and outer circle are in the same place, and at that point there is an abrupt transition from 100 to 0. And if you set the hardness to less than 100, if you say that the inner circle is 50%, at what point between there and the middle of the circle do you say it becomes 100%? I'm pretty sure it doesn't follow a gradient from 100% at the centre point linearly to 50% at the inner circle. Consider, for instance, a very hard brush, say with hardness set to 95% - almost the whole of the mask you draw is at 100% opacity.
And yes, some people do prefer to use the opacity slider rather than the flow slider. (These days I just use the flow, but I know that not everyone does the same, and it may partly depend on what pointing device they use - mouse, trackpad, graphics tablet etc).
Ian
0 -
Yes I miss the opacity slider which I use sometimes to give a highwater mark limit of the effect.
Let me please clarify one or the point which might have been mis understood, maybe by my own fault, because brainstorming is a nice thing to do in order to come up with (potential) improvements.
- I am totally happy with how the brush does its brushing job (once its size and hardness is set). It works really well.
- I also favor a quick way to adjust things, and even if I do not have to use all sliders, the less sliders are presented to me the simpler it feels, and the more I think I master the tool (and not vice versa)
- I do not mind one or another additional checkbox though, to control behavior of one or the other property of the brush
- What I am actually missing is an option (checkbox?) which keeps the ring of the feather constant, e.g. 30px. That is because if I use the brush I most often resize AND adjust the hardness because I most often need a constant feather, e.g. 30px, regardless of brush size.
Hence, my favorite would be just to have an additional checkbox to enable / disable this contant feather width behavior when resizing the brush.
best regards
0 -
"Also, I am not convinced by your explanation of the current behaviour of the brush. If you set the hardness to 100, clearly the inner and outer circle are in the same place, and at that point there is an abrupt transition from 100 to 0. And if you set the hardness to less than 100, if you say that the inner circle is 50%, at what point between there and the middle of the circle do you say it becomes 100%?"
This is a good question.
In current behaviour, as you increase the Hardness parameter, the beginning and the end of the softness gradient (100% and 0%) move closer to one another, while the middle point of the gradient (50%) stays in place.
When the Hardness reaches 100, the beginning and the end of the gradient, as well as its middle point match positions.So, 50% never jumps to 100%, neither does 0% jump to 100%. They just match positions. The gradient is 0 pixels long, so its start, end and middle point are in the same place.
0 -
"I'm pretty sure it doesn't follow a gradient from 100% at the centre point linearly to 50% at the inner circle. Consider, for instance, a very hard brush, say with hardness set to 95% - almost the whole of the mask you draw is at 100% opacity."
I'm not saying that the gradient goes from the center point. It goes from a circle, equally distant from the 50% as the outer circle, but that 100% circle is not currently displayed, which is one of our points about the brush cursor. Otherwise, gradient of the brush softness is not linear, it's gaussian. And to make things more complicated, an sRGB or AdobeRGB gamma correction is applied on top.
So, if you do a single mouse click with a soft brush, check Display Grayscale Mask, and then perform Invert Mask, you will see that the softness gradient seems to shift.
In fact, in linear colour space it doesn't shift. It's the non-linearity of display colour space and non-linearity of display hardware that makes it seem to.
The middle of the brush softness gradient will always be 50% density.0 -
"And yes, some people do prefer to use the opacity slider rather than the flow slider. (These days I just use the flow, but I know that not everyone does the same, and it may partly depend on what pointing device they use - mouse, trackpad, graphics tablet etc)."
The Opacity parameter in Brush Settings sets the maximum density of the entire brush stroke, that is from the moment you touch the tablet with the pen to the moment you lift it.
When you use the brush, Capture One is making multiple prints of the brush shape along the stroke as you move the pen, and the Flow parameter defines how dense is each individual print.
So, the practical difference between the Opacity and Flow is that with 10% of opacity and 100% of flow, your entire stroke will be 10% dense flat; while with 100% of opacity and 10% flow, your stroke will become denser the more you're brushing one area without lifting the pen, until it reaches 100%.
This is one instance where I do prefer Lightroom's behaviour, where Density of the brush sets the maximum target density and can increase density of existing mask or decrease it, depending on whether existing mask is less dense or more dense than the Density parameter value.
In Capture One, the Opacity parameter of the brush doesn't have much sense to me, as it doesn't really restrict the target opacity. If you keep painting lifting the pen between the strokes, you're gonna end up with 100% mask anyways, so all it does is introducing the difference between painting while keeping the pen on the tablet all the time and painting while lifting the pen between the strokes.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
26 comments