• 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
0

Brush Blend Modes Question

New Here ,
Apr 09, 2018 Apr 09, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Could somebody please help me understand something I've long wondered about...

Why, when we paint on non transparent areas of a layer with a Brush Blend Mode other than Normal, the effect is as expected (Hue, Sat, etc change accordingly)  but... when brushed over unfilled, transparent areas, it is as if we are painting with Normal mode?

I have never understood this: why, if we are painting only to change e.g. the Hue of what's there would we want blank areas to not remain blank?

I hope this screenshot illustrates what I mean...

Dropbox - Adobe Forum - Brush Blend modes.png

Views

544

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

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Community Expert , Apr 09, 2018 Apr 09, 2018

A blend (brush or layer) can only happen if there is something to blend with. If there are no pixels to blend with then the result will just be the brush (or layer) content.

Dave

Votes

Translate

Translate
Adobe
Community Expert ,
Apr 09, 2018 Apr 09, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A blend (brush or layer) can only happen if there is something to blend with. If there are no pixels to blend with then the result will just be the brush (or layer) content.

Dave

Votes

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
New Here ,
Apr 10, 2018 Apr 10, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you Dave...

But I hoped my illustration made clear that I do (not expertly) understand what happens...that, as you say: If there are no pixels to blend with then the result will just be the brush (...) content.

My question is "Why?"

Does not logic suggest that if a brush is set not to cover but to blend, and there are no pixels to be blended, then there would/should be no result at all?

Because isn't that the point: to Blend is not - by definition - to Cover?

A brushstroke of blue on a Layer with Blend mode set to Hue does not cause empty areas of the Layer beneath to appear as blue.

So why should a Brush with Blend Mode of Hue cover empty areas with Blue?

I have never myself come across a situation where that is what I'd choose to happen. Perhaps you, or somebody, could suggest where or how it could be of any practical use?

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 10, 2018 Apr 10, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A brush paints pixels, so if you paint over an empty area, it fills that empty area with pixels too. The blend mode of the brush determines how existing pixels are 'mixed' with the pixels painted by the brush. If there are no existing pixels, then nothing gets mixed and so the result is what you painted.

A brushstroke of blue on a layer with Blend mode set to Hue does not cause empty areas of the Layer beneath to appear as blue, because the area beneath is still empty. That's the difference between painting with the brush set to a certain blend mode, and painting on a layer set to the same blend mode.

-- Johan W. Elzenga

Votes

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
New Here ,
Apr 12, 2018 Apr 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Johan, thank you. Yes, you and Davesscm describe well what happens. Sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly: My curiosity is about why.

Put crudely (and please understand, I’m no technician!)… :  if pixels to interact with, then Blend; if no pixels, then Cover.

My question (my puzzlement) is why, when defining Brush Blend Mode behaviour, was it decided that, where there are no pixels to interact with, it should be Cover rather than Do Nothing ?

To give a simplistic example… (and leaving aside use of masks)…

We have on a transparent layer a fishing net. We want to brushstroke a change of hue across a part or parts of that net.

As things stand, a brush loaded with Blue, and with Blend Mode set to Hue, stroked across would paint all areas between the mesh of that net Blue.

Who would want that? To me, that behaviour seems (always has) incomprehensible. Counter-intuitive. Of no sense at all..

Why not have it that those blank, no-pixel-content, areas are left unaffected?

Perhaps I could ask it this way: what advantage or benefit is there to the current behaviour -  blank areas being covered? What disadvantage would there be to a behaviour that left blank areas blank?

If somebody could offer an example, I would sincerely be interested to know.

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 12, 2018 Apr 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Howard

Blending modes require two layers or (in the case of brushes)  two sets of pixels to work. A brush will always lay down pixels - the blending mode just describes how those new pixels react with any existing pixels. Without two sets there is no blending so the pixels in the upper layer (or brush stroke) are applied without blending.

In the case of layers the upper layer could be created first then the lower layer added second. If blending did not show pixels until the lower layer was available then there would be nothing to see.

In your net with transparency example , just paint onto an empty layer (set to Hue blending mode) and clip that layer to the layer below (Alt-Click on the border in the layers panel)

Dave

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 12, 2018 Apr 12, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The why is probably best explained if you realise that blending is simply math. The new pixel is calculated based on a certain 'blend formula', and that formula gives you the original value when the other value is zero.  Mind you, some other blend modes may indeed result in nothing, I haven't tried them all. Just like 1+0=1, but 1x0=0.

-- Johan W. Elzenga

Votes

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
New Here ,
Apr 13, 2018 Apr 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I promise I'm not being stubborn for the sake of it...!  But the thing I'm still questioning is why (with Brush Blend modes) it seems to be considered a written-in-stone, law-of-physics inevitability that if there are no pixels to blend with then 'no blending' has to mean laying down pixels as normal, as if that is the only technical possibility?

As you say, Johan, it is all mathematics. A formula decides: if this then a, if that then b.  My whole point is why does b have to be 'normal pixel' and not 'no pixel'?

To me this seems to be just an accepted, generally adopted, convention. But one I really can't see has anything obvious in its favour.

That we need (as in your example, Dave) to use masking to have a blend mode affect only the drawn areas seems just to beg the question of why that should be necessary - when the result could be so simply and directly achieved if 'no blending' was formulated to result in 'no pixel'...?

I can only ask again what would be either a) the impossibility or b) the disadvantage of that?

(Or, conversely, what are the benefits of how it is now?)

[ Just to be clear: In all this, I'm only talking about Brush Blend modes - the logic behind Layer Blend Modes is clear ].

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 13, 2018 Apr 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The fact is we would all be guessing as to why historically, the brush blend mode was made to work the way it does, as we don't work for Adobe.
My guess would be - to make the blending mode work the same between layers and brushes.

Dave

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 13, 2018 Apr 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

HOWARD_UK  wrote

I promise I'm not being stubborn for the sake of it...!  But the thing I'm still questioning is why (with Brush Blend modes) it seems to be considered a written-in-stone, law-of-physics inevitability that if there are no pixels to blend with then 'no blending' has to mean laying down pixels as normal, as if that is the only technical possibility?

As you say, Johan, it is all mathematics. A formula decides: if this then a, if that then b.  My whole point is why does b have to be 'normal pixel' and not 'no pixel'?

I don't think it is a formula like 'If a then this, if b then that', it's a purely mathematical formula like 'result = a + b' or 'result = a x b'. If b is zero then the first result will be a, and the second result will be zero. Even if you don't like it and would prefer 'a + zero = zero'.

I'm going to end this because it will lead to nothing. It is as it is.

-- Johan W. Elzenga

Votes

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
Community Expert ,
Apr 13, 2018 Apr 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

My favorite zen koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Votes

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