Photoshop: Applying Fixes using Masks
Sometimes a photo need two opposing fixes applied to different areas of the image. This poses a dilemma – if you fix one area you’ll make the other areas far worse than they started out being and vice versa. The solution is to apply both fixes but to do this on different layers and to blend the results together using a mask. Here’s how to do it:

Look at this photo – the sign in the middle is dark and hard to read and the area behind it is lighter than it should or could be. The camera has exposed primarily for the lighter areas in the image but the entire image needs work.
Step 1
To fix the image make two copies of the background layer so that you do your work on duplicate layers. To do this, right click the Background layer in the Layers palette and choose Duplicate Layer and then repeat this step a second time. Disable the visibility icon on the topmost layer and select the middle layer.
Step 2
To bring detail out of the darker area in the sign, I’ll use the Shadow/Highlights tool. To do this choose Image > Adjustments > Shadows/Highlights and adjust the Shadows but leave the highlights settings untouched. Typically the default setting will be all you need but you can fine tune the settings using the sliders which appear when you click Show More Options if desired. Ignore the impact that this fix has on the lighter areas of the image.

If you prefer to use another tool for this fix, do so. The important thing is to fix the shadows and ignore any changes to the highlights.
Step 3
Enable the visibility icon on the top layer and select the top layer – this hides all the changes you have made so far. Choose Image > Adjustment > Levels and adjust the levels to improve the contrast in the lighter areas of the image – this time ignore the darker areas entirely as they are not part of this fix. You can also adjust the saturation using Image > Adjustments > Hue/Saturation if desired.
Again, if you prefer to use another tool, do so. The important thing is to fix the highlights and ignore any changes to the shadows.
Step 4
The top layer contains the adjustment for the lighter areas of the image and the middle layer contains the adjustment for the dark areas of the image. To blend these layers, I’ll use a layer mask to selectively adjust the opacity of the top layer so I can see the fix applied on the middle layer through it.
Unlike the layer opacity slider which sets every pixel to the same opacity value, a mask lets you adjust the opacity selectively so one area can be 100% opaque and others can be partially or fully transparent.
To add a mask to the top layer, first select the topmost layer and click the Add Layer Mask button at the foot of the layer palette. This adds a white layer mask to this layer. When working with masks, “black conceals and white reveals” so the white mask reveals everything on the top layer and the image is unchanged.
Step 5
Set the foreground color to black, select a soft round brush and set its Opacity to approximately 20%. Click on the mask to select it – it will have a small border around it showing that you have it selected. Now paint over the darkest areas of the image to reduce the opacity of the top layer where you are painting – this reveals the fix from the layer below. Using a low opacity brush lets you reduce the opacity gradually to build up the effect.
Continue and paint over the darker areas of the image to reveal more of the layer below through the mask. It can help to see how much more detail you can still recover if you turn the visibility of the top layer on and off. Make sure to select the layer mask again before painting on the mask – if you don’t do this, you’ll paint on your image.
If you go too far, make white your foreground color and paint on the mask to bring back parts of the top layer of the image. This is one of the benefits of using a mask – simply by painting you can apply or remove the fix. You wouldn’t have this flexibility if you used the Eraser tool on the top layer, for example.
To finish, I rotated the image to straighten the sign and cropped it to remove the distracting elements on the left side of the image.









54 Responses to “Photoshop: Applying Fixes using Masks” - Add Yours
January 8th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Nice article, but wanted to ask, is that image from Cardiff?
January 8th, 2010 at 12:42 am
It’s a shame you’ve omitted to mention that there should have been no need for this fix in the first place – it could and should have been “fixed” in camera.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:21 am
@Jason
it’s a shame your ‘purist’ mentality is blinding your ability to determine that this scene has a greater dynamic range than any current digital chip can capture. Since this is a digital photography blog, I’m sure the readers are not shooting black and white film, which still would have needed work in the darkroom for the desired result. Maybe you ‘in-camera’ guys should learn about the history of photography before slamming post-production, as you will get a pleasent surprise at what the founding figures of our medium were doing well before Photoshop was concieced.
@Helen
Good article for new-comers to a world of layers! Would be worth mentioning that every duplication of a layer adds significant weight to the file size of your document, so the use of adjustment layers where possible is advised. Thus method also introduces a non-destructive edit, complete with masks allowing for selective adjustment in the same fashion.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Good article to show how to use layers for correcting separate areas of a photo. This procedure works well if you are ultimately going to flatten the file and save to jpg, tiff or other format, and not plan on coming back in the future to possibly change the amount of correction done.
Of course this can be done by saving a layered psd file first, then flattening and saving in the format of your choice, retaining the option of going back to the psd file to make changes and then re-flattening and saving again.
My suggestion is, if you are going to save this as a layered psd file, to save disk space, you’d be better off using the masking procedures in your article, but use them on adjustment layers rather than duplicate layers of the original, which will quickly increase your file size.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:42 am
I use similar techniques extensively to produce results like this:
http://whitehotphoenix.com/2009/12/scooby-snax/
http://whitehotphoenix.com/2009/12/my-problem-child/
http://whitehotphoenix.deviantart.com/art/Supernova-145911450
http://whitehotphoenix.deviantart.com/art/Earth-Mover-and-Shaker-145747728
http://whitehotphoenix.deviantart.com/art/Choice-is-yours-don-t-be-late-138952874
January 8th, 2010 at 1:43 am
@jason
It’s a shame you didn’t elaborate.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:49 am
why didnt you just do this with adjustment layers?
January 8th, 2010 at 1:59 am
@jason I’m not sure what you are suggesting but I’d like to hear your comments about how this might be avoided.
To my mind it’s a fairly typical problem that most of us have or will encounter where we have a light background and a dark foreground and we are trying to balance getting a good exposure across two differently lit areas.
I had the option to use a flash to light the sign but chose not to do so as only the on camera flash was available and I didn’t want to risk blowing out the sign. In my experience slight underexposure is quite easily fixed using a method like this and if it is a choice between sorting out the results of an over enthusiastic application of the flash and slight underexposure the latter wins every time.
Of course, avoiding the issue happening in the first place is always preferable. But this is a post production blog so we do focus on post production fixes. When the image is already in the camera (or on your computer) that’s typically your only ‘fixing’ choice.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:01 am
I would also add that you can make a hue and saturation layer and clip it to the image to be adjusted to maintain nondestructive editing.
From Drop Box
January 8th, 2010 at 2:03 am
I would also add that you can make a hue and saturation layer and clip it to the image to be adjusted to maintain nondestructive editing.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:09 am
Helen–this is the tutorial I’ve been waiting for. I know there are books, etc. on this topic but since I’m not a heavy Photoshop user I prefer the one-pager cheat-sheet format.
Jason–looking forward to your tutorial on how to “fix” this in camera.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Excellent instructions Helen
Thanks very much
Statto
January 8th, 2010 at 2:39 am
exposure is always a trade off and i get images all the time like this. if the sign was well exposed the backround would be blown out. personallu i would expose for the background and using Lightroom paint a bit of exposure back on the sign with the target adjustment tool and no masks required. Good tutorial though as it is about photoshop and if it was perfect out of the camera there would be no tutorial.
January 8th, 2010 at 3:18 am
@Helen Bradley,
Thanks for the great tutorial.
One question… could this tutorial be followed when using Photoshop Elements 8.0?
I’m only asking because I’ve ordered a copy.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:07 am
Helen, don’t worry about our friend “jason”. Naturally he didn’t give us his website where he is a pro shooter.
I think you did a great job with the tutorial. Yes, it could have been fixed when you shot it, but again you are giving us a very typical scenario that happens. When I’m just out shooting snap shots, I don’t always have my triggers, flashes and reflectors. I’m just out having fun.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:18 am
Thanks for the great and easy to follow tutorial!
I’ve known for quite some time about masks, and how they are the bread and butter for non-destructive editing, but I have not taken the time to learn about them in detail. Your tutorial has definitely given me some greater understanding and I’m looking forward to using these techniques!
January 8th, 2010 at 4:22 am
Masks are the best thing about editing in photoshop…. Although multiple background copies are not really necessary. In most cases duplicating layers isn’t a big deal, but if you work with big images like large format scans, dulplicate layers quickly turn a 500 meg tiff into a 1.5 gb PSD.
Try applying adjustment layers to get the effect you want, paint in (or out) the mask. You can also inverse the mask by holding down shift+alt (on pc – on mac no clue) and dragging the mask to another adjustment or group.
You can also use a mask on a group of adjustment layers – The folder button on you layers window will make a group. name it “sign” or what ever you are correcting and then drop the adjustments you want in the group. The mask can be applied to the group folder rather than each adjustment layer, so they will all share it.
Masking is time consuming at times but there are tricks. I use a wacom tablet and it saves me tons of time. another tip is good old key commands – x switches from black to white.
Maybe I will write tutorial when I get back from NY.
Jason- You obviously lack tact and any editing skill. There are times in life when bracketing is not an option, nor is reshooting or fiddling with a histogram. I would say what I really wanted to if it wasn’t for the fact that they most likely would delete my post. oh wait…. here (skcid fo gab a tea)
Thanks for the tutorial Helen!
January 8th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Thanks. You have finally simplified masks for me.
Craig
January 8th, 2010 at 5:17 am
If you have used raw format, or indeed JPEG format; this could have been corrected by using by ‘split’ processing; this is where one corrects the shadows and then saves this as a ‘psd’ file and then pasted over the processed raw mage saved again as a pad file but called a different file name so it is not overwritten.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:17 am
Great article, definatly one I will bookmark for later use. I also get a fair amount of photos like this, with one part over/under exposed. Lightroom makes edits like this so much easier. No layers, no makeing a copy of the file to edit, no change to the origianl file either. I stil use PS for more complex stuff, but Lightroom is so much easier to do adjustments.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:18 am
If you have used raw format, or indeed JPEG format; this could have been corrected by using by ’split’ processing; this is where one corrects the shadows and then saves this as a ‘psd’ file and then pasted over the processed raw mage saved again as a psd file but called a different file name so it is not overwritten.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Great tutorial. As always there are more than one way to do things is Photoshop. You could have also used the selection tools, to select the sign. Then used whatever means to lighten just the sign. And if you wanted to do something differently to the background such as saturate or anything, you can INVERT the selection by using CTRL SHIFT I. That would select everything ELSE in the scene that wasnt orignally selected.
As far as doing things IN CAMERA.. Id like to see that also. If you use your spot meter on the sign the background will be over exposed. Letting the camera do its thing, you get what was posted. So I’m waiting with baited breath to hear Jason’s in camera solution.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:59 am
@Helen
I know there’s a similar masking function in lightroom. Can you apply the same theory in LR? If so, maybe you can do a similar tutorial for lightroom
BTW in Photoshop, masking has alway been something I get fustrated with so this was a great step-by-step for me!
January 8th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Wow, hostile. Maybe my comment was a bit more brusque than I intended, but I think you read into it a lot more than was there.
Obviously everybody makes mistakes, and it’s useful to be able to fix a photo that’s gone wrong in post-production, but I thought that was so obvious as not to be worth saying.
I just think it would have been a better article if it had briefly talked about what the mistake was – ie, not using fill-in flash – to encourage people to think of that first rather than clicking away thinking “I know how to fix that in photoshop later, it’s no problem”.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Thanks for taking the time to write these tutorials. I have read several of your other tutorials & put them to good use. I know there are other ways of doing things in PS, but for a noob like me, at least you give somewhere to start! I would encourage you to keep posting as I learn a lot from you & simply appreciate your willingness to share information.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Thanks Helen that clears up masks a bit more for me.
Scott – I have Elements 8 and I use the photomerge facility in that instead.
Not as controllable as what Helen sets out but as a quick fix you can make and save 2 or 3 copies of the one photo adjusting the exposure of each using levels &/or shadow/highlights then select & merge them all with “exposure merge”. Bit like HDR but not quite.
It doesnt work so well though on bracketed shots unless a good tripod is used to ensure there is absolutely no variation between shots.
I’m not sure about using masks in Elements – still finding my way with that.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:40 am
@ Jason – I don’t think you’re understanding the intent of this article. It is for fixing problematic photos. It will be great if everybody, amateurs and professionals alike, took great photos 100% of the time. In the real world, there will always be good photos that need that extra retouch to elevate it to being great. Like what Helen said: “It is a POST-PRODUCTION blog”.
Although in the real world, you just can’t please everybody.
January 8th, 2010 at 10:49 am
OMG! this is exactly the tutorial i need to fix some of my photos i have recently taken. The extra layers, and adjusting the shadow in middle layer image is brilliant! I took a lovely photo of a little girl, sunny day, under shady tree. But she’s also wearing a hat (so cute!) so her feature is dark under the tree shade and the hat. I tried to tackle that area with Dodge tool but it’s not working too well. (i kow it’s shocking but i’m still a novice in photoshop
) But this tutorial is a great way to fix this photo now! Thank you sooo much!!
January 8th, 2010 at 10:56 am
@johnp,
Thanks for the tip. I found this in my search:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pselements/qt/layermasktool.htm
I tested it, it works.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Thanks Scott I’ll have a look at that.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@kjon: I’m not an expert, which is why I’m reading this site looking for advice. But I’m reasonably confident that a bit of flash would have made this picture better (probably with the flash exposure compensation set at -2)
January 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The words “should be ashamed” is quite rude.
Perhaps “In addition” is more appropriate.
Nice tutorial.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
@rhys: You’re reading a lot of invisible ink in my comment. I haven’t and wouldn’t “slammed post-production”, as I am fully aware of the history of darkroom techniques.
There’s nothing wrong with post-production in general, even for fixing in-camera mistakes. I do think it’s important to understand when you *have* made a mistake though, so you can not make it next time.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Thanks! I’ve got a plenty of photographs that require different fixes. Your tip will do the trick!
January 8th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I’m starting to think everybody’s replying to a comment from somebody else that I can’t see, rather than mine.
Who used the words “should be ashamed”?
January 9th, 2010 at 12:53 am
@jason
I only see “It’s a shame”. Some people’s imaginations take off!
January 9th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Excellent article Helen, thank you. Also thanks to Jason and those who responded to Jason, for providing additional entertainment to the article.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Apologies …. never the less …. why should it be a shame??
January 9th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
And the title is “Applying fixes using masks” ….. but the reminder is also useful …
January 9th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
ThankU HELEN, a wonderfull tutorial. It reached to whom it was intended. Tyler Robbins made tall promise………longing to read his version also on the same subject
January 10th, 2010 at 5:50 am
Godd advice to add more impact to the image.
January 10th, 2010 at 6:22 am
One way to use the on camera flash as a fill light for a portion of the image that is in a shadow and closer to the lens, is to diffuse it by using a piece of crumpled up plastic wrap or bubblewrap held over the flash so it spreads the light and is not as powerful or directional as the direct on camera flash, or bounce the flash upwards with a white card used as a reflector to direct some of the light forward, or block a portion of the flash to reduce the amount of its output but still allow enough light to balance the exposure. Using a tripod will help as you experiment with various exposures. Checking the histogram as well as the image on the screen will assure the best results. Getting it right in the camera will save hours in post production but it is ot always possible to take the time to experiment with various exposures so it is nice to know how to fix it with image editing to improve the image. Remember it is always better to have a darker image than to have blown out highlights with no information registered in the light areas.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Hi Helen,
Very useful tutorial. Your writing is excellent and very clear on use of masks in your example.
Thank you.
Conrad
January 14th, 2010 at 7:51 am
@Helen
Great tut, Helen! I think this is a great solution for photos you want to make pop. Masks are a great tool that people overlook in their rush for the photoshop fixes. I can’t tell you how many times I have to tell my friends to use a mask instead of “hard” fixes like erasing. I, too, have used this strategy countless times in photos; the only difference is I use Adjustment Layers instead of duplicate layers that have been adjusted. I like having the flexibility of going back and changing the adjustment (levels and HSL in this case) without having to do it all over again. Most people I know run from Adjustment Layers and go straight to the duplicates, but I think it’s worth while to try them out on your images and see what fits best.
@jason
I, too, wanted to put my two cents in on this. First of all, this website is most definitely for the supporting of all growth surrounding digital photography; be it PP, shooting techniques, or even how to deal with free-lancing blues. The point is, we support all levels of development. Not everyone can shoot a fabulously calibrated shot right out of the bat. We fumble with f-stops, we screw up shutter speed, and we ignore ISO settings. But photos taken in even the worst conditions can turn out to be amazing subject matter. This tutorial is all about showcasing the composition, subject matter, and whatever personal feelings you want to convey – especially in *hindsight* – sometimes you just snap a million photos and end up looking back and wondering “what if I had paid more attention to that background?”
Whatever the reason is, sometimes shots don’t happen (pun anyone?
). Why should your poor unloved photos continue on as such, when with a few easy fixes they can receive the kind of love every photo deserves?
January 14th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I think masks come into play everyday. Its nice to use then keep psd for editing and flatten and give to client. That way you can go back and adjust if need be.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@ jason
no doubt there are people who shoot sloppy and wide thinking that ‘photoshop will fix it’. this is just lazy and shows in their sub-par results. On the flip-side there are genuine cases of post-production being the best option to finish the image, this one being a great example. The photographer probably wanted a natural evenly lit scene, a flash would have created a different result, with issues of avoiding reflections and managing quality of light to match the ambient.
If the camera sensor had the ability to capture a higher dynamic range in a single frame would you still want to pull out your portable flash kit with large soft modifier? If the answer is no, then why would you not ‘remap’ the selective data from the RAW file while the technology is limited?
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
@Helen-
I liked the article..I think for novices this works well since we can then start experimenting on out own on these techs.
cheers!
January 25th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Thank you very much, Helen. Very easy to follow tutorial. I read your other tutorial on replacing skies & tried it out earlier today. So simple & so fantastic! Your help is appreciated & I look forward to future articles.
January 25th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Thanks again Helen, I’ve recently started playing with masks, I didn’t realise how versatile they were. I’ll never again touch an eraser. Someone mentioned LR – are masks available there too?
February 6th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
First, Helen thanks for a wonderful tutorial. I follow you here and copy/paste all of your tutorials so that I have them available off-line. Second, I follow you on Projectwoman – great site!
Phil wrote: “use them on adjustment layers rather than duplicate layers of the original, which will quickly increase your file size.”
Helen, your thoughts?
February 7th, 2010 at 5:22 am
@jay gould – Thank you for your note.. and I’m glad you like the tutorials… I certainly think I have a dream job writing them!
Thank you too for the question and the prompt to weigh into the discussion with my opinion and explanation of the blog and the process I used.
Phil is right. Using the masks on adjustment layers will significantly reduce file size and it it the preferred way to make this fix. So this begs the question, why does this post show a different way?
The reason why I didn’t do this is that I find people who are new to masks are most likely still a little bit shaky on handling adjustment layers too. So, if you try to teach masks on adjustment layers you’re not working of a solid foundation of knowledge. These folk (and this is digital photography school – so we are all about learning) find it harder to determine what the mask is contributing to the fix and what the adjustment layer is doing so the end result is typically just confusion – yet again, they’ve tried to understand masks and they’ve failed and through no fault of their own.
However, we can all pretty much handle layers filled with image data – because we can see them. So, it’s easier to learn to mask using image layers rather than trying to combine them with adjustment layers. One technique at a time works best when you are just starting out.
Then, once you’ve used masks a dozen or so times and your brain has got a handle on how they work and what they do – it’s time to combine them with adjustment layers. Ultimately that’s the best way to use them. It is how I use them but not how I teach masks – these are two very different processes.
So, if you are new to masks – this post is a great way to start using them and developing an understanding about how they work.
If you are confident in working with adjustment layers, then masks work the same way there and using adjustment layers instead of image layers will significantly reduce the final file size.
Hope that helps..
cheers
Helen
February 7th, 2010 at 6:37 am
Helen, how about posting a modification of this thread showing how you would accomplish the same task using adjustment layers? Thanks in advance, Cheers
February 26th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Helen
Thanks for this very timely article.
I produce a lot of images like this and have struggled to make something out of them.
After reading your article I have been able to vastly improve at least one photo that I almost deleted in frustration because I could not get the desired results.
I had always thought that I was doing something wrong before I pressed the shutter as had been hinted at by another commenter (OK this is still true in many cases for me) but your article has shown that there can be life after the shutter has clicked.
Thanks and best wishes
Tom.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
In defense of Jason – he’s right. This photo could have been taken better, and his later description details how (fill flash, possibly with a diffuser).
He could have phrased it better, and his first post was too short & snarky to be of real use, but Tyler Robbins’ obscenely homophobic reply was worse, in my book.
This site is about all aspects of digital photography; it’s not the Digital Photoshop School nor the Digital Postproduction School. Jason’s point is valid, and the article would be more complete if it mentioned in passing how the problem might have been overcome at the time the picture was taken (even though that’s not the main thrust).
Leave a Reply