Daniel Rogers (daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
[maybe increasing the opacity]
> If you were to do something like this, where you wanted to have control
> of the full range of opacity in a layer mask, then the first mistake you
> made was to add alpha to the image when you should have added a layer mask.
>
> In this situation it is best to remove all alpha from the image (or your
> roi), and use just a layer mask.
Sorry, this is a step back towards Gimp 0.54 where you had no embedded
alpha channel in the images and compositing of two images (that had to
have the same size) was done via a third grayscale image (that also had
to have the same size).
When being forced to use the layer mask for all images where I might
decide to increase the opacity later drawing some random strokes on the
layer becomes a non-trivial task, because I have to care that these
strokes are drawn exactly the same in the layer itself *and* in the
layer mask. Also the painting algorithm would have to use two different
algorithms for strokes on top of another opaque area in the layer and
for strokes in the area in the layer where the layer mask makes it
transparent. While Gimp could do this for me it would also include the
overhead of accessing two drawables simultaneously which is not really
good.
Uhm. Yes.
Bye,
Simon
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
