All You Need to Know About OPACITY & FILL OPACITY

[Krisna]

Hi guys, if you are using Adobe Photoshop or used it before, you must have seen the FILL option often right. It's located below Opacity in Layer Panel. So some of you might be wondering about the difference between Opacity & Fill Opacity because if you look at it, both Opacity & Fill Opacity do the same thing, controlling the transparency of a layer. But then, why bother to create the same feature, there must be a difference right. So in this video, I will explain the difference between Opacity & Fill Opacity, and where Fill Opacity is located in Affinity Photo. I hope you enjoy this video, thank you!

 

 

[Smee Again]

Are  you sure you know the difference between :layer fill and layer opacity? I can tell from your video you have never used "layer fill" to your advantage because you do not understand it.

All  you are doing is knocking the color out of text and imagining that it is the same thing as fill.

 Dead, full on -- WRONG! 100% WRONG.

Original Image (Layer fill is for PHOTOGRAPHS, not text or shapes)

 

The second image has used the "work around" that comes close (but not exactly the same) to simulating "Layer Fill".

 

 

Your "fill opacity" will NOT accomplish anything close to this.

You are trying to convince others that "fill opacity" is the same as layer fill. You are misguided even though you have good intentions and you are missing out on a beautiful way to color grade images because as long as inexperienced folks keep settling for a nomenclature error on the part of Serif, well, Serif won't make the simple addition of a layer fill slider.

At least Tommy had the pinball machine.

[dmstraker]

Good effort, Krishna. It kinda shows how tricky the subject is, as Smee indicates. When I try to get my head around it, I end up in need of a bit of exorcism.

This has been discussed a lot in other posts, including recently:

and further back here (and more):

One for the Santa list, perchance.

[Smee Again]

10 hours ago, dmstraker said:

One for the Santa list, perchance.

I sure hope so . . .

[Frozen Death Knight]

It is possible to get some of that fill effect in Affinity by using Blend Options, which is accessed through the cogwheel icon in the Layers panel. You can choose to let through different parts of your underlying colours by changing the opacity ranges. It's a pretty neat way of adding convincing looking paint effects like makeup, war paint, etc. since the overlaying colours properly blend with the rest of the image. 

I do hope though they add a simple Fill as a slider option as well. Seems like a pretty standard thing to have in an image editing program.

[Smee Again]

1 hour ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

It is possible to get some of that fill effect in Affinity by using Blend Options, which is accessed through the cogwheel icon in the Layers panel. You can choose to let through different parts of your underlying colours by changing the opacity ranges. It's a pretty neat way of adding convincing looking paint effects like makeup, war paint, etc. since the overlaying colours properly blend with the rest of the image. 

I do hope though they add a simple Fill as a slider option as well. Seems like a pretty standard thing to have in an image editing program.

That "Cogwheel" is the symbol for "Blend If" in Affinity -- which is totally unrelated to layer fill, although it can help with opacity.

However, have you tried the method shown HERE by anon2? While not exact, it is as close as I've seen Affinity come to offering "layer fill" ability. Takes a bit of effort, but the results are much better than without.

It's a workaround, but I was impressed that someone helped with this missing part of Affinity Photo.

[loukash]

3 minutes ago, Smee Again said:

this missing part of Affinity Photo

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm still waiting for someone to actually point me to the Schmotofopp documentation where the math of the "magical eight" is disclosed and explained.
In other words, I still consider this a "bug that turned into a feature throughout the years".

[dmstraker]

31 minutes ago, loukash said:

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm still waiting for someone to actually point me to the Schmotofopp documentation where the math of the "magical eight" is disclosed and explained.
In other words, I still consider this a "bug that turned into a feature throughout the years".

I've been chasing through the webiverse trying to find the algorithms or anything vaguely technical about fill and the special/magical 8 blend modes. Not found the end of the rainbow yet. No gold. Not even rainbow, if truth be told.

[Smee Again]

Four images to make a point. Remember, the vivid light mode is one of the "special blend modes".

This is by no means "artistic" but I did use a particular color to make the difference easier to see. Also, it isn't a true "fill layer" but a workaround to simulate it.

Here is the original image.

 

Here is the fill color.

Copy both of the above images for use in your experiment.

With the opacity of the fill layer set to 30% opacity, using the "Vivid Light" blend mode, here is our image.

 

Now, here is the same image with the same fill color layer applied as a "layer fill" by means of the above method.

Does anyone see a difference between the layer opacity and layer fill?

Now, depending on the color used or even the use of gradients, gradient maps, etc. you can do a much better image color grade than this. The ugly color was chosen because it actually helped to visualize the difference, as was the opacity and fill.

[Lorox]

On 4/15/2021 at 1:02 AM, Smee Again said:

Are  you sure you know the difference between :layer fill and layer opacity? I can tell from your video you have never used "layer fill" to your advantage because you do not understand it.

This reply actually appears unnecessarily rude to me: as Krisna points out very clearly he is specifically concerned of the use of layer opacity vs. fill opacity as far as layer fx are concerned. What he demonstrates in his video is EXACTLY what I was looking for: making the fill of some text or graphic completely or partially disappear while maintaining the applied fx with their original/full opacity.

I've been using this in Photoshop forever to good effect and just was at a loss where to set the fill opacity (as it’s not obvious – especially coming from PS – that it's actually there but you have to look in the fx settings to acces it).

Different people do different designs and accordingly have different needs, when working with tools like Affinity Photo. It's completely OK when these differ from the ones you may have. So it seems quite impolite to state that someone "doesn't understand“ what he's explaining just because his angle of looking at the topic isn't the one you're used to looking from...

[Smee Again]

1 hour ago, Lorox said:

This reply actually appears unnecessarily rude to me: as Krisna points out very clearly he is specifically concerned of the use of layer opacity vs. fill opacity as far as layer fx are concerned. What he demonstrates in his video is EXACTLY what I was looking for: making the fill of some text or graphic completely or partially disappear while maintaining the applied fx with their original/full opacity.

I've been using this in Photoshop forever to good effect and just was at a loss where to set the fill opacity (as it’s not obvious – especially coming from PS – that it's actually there but you have to look in the fx settings to acces it).

Different people do different designs and accordingly have different needs, when working with tools like Affinity Photo. It's completely OK when these differ from the ones you may have. So it seems quite impolite to state that someone "doesn't understand“ what he's explaining just because his angle of looking at the topic isn't the one you're used to looking from...

Layer FX "says" fill, but means "opacity" as per a rep from Affinity.

Response was not rude, but rather an observation that the individual did not understand the difference between "FX fill" and ACTUAL "layer fill". According to your response, you are not interested in "layer fill" but rather "FX fill." That's cool, but don't interject that I have been rude by pointing out the truth. To be honest, I know you are not familiar with "layer fill" based on your statement:

Quote

I've been using this in Photoshop forever to good effect and just was at a loss where to set the fill opacity (as it’s not obvious – especially coming from PS – that it's actually there but you have to look in the fx settings to acces it).

Your statement shows that you have NEVER used the "layer fill", but rather only the "FX fill". Comparing Apples and Toyotas. Both may be red, but there is no comparison when you're hungry or when you need to get somewhere. Apple doesn't carry you down the road, and have you ever tried to eat a Japanese car?

"Layer fill" has nothing to do with the opacity of text or the effects applied to text or shapes. If you took the time to view the videos I have posted here you would see the difference.

Why Affinity has chosen not to include "layer fill" as an option isn't something I can answer . . . maybe they don't know how, or the implementation of this feature could interfere with some other part of the software which I am not aware of.

What I do know is that I need the function for some of my projects, but it just isn't available with Affinity Photo . . . although it really should be (IMO).

 

[Lorox]

On 10/1/2021 at 8:20 PM, Smee Again said:

Response was not rude, but rather an observation that the individual did not understand the difference between "FX fill" and ACTUAL "layer fill". According to your response, you are not interested in "layer fill" but rather "FX fill." That's cool, but don't interject that I have been rude by pointing out the truth. To be honest, I know you are not familiar with "layer fill" based on your statement

"The individual“ – he's got a name: Krisna – just demonstrated how to get the effect he wanted (and which I was actually looking for, too) and he very specifically used the tools Affinity Photo (or Designer) is offering to get done what he was after. Given this specific angle of interest it just doesn't matter what the intricacies/advantages may be when using the supposedly "ACTUAL layer fill“ in Photoshop for colorgrading photos with that Vivid Light technique.

This having been said there is actually no point whatsoever in throwing – metaphorically – a "you do not understand it“ at someone's head (or at mine for that) who just presents a solution to some very actually common design problem. You can't even accuse him of using the wrong vocabulary as he's using exactly the wording Affinity/Serif are using in their apps’ UI, rightful or not – as it has to be for everybody to be fully able to follow the process.

You possibly don't have to a profound understanding of complex Algebra to sum up your day's expenses, but you can very well show someone to correctly add numbers and get the right result nevertheless...
Sometimes it's just wiser to keep focused on the actual problem at hand than putting it in a context it doesn't need to be put into here and now, even if it means to better keep one's own enlightened thoughts to oneself. A man on a mission may possibly find this difficult, however...

[Smee Again]

Well, "if\'n ya don't unnerstan then ya don't unnerstan!" (sorry, last week been cooped up in hospital in Arkansas, and you know, things rub off). The fact that I did not remember who posted the sorta close workaround doesn't mean I'm mean, it simply means that my 64 year old brain didn't remember who or even in which thread the work around was submitted. Better to lack a deep understanding of "complex Algebra" (should algebra actually be capitalized? Don't want to offend).

BTW, the best part of your post is the last paragraph. Pot, meet kettle.

AFFINITY rep has admitted that their nomenclature was incorrect, but apparently has removed the post. Believe it was MEB, by why trust me . . . between chemo and pain pills no telling what you might get today.