Applying Transparency Gradient To Pixel Layers? (V1 & V2)

[awakenedbyowls]

3 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

Night Sky_2.afdesign

What is that???

That's not even close to what I'm trying to achieve!🤦‍♂️

[iconoclast]

Just now, awakenedbyowls said:

What is that???

That's not even close to what I'm trying to achieve!🤦‍♂️

OK, so what exactly do you want to achieve?

[awakenedbyowls]

Just now, iconoclast said:

OK, so what exactly do you want to achieve?

I think I just want to turn my computer off and crack open a beer

[StuartRc]

Hi 

have a look at this file
On the left is a group of objects with transparency (Contains a mixture of vector and raster)
On the Right is the same image but I have added a vector inside the px orange for the mushroom. and set the fill | grad to erase and 0-100

 

Transparencies 01.afdesign

[JimmyJack]

From the help:
"The Transparency Tool allows you to apply and edit transparency gradients to vector and text objects."

But what you CAN do is group the the two and use the Transparency Tool on the Group (also works if you put the vector with pixel child into a Layer)

Side note: if the sun is coming up, wouldn't you need fades in opposite directions?
Blue fades into dark at top, but the stars should fade at the bottom giving way to the light?

 

Night Sky group trans.afdesign

[awakenedbyowls]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

From the help:
"The Transparency Tool allows you to apply and edit transparency gradients to vector and text objects."

But what you CAN do is group the the two and use the Transparency Tool on the Group (also works if you put the vector with pixel child into a Layer)

Night Sky group trans.afdesign 86.27 MB · 0 downloads

What bit of that file contains a pixel layer with a transparency gradient (or a similar effect or way of doing this)?

Don't know what you're trying to show there but this is not the effect I'm looking for

According to this page "You can also apply a gradient to pixel layers, adjustment layers and layer masks using the Fill Tool"

Gradient editing (affinity.help)

So I'm off to try and figure this out on my own. 

Thanks to everyone for the help..

[JimmyJack]

12 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

What bit of that file contains a pixel layer with transparency gradient?

Transparency Tool doesn't work directly on pixel layers.

So, its been applied to the Group containing your vector sky and pixel child. Which for whatever reason does work.
Bit of a loophole if you ask me. 

[iconoclast]

1 minute ago, awakenedbyowls said:

What bit of that file contains a pixel layer with transparency gradient?

Why don't you just try to explain a bit clearer what result you want to see? You said that you want to create a sunrise. But you want to do it with the Transparency Gradient? The Transparency Gradient Tool paints tranparent gradients on Curve layers (not on pixel layers). How should that create a sunrise?

By the way, your stars look a little more like falling snow. Real stars are not spread so consistent.

[StuartRc]

In your file all you need to do is select the Px layer apply group then use the transparency tool to create the effect. Or you could use a mask

[iconoclast]

14 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

What bit of that file contains a pixel layer with a transparency gradient (or a similar effect or way of doing this)?

Don't know what you're trying to show there but this is not the effect I'm looking for

According to this page "You can also apply a gradient to pixel layers, adjustment layers and layer masks using the Fill Tool"

Gradient editing (affinity.help)

So I'm off to try and figure this out on my own. 

Thanks to everyone for the help..

This page talks about the Fill Tool, not the Transparency Gradient Tool (don't know its english name at the moment). Two different things. See this page: Transparency.

[awakenedbyowls]

1 minute ago, JimmyJack said:

Transparency Tool doesn't work directly on pixel layers.

So, its been applied to the Group containing your vector sky and pixel child. Which for whatever reason does work. Bit of a loophole if you ask me.

I can see it now - the difference here is that the object I'm trying to apply the transparency gradient to is contained within a GROUP

- If you apply a Transparency Gradient directly to the object it doesn't affect the pixel layer

However,

- If the object is contained within a Group and you apply the Transparency Gradient to the Group then it affects the Pixel layer as well (which is what you are trying to illustrate)

Because that's completely the most intuitive way of setting things up 🤦‍♂️ I've just wasted a couple of hours trying to figure this out because the software is set this way! 

If I apply an effect to an object I EXPECT IT APPLY TO ALL LAYERS WITHIN THAT OBJECT!!!!

If I don't want the effect to apply to specific child-layers then I will place those layers in a different Object or Group!

This software does my head in sometimes..

[JimmyJack]

22 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Don't know what you're trying to show there but this is not the effect I'm looking for

I think you missed my "Side Note" above (added it after).

This is with opposing fades....
Sky uses Trans Tool (or it could just be a simple gradient), Stars use a mask.

[awakenedbyowls]

14 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

Why don't you just try to explain a bit clearer what result you want to see? You said that you want to create a sunrise. But you want to do it with the Transparency Gradient? The Transparency Gradient Tool paints tranparent gradients on Curve layers (not on pixel layers). How should that create a sunrise?

By the way, your stars look a little more like falling snow. Real stars are not spread so consistent.

Save your critique of my art until it's finished - how it looks right now is not the issue and I am also actually planning on using this pixel layer for snow as well as it happens. If it has a nice transparency gradient then Hey Presto! it then looks like stars! Bit of context within the whole design is everything.

What I wanted to achieve (now achieved by simply placing the object within a group) is all explained in the title of this thread - the file you posted up just added a sun and applied nothing to the pixel layer

But thanks all the same for your help - I guess there has been some communication issues due to language differences

[awakenedbyowls]

15 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

In your file all you need to do is select the Px layer apply group then use the transparency tool to create the effect. Or you could use a mask

Apply Group yes - this is all I needed to do

[awakenedbyowls]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

I think you missed my "Side Note" above (added it after).

Yes you applied the fade in the wrong direction - hence why I initially through it wasn't the effect I was looking for - but further inspection revealed your Group trick so it all worked out in the end - cheers

Apparently you can apply all kinds of effects to pixel layers contained within objects from the effects panel - but for some reason Transparency Gradient requires this to be applied from a group

A bit of consistency in the way all the features of this software work would be really useful!

[loukash]

4 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

If you apply a Transparency Gradient directly to the object it doesn't affect the pixel layer

Because the Transparency Tool is a vector tool, applicable to vector fills.
That's why it's in ADe/APu, but not in APh. A pixel type of layer doesn't have any vectors, just a bounding box.

6 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

If the object is contained within a Group and you apply the Transparency Gradient to the Group then it affects the Pixel layer as well 

Yes, just group the pixel with itself. Then the parent group acts like a transparent vector shape and accepts the Transparency tool.

9 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

If I apply an effect to an object I EXPECT IT APPLY TO ALL LAYERS WITHIN THAT OBJECT!!!!

Well, the Pixel Universe and the Vector Cosmos are two different dimensions, even though they can interact. Each has its own set of physical laws, and not all of them are freely or at least easily interchangeable.

[awakenedbyowls]

14 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

This page talks about the Fill Tool, not the Transparency Gradient Tool (don't know its english name at the moment). Two different things. See this page: Transparency.

Yes - because Transparency Gradient wasn't working! So I thought Fill Tool might be what I needed to use - but now Transparency Gradient does work (albiet in a completely counter-intuitive way)

[iconoclast]

5 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Save your critique of my art until it's finished - how it looks right now is not the issue and I am also actually planning on using this pixel layer for snow as well as it happens. If it has a nice transparency gradient then Hey Presto! it then looks like stars! Bit of context within the whole design is everything.

What I wanted to achieve (now achieved by simply placing the object within a group) is all explained in the title of this thread - the file you posted up just added a sun and applied nothing to the pixel layer

But thanks all the same for your help - I guess there has been some communication issues due to language differences

OK, I'm glad to read that you found your solution, but if I understand right, you wanted to create this sort of morning mist, like in Jimmy Jacks screenshot, right? Why don't you simply create a layer with a gradient from light blue up to transparency? Would have seemed much more natural, wouldn't it? And it would be easier to handle.

[awakenedbyowls]

1 minute ago, loukash said:

Because the Transparency Tool is a vector tool, applicable to vector fills.
That's why it's in ADe/APu, but not in APh. A pixel type of layer doesn't have any vectors, just a bounding box.

Yes, just group the pixel with itself. Then the parent group acts like a transparent vector shape and accepts the Transparency tool.

Well, the Pixel Universe and the Vector Cosmos are two different dimensions, even though they can interact. Each has its own set of physical laws, and not all of them are freely or at least easily interchangeable.

I'll take your word for it - maybe there is a valid reason why it's set this way that I don't yet fully grasp?

What you're saying about the TG applying to Vector Fills does kind of make sense

[loukash]

30 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

If I apply an effect to an object I EXPECT IT APPLY TO ALL LAYERS WITHIN THAT OBJECT!!!!

If I don't want the effect to apply to specific child-layers then I will place those layers in a different Object or Group!

In detail:
Since your parent object was a curve that is clipping the pixel layer, its own attributes won't have any effect on the clipped child. That's literally by design, and by all means of logic of this hierarchical concept.
Much like your snowflakes didn't turn blue just because the clipping curve has a blue fill. The transparency attribute was thus also applied only to the clipping layer, i.e. only to its blue fill.

Unlike a group which is a different type of layer object. A group does not clip its children. So if you apply an attribute like a fill to a group, all its children will be affected. (Except pixels because they live in another "fill" Universe… )

Edited December 9, 2022 by loukash

[StuartRc]

Pleased you have a handle on understanding the issue. I think the route cause is that the Transparency tool is part of the vector tool set. not pixel. The other simple way would be to add a basic mask. Select the mask and apply a gradient (Black | white) Then set the transparency values as you wish in the color palette

[awakenedbyowls]

8 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

OK, I'm glad to read that you found your solution, but if I understand right, you wanted to create this sort of morning mist, like in Jimmy Jacks screenshot, right? Why don't you simply create a layer with a gradient from light blue up to transparency? Would have seemed much more natural, wouldn't it? And it would be easier to handle.

I'm sure there are multiple ways to achieve the effect I want - but this thread was about working out why the method I chose wasn't working - because who knows I might want to use this method again in the future for something else

Convoluted ways of doing stuff is often a feature of the design process (and sometimes better for making adjustments) and then I usually figure out better ways once the desired effect has been achieved (if possible)

[iconoclast]

Just now, awakenedbyowls said:

I'm sure there are multiple ways to achieve the effect I want - but this thread was about working out why the method I chose wasn't working - because who knows I might want to use this method again in the future for something else

Convoluted ways of doing stuff is often a feature of the design process (and sometimes better for making adjustments) and then I usually figure out better ways once the desired effect has been achieved (if possible)

Yes, of course. I think this thread is good for learning about transparencies of pixels in vector graphics in Designer. But the way you try to create your morning sky is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. In nature, there is the universe with the stars in it as the background. The morning mist is layers of air that overlay it. So it would be not to far from seek to simply put a layer with a gradient on top of your star-spattered sky. It possibly doesn't matter in the end, but sometimes such skewed decisions make things more complicated as they need to be and cause problems you don't think of.

[awakenedbyowls]

17 minutes ago, loukash said:

In detail:
Since your parent object was a curve that is clipping the pixel layer, its own attributes won't have any effect on the clipped child. That's literally by design, and by all means of logic of this hierarchical concept.

Makes sense - but the thing is if I apply a Pixel Effect on an Object it WILL apply to the Pixel layers below as well - which seems inconsistent with this explanation somewhat and can lead to confusion with other (vector) effects

[loukash]

Just now, awakenedbyowls said:

if I apply a Pixel Effect on an Object it WILL apply to the Pixel layers below as well

Because a pixel effect rasterizes everything below that can be affected by it. 
Whereas an Affinity vector effect can't vectorize pixels (yet: we all hope that the Trace Bitmap feature is already in the works, aren't we?)

That said, transparencies are somewhere inbetween because pixels have an alpha channel, too.
In that sense, the Transparency tool could theoretically have the ability to create a transparency pixel mask directly on a pixel layer, much like the Fill tool can.
But my "quarter-educated" guess and a gut feeling tell me that this complex feature was omitted because Designer is focused on vector design, and not on pixel effects. Hence there are only the "pixel basics". Less is sometimes more. Application bloat and Featuritis™ is a disease, on the other hand…